Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Court Cases
– 07/10/08
In Brief – The plaintiffs seek to hold Jeppesen Dataplan
accountable for providing aircraft, pilots, and logistical support for CIA
rendition flights responsible for transporting detainees to torture. On July 10, 2008, the Brennan Center
filed an amicus curiae (or friend of the court brief) in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of a group of former United States
ambassadors and diplomats.
Question Presented – The diplomats’ brief argues that prematurely
invoking the state secrets doctrine to deny any judicial forum for allegations
of kidnapping and torture compounds the diplomatic harm caused by the rendition
program itself and impedes international cooperation in combating terrorism.
Procedural History – Presently in Ninth Circuit awaiting response from U.S. government. Arguments to be scheduled.
In Detail – On July 10, 2008, the Brennan Center
filed an amicus curiae (or friend of the court brief) in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of a group of former United States
ambassadors and diplomats in the case of Mohamed
v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. This
lawsuit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by five individuals who allege that they were illegally rendered to
secret prisons and detention sites where they were tortured by and on behalf of
the United States. The plaintiffs seek to hold Jeppesen Dataplan
accountable for providing aircraft, pilots, and logistical support for CIA
rendition flights responsible for transporting detainees to torture.
In February 2008, the district
court granted a motion to dismiss on the basis of the state secrets privilege
asserted by the U.S.
government, which intervened in the case.
The district court concluded that, despite widespread press coverage of
the extraordinary rendition program, allowing plaintiffs claims to proceed
would necessarily reveal state secrets.
On appeal, plaintiffs have persuasively argued that Ninth Circuit and
Supreme Court precedents establish that the state secrets doctrine is an
evidentiary privilege that may be invoked to exclude certain material during
discovery, but may not be used to dismiss a case at the threshold, except in
the extreme circumstance in which the entire scope of a classified program is
secret.
The diplomats’ brief argues that prematurely
invoking the state secrets doctrine to deny any judicial forum for allegations
of kidnapping and torture compounds the diplomatic harm caused by the rendition
program itself and impedes international cooperation in combating terrorism. The brief catalogs the extensive, ongoing
investigations into the extraordinary rendition program undertaken by close
U.S. allies throughout Europe, as well as the prosecution of responsible CIA
agents currently underway in Germany and Italy.
These revelations have severely damaged perceptions of the United States abroad and have made it
increasingly difficult for even our allies to cooperate publicly with the United States. In addition to chilling diplomatic relations,
the brief demonstrates that concerns over torture and the rendition program
have caused the United States’
closest allies—including the United Kingdom—to
reduce intelligence cooperation in the fight against terrorism and cancel
planned operations when they believed that the United States was likely to send
individuals to be tortured. Ultimately,
the brief shows that national security concerns lie on both sides of the
decision of when and whether to dismiss a case based on the state secrets
privilege and should be considered accordingly.
Additional information can be found on the ACLU's (lead counsel) case page.
Barbara Moses and David Stankiewicz of the law firm
Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello, and Bohrer, PC, are co-counsel with
the
Brennan Center on the brief.
Related Court Documents
Tags: Justice, Liberty & National Security, Checks & Balances, Detention & Habeas Corpus, Domestic Counterterrorism
