Gov't Must Pay Legal Fees In Court Battle Over 'Secret' Drone Docs Gov't Couldn't Stop Talking About

from the putting-its-money-where-its-nonstop-mouth-is dept

The government will be paying its opponent's legal fees after needlessly drawing out FOIA litigation, the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has decided [PDF]. The First Amendment Coalition sued the Department of Justice after it refused to produce documents discussing the legal rationale for extrajudicial drone strikes targeting American citizens.

The legal memo FAC sought was the same legal memo the ACLU and New York Times sued the DOJ for refusing to release. (Or so the FAC thought. But its litigation -- along with the ACLU/NYT litigation -- made it clear the government was holding on to more than one legal memo.) In the NYT/ACLU case, the Second Circuit Court told the DOJ to cough up its justification for killing Anwar al-Awlaki, pointing to several public comments made about the drone strike by prominent US government officials. The court wasn't interested in the DOJ's arguments something publicly discussed frequently would be too "sensitive" to put in the hands of the ACLU and New York Times.

The DOJ made the same arguments in this case, but the Second Circuit decision undoes its attempt to fend off FAC's legal fees claims. Factoring into the Ninth's conclusions is the leak of a white paper by the US government providing its legal analysis of extrajudicial drone strikes. This was then followed by an official release of the same white paper.

This leak -- and the court-ordered release of the DOJ's legal memo to the ACLU and New York Times -- prompted the FAC to ask the district court to vacate its decision in favor of the DOJ's secrecy and award it legal fees, since it was seeking the same document. This motion was filed nearly three years ago, just to give you some idea how long the DOJ has dragged out a losing legal battle.

The Appeals Court notes the documents might not have been released by the government if it hadn't been for its entanglement in multiple FOIA lawsuits. As the court points out, the fact that the government voluntarily handed the documents to the FAC after the drone strike white paper's official release doesn't absolve it of racking up FAC's legal fees for no apparent reason.

FAC was met with abject resistance throughout the entire litigation until the OLC-CIA memo was produced roughly two and a half years after the lawsuit was initiated, and almost a year and seven months after the Government waived any secrecy or privilege with the official release of the White Paper.

Additionally, FAC's litigation is possibly the only reason the public's now aware there are multiple legal memos justifying extrajudicial killings of American citizens.

There is no question that the Second Circuit’s decision in the SDNY litigation was an impetus for FAC to continue its litigation. But what actually triggered the release of the OLC-CIA memo was that FAC sought to vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment. It was the appellant’s “dogged determination,” therefore, that led the district court to “direct” the parties to discuss whether the litigation was moot, and which resulted in the Government’s decision—as acknowledged by the lower court—to “voluntarily disclose[] the CIA memorandum to [FAC].” Because of FAC’s efforts, the public then learned that the OLC-DOD memo was not the first memo addressing the justification for the drone attack, nor was it identical to the prior OLC-CIA memo. Plaintiff’s litigation, therefore, “triggered the release of additional or key documents.”

Summing it up, the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has harsh words for both the DOJ and the lower court.

There is no reason why the district court failed to recognize, as the Second Circuit did, that the official release of the White Paper—coupled with all the prior public statements of high-ranking Government officials— constituted a waiver of any secrecy and privilege that the Government had asserted. The district court, therefore, erred in granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint. But for this error, the district court litigation would have ended earlier. Thus, FAC had to endure unnecessarily protracted litigation. It is counterintuitive to punish FAC for expending additional legal fees to pursue the litigation, when it would have sooner been entitled to the release of both memoranda—and the right to recoup its counsel fees—if not for the district court’s error.

The lawsuit now goes back to the lower court to determine how much the government will be paying FAC for the DOJ's protracted refusal to even acknowledge the existence of drone strike memos government officials couldn't stop talking about.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  • icon
    TechDescartes (profile), 30 Aug 2017 @ 12:28pm

    Silver Linings

    Good thing that Obama's was the most transparent administration ever. Imagine how long they would have had to wait if the administration was trying not to be transparent.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2017 @ 1:01pm

    Your tax dollars, at work. Preventing the release of information after someone talked about it, and released it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Aaron, 30 Aug 2017 @ 4:21pm

      Your Tax Dollars

      >>> "The government will be paying..."

      No -- the taxpayers will be paying these court-ordered penalties.

      The actual guilty persons within the government will suffer no personal consequences whatsoever -- and are free to repeat their offenses in the future.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 30 Aug 2017 @ 5:00pm


      In November, the Pentagon rejected a Freedom of Information Act request by a reporter to see an internal training video, claiming that the law allowed it to be withheld. The video is the 22-minute "Freedom of Information Act / The People's Right to Know," which is utilized to teach Pentagon employees how to carry out the maximum-disclosure purpose of the act.

      • Sarasota Herald-Tribune-AP, 2-13-03

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Discuss It (profile), 30 Aug 2017 @ 4:28pm

    Gaming the system

    So, what the government's aim in fighting the FOIA request was to delay as long as possible the release of the information. They achieved that objective. The is no deterrent here for the government not to do the same action again as no government employee will be negatively affected by the tax payers picking up the tab all the way around.

    The only way to discourage this going forward are consequences for the person or persons that decided this was a good choice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.