National Security Law

Cases

FISA Cases

Alien Tort Claims Act

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. 569 U.S. ___ (2013) - ATC limited to its original statutory definitions, no general mandate for US enforcement of international law.

Saleh v. Titan - 2007

Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 2006

Alien Tort Claims Act cannot be used for breach of medical research ethics - Adamu v. Pfizer, Inc., 399 F.Supp.2d 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (remanding case)

Court holds torture violates Jus Cogens in Alien Tort Claim case - Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2nd Cir. 1980)

General Cases

Al Bahlul v. United States, No. 11-1324, 2015 WL 3687457 (D.C. Cir. June 12, 2015) - “the Article III exception for law of war military commissions does not extend to the trial of domestic crimes in general, or inchoate conspiracy in particular.” 

Turkmen v. Hasty, No. 13-1002, 2015 WL 3756331 (2d Cir. June 17, 2015) - 2nd Circuit allows Bivens action by detainees against Attorney General. (orginal district court case - Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 2006.

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138 (2013) (HTML) - Plaintiffs have no standing to challenge FISA because they cannot prove they were subject to surveillance.

Twitter case - This is the opinion in The People of the State of New York v. Harris. The state subpoenaed Twitter records for Harris to show that he intended to block a street during the Occupy protests. The court granted the subpoena for records more than 180 days old at the time of the request, finding that newer records would need a search warrant under the Electronic Communications Act. In a previous ruling, the court found that Harris, the defendant, did not have standing to contest the subpoena himself. Twitter's motion to quash the subpoena.

Court analyses material support to terrorists - United States v. Abu-Jihaad, No. 3:07CR57 (D. Conn. 03/04/2009)

Can anyone show standing to contest national security communications interception - American Civil Liberties Union v. National Sec. Agency, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir.(Mich.) 2007) 

Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981, 375 U.S.App.D.C. 48 (D.C.Cir. 2007) - GITMO detainee case with a history of habeas corpus for aliens

Mayfield v. United States (D. Or. Sep. 26, 2007) - Oregon Federal District Court strikes Patriot Act provisions adopting the signficant purpose test for warrants under FISA, which allows warrantless searches when the primary purpose of the search is collecting criminal evidence, rather than collecting evidence of national security threats.

Court holds military tribunals do not have jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006)

Federal tort claims act does not apply to actions outside the U.S. - Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 542 U.S. 692, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004)

US Courts have Jurisdiction of Claims of Foreign Detainees - Rasul v. Bush, 124 S.Ct. 2686 (2004)

Jurisdiction for Habeas Corpus of US Detainees- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 124 S.Ct. 2711 (2004)

Military cannot deny habeas corpus to citizen detainee - Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S.Ct. 2633 (2004)

Good review of video surveillance by the government - United States v. Koyomejian, 946 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1991)

Congress may limit but not abolish due process rights for national security employees - Webster v. Doe, 108 S. Ct. 2047, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)

Does Jus Cogens apply in the U.S? - Committee of U.S. Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 89 F.2d 929 (D.C.Cir. 1988)

Court finds FISA constitutional - United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984)

Good review of the 4th Amendment Warrant Clause - Payton v. New York, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)

Reid v. Covert, 77 S. Ct. 1222, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) - Dependents of military personnel cannot be tried under the UCMJ without a jury.

U.S. v. Reynolds, et al., 73 S. Ct. 528, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) - Supreme Court creates official secrets exception to discovery

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) - Court limits presidential power to seize private property

Supreme Court Upholds Detention of Japanese Americans - Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193, 89 L. Ed. 194 (1944) - Companion cases to Korematsu - explores the exemption process for detainees - Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 95, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 1383, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943) - Court Reverses Korematsu Conviction - Korematsu v. U.S., 584 F.Supp. 1406, 16 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1231 (N.D.Cal. Apr 19, 1984)

Supreme Court addresses the delegation doctrine for national security powers - United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. et al., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)

Supreme Court rules that the draft is constitutional - Selective Draft Law Cases., 38 S. Ct. 159, 245 U.S. 366 (1918)

Federal destruction of property for public protection is not a taking - Juragua Iron Company v. United States., 29 S. Ct. 385, 212 U.S. 297 (1909)