Djamel Ameziane, Detainee, Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay Cuba v. Barack Obama, President of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued October 8, 2009 Decided January 8, 2010
Reissued October 6, 2010
No. 09-5236
DJAMEL A MEZIANE, DETAINEE, G UANTANAMO BAY NAVAL
S TATION, GUANTANAMO BAY C UBA,
APPELLEE
v.
BARACK OBAMA, P RESIDENT OF THE UNITED S TATES , ET AL.,
APPELLANTS
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 1:05-cv-00392-UNA)
August E. Flentje, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,
argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were
Douglas N. Letter and Robert M. Loeb, Attorneys.
J. Wells Dixon argued the cause for appellee. With him
on the brief were Shayana D. Kadidal and Pardiss Kebriaei.
Before: G INSBURG , BROWN and GRIFFITH , Circuit
Judges.

-- 1 of 19 --

2
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN.
BROWN , Circuit Judge: This case presents another
variation on the detainee theme, raising questions about what
information ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' can be protected
from public disclosure when the detainee is anxious to reveal
it. These questions arise because the government, ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' has sought to designate ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' as
“protected” information under the governing protective order.
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' The district court sided with Ameziane and the
government appealed. We reverse.
I
Ameziane, an Algerian citizen, has been held at the U.S.
Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since 2002. In 2005,
he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. This action was subject to a protective order
governing common procedural issues in all Guantanamo
habeas cases. See In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., 577
F. Supp. 2d 143 (D.D.C. 2008) (Protective Order). Under the
Protective Order, “protected” information may not be
disclosed to anyone other than the petitioner’s counsel and the

-- 2 of 19 --

3
court, unless the government authorizes wider disclosure. Id.
at 151 (¶ 35). To designate information as protected, the
government must attempt to reach an agreement with the
petitioner’s counsel, and if that fails, file a motion with the
court. Id. (¶ 34).
On January 22, 2009, the President issued an Executive
Order directing the closure of the Guantanamo detention
facility “as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from
the date of this order,” ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '' ' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' Exec. Order No.
13,492, 74 Fed. Reg. 4897, ''' ''' ''' ''' (Jan. 22, 2009). ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '
'' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ' '' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' On June 15, the government filed
a coordinated motion ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '
'' ''' ''' ''' seeking to designate ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' as “protected”
information. In support of the motion, the government
submitted a declaration by ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''
' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''

-- 3 of 19 --

4
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''
'''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
At a hearing on June 30, the district court denied the
government’s motion to protect ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ' '' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' . The court concluded the government had
failed to make a “particularized showing” because the ''' ''' '''
Declaration had “nothing . . . to do with this case in
particular,” and protested that allowing Ameziane to disclose
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''
''' '' ' ''' ''' ''' Transcript of Motion Hearing ''' '''
''' Ameziane v. Obama, No. 05-cv-392 (D.D.C. June 30,
2009) (June 30 Tr.). ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''''
'''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' '''''' ''' '' ''' ''' The court issued a written order including
a one-week stay. Order, Ameziane v. Obama, No. 05-cv-392
(D.D.C. June 30, 2009) (June 30 Order).
On July 7, the government sought to extend the stay for
an additional week; the district court rejected the request, see
Transcript of Motion Hearing ''' ''' ''' , Ameziane v. Obama,
No. 05-cv-392 (D.D.C. July 7, 2009); and the government
filed an interlocutory appeal and moved this court for an
emergency stay of the district court’s order.
The district court issued a written opinion explaining the
refusal to extend its stay. Mem. Op. & Order, Ameziane v.
Obama, No. 05-cv-392 (D.D.C July 8, 2009) (July 8 Op.).
The court stated “[t]he government’s rationale for protecting

-- 4 of 19 --

5
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' [was] riddled with
contradictions.” Id. at 5. It disregarded the ''' ''' Declaration
because it “provide[d] no specificity ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' The court was not
“convinced” by the government’s “speculative and
conclusory” national security concerns. Id. at 7. “Most
importantly,” the court determined, “the record demonstrates
that protecting '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' would serve
little purpose” because ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
On July 16, we granted a stay pending appeal.
II
We first consider whether we lack subject-matter
jurisdiction because the dispute is moot or, alternatively,
because the district court’s order was not a final decision from
which the government could immediately appeal.
A
Ameziane argues this appeal is moot because ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' “‘Federal courts lack jurisdiction to
decide moot cases because their constitutional authority
extends only to actual cases or controversies.’” Larsen v.
U.S. Navy, 525 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Iron
Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983)). “[A]
case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or
the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). However,

-- 5 of 19 --

6
a case is not moot unless it is “‘impossible for the court to
grant any effectual relief whatever.’” Cody v. Cox, 509 F.3d
606, 608 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Church of Scientology of
Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''''
'''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''''
'''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''''
'''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''''
'''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
Thus, this appeal is not moot ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' The district court ordered, first,
“that petitioner’s motion to unseal” ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' and all related or

-- 6 of 19 --

7
derivative documents” would be granted; second, “that the
government’s motion to designate ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' . . . as ‘protected’ information” would be denied; and
third, that “petitioner and his counsel may publicly disclose
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '
' ' ' ''' ''' June 30 Order ''' ''' ''''.
As an initial matter, in this court, Ameziane has decided
not to defend much of the district court’s order: “[Ameziane]
does not seek to disclose the District Court pleadings or
transcripts regarding this issue, or the parties’ appellate briefs,
or any information regarding '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' '' ' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' . . . . [A]ll that is at issue in this
appeal, is whether Ameziane ‘may publicly disclose ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' '''' '' ' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ” Appellee’s Br. ''' (quoting June 30 Order ''' ''').
Accordingly, since both parties agree “the District Court
pleadings [and] transcripts regarding this issue,” “the parties’
appellate briefs,” and “any information regarding '' ' ' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '' ' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''” should be
protected, id., the district court’s order is reversed to the
extent it unsealed and declined to protect such material.
There remains one key document that, if unsealed, ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''': the district court order itself. However, there
is some ambiguity whether Ameziane seeks to unseal this
order. He quotes from the order in arguing his entitlement to
“‘publicly disclose ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''',’”
Appellee’s Br. ''' (quoting June 30 Order ''' ''' ), thus
suggesting Ameziane’s counsel intends to point to the order
itself ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''

-- 7 of 19 --

8
Yet, at oral argument, Ameziane’s counsel stated he was
“not seeking the unsealing of records.” Transcript of Oral
Argument at 15:13–16. It is not clear whether this reference
to “records” included the district court order, or whether it
referred only to the documents listed in Ameziane’s brief and
discussed above. But even assuming the district court order
will remain sealed, this appeal is not moot. Counsel stated
unambiguously that he sought “to be able to say ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''''
''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''''
''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ' '' ''' '''
B
Nor do we lack jurisdiction because the district court’s
order was not “final.” Courts of appeals have jurisdiction of
appeals from “all final decisions” of district courts. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, an
interlocutory order qualifies as “final” under § 1291 if it (1)
conclusively determines the disputed question, (2) resolves an
important issue completely separate from the merits of the
action, and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a

-- 8 of 19 --

9
final judgment. See Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349
(2006).
These conditions, though “stringent,” see id., are satisfied
in this case. As Ameziane concedes, the first requirement is
satisfied because the district court’s order conclusively
determined that ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' would not be
protected under the Protective Order. Second, this issue is
entirely separate from the merits of Ameziane’s habeas
action. The public disclosure of ''' ''' ' '' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' has no relevance to the underlying question
on the merits, i.e., whether he has been lawfully detained.
And given the foreign relations and national security concerns
raised in the ''' ''' ''' Declaration, we have no difficulty finding
this issue sufficiently “important” to warrant immediate
appellate review. See Al Odah v. United States, 559 F.3d 539,
543–44 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (holding that order mandating
disclosure of classified information to habeas petitioners’
counsel was “an important issue entirely separate from the
merits of this case”). Finally, the district court’s order would
be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment
because once ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' is revealed publicly, the disclosure
cannot be undone. See id. at 544. Thus, we have subject-
matter jurisdiction.
III
While we review a district court’s decision to seal or
unseal documents, or to issue or refuse to issue a protective
order, for abuse of discretion, we review de novo any errors
of law upon which the court relied in exercising its discretion.
See, e.g., United States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436, 456–57 (D.C.
Cir. 2006) (reviewing issuance of protective order de novo
rather than for abuse of discretion because court applied

-- 9 of 19 --

10
incorrect legal standard); United States v. El-Sayegh, 131
F.3d 158, 160 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (reviewing decision to unseal
guilty plea de novo rather than for abuse of discretion because
court’s decision was premised on legal error); see also Koon
v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996) (“A district court by
definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of
law.”). Here, the district court’s explanations indicate de
novo review is appropriate.
A
It is “our customary policy” to accord “deference to the
President in matters of foreign affairs.” Jama v. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335, 348 (2005). And
“consistent with our rule of deference, it is within the role of
the executive to acquire and exercise the expertise of
protecting national security. It is not within the role of the
courts to second-guess executive judgments made in
furtherance of that branch’s proper role.” Bismullah v. Gates,
501 F.3d 178, 187–88 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation
marks omitted), vacated on other grounds, Gates v.
Bismullah, 128 S. Ct. 2960 (2008).
But detainee cases are unique. Because of the
independent role carved out for the judiciary, and our
concomitant obligation to balance the needs of the
government against the rights of the detainee, and also to
preserve to the extent feasible the traditional right of public
access to judicial records grounded in the First Amendment,
we exercise greater caution in deciding to defer. See, e.g.,
Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229, 2276–77 (2008). In the
context of requests by the government to protect sensitive
information, we have explained the showing the government
must make to trigger judicial deference.

-- 10 of 19 --

11
In Bismullah v. Gates, we rejected the government’s
assertion of unilateral authority to designate information as
“protected” and held “the Government must give the court a
basis for withholding . . . from public view” nonclassified
information it seeks to protect. 501 F.3d at 188. In Parhat v.
Gates, we explained that a valid “basis for withholding”
would include, at a minimum, a “specific,” “tailored”
rationale for protecting a general category of information, and
a precise designation of each particular item of information
that purportedly “falls within the categor[y] . . . described.”
532 F.3d 834, 853 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In other words, the
government first must demonstrate what kind of information
requires protection and why, and then must show exactly what
information in the case at hand it seeks to protect.
In Parhat, the government failed to satisfy this twofold
showing. The government began by describing two broad
categories—“(1) any names and/or identifying information of
United States Government personnel, and (2) any sensitive
law enforcement information”—and provided a “rationale for
protection [that was] brief” and “relie[d] solely on spare,
generic assertions of the need to protect information in the
two categories.” Id. at 852–53 (internal quotation marks
omitted). For instance, the government merely asserted in
conclusory fashion that disclosing information in the first
category would “heighten[]” the risks to the safety of U.S.
government personnel, and that disclosing information in the
second category would “harm the Government’s ongoing law
enforcement activities related to the global war against al
Qaeda and its supporters.” Id. at 852. These “generic claims”
failed to satisfy the government’s burden of providing “an
explanation tailored to the specific information at issue.” Id.
at 853.

-- 11 of 19 --

12
Second, the government consigned all government
personnel mentioned in the record to the first category, and
simply marked documents “Law Enforcement Sensitive” or
“LES” to designate the second category. Id. at 852–53. We
found both sets of designations imprecise and overinclusive.
For instance, “some ‘U.S. Government personnel’ . . . [were]
so publicly associated with Guantanamo that protected status
would plainly be unwarranted.” Id. at 853. And we noted
that the term “Law Enforcement Sensitive” was so vague that
“at least seven different federal agencies define[d] it
differently.” Id. Thus, even if the government had provided
sufficient rationales for protecting information in the two
categories, it nonetheless failed to make its designations with
sufficient precision to allow the court to “determine whether
the information it ha[d] designated properly f[ell] within the
categories it ha[d] described.” Id.
Here, the district court failed properly to apply Parhat’s
two-part standard. Rather than evaluating the government’s
proposed category and proffered rationale, and then
determining whether ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
fell into that category, the court faulted ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' for
“provid[ing] no specificity as to why ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' '''' must be protected or why his counsel should be
prohibited from using the information ''' ''' ''' '' ' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' July 8 Op. ''' ''' (emphasis
added). Similarly, in its oral ruling, the court found the
government had failed to make a “particularized showing”
because the ''' ''' Declaration had “nothing . . . to do with this
case in particular.” June 30 Tr. '''' ''' '''. However, Parhat did
not require the government to provide a rationale for
protection that was so specific as to preclude any generalized
categorization. Rather, Parhat left room for categorized
requests in appropriate circumstances. Of course, the
narrower the category for which the government seeks

-- 12 of 19 --

13
protection, the more likely the government’s rationale will be
sufficiently tailored. But the district court erred by construing
Parhat to require a specific and distinct rationale addressed to
each detainee’s situation.
There is a sharp contrast between the government’s
showing in this case and its showing in Parhat. Unlike the
two broad categories outlined in Parhat, here the government
requested protection for a single, limited category: ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' and all related or derivative documents.
See July 8 Op. ''' ''' '''. And unlike the “spare, generic
assertions” with which the government justified its request in
Parhat, 532 F.3d at 853, here the government provided a
detailed rationale tailored specifically to the information in
the narrow category.
The ''' ''' ''' Declaration logically explained why failing to
protect ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' was likely to harm the
government’s foreign relations and national security interests.
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''

-- 13 of 19 --

14
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' Because this
detailed rationale was tailored specifically to the narrow
category of information for which the government requested
protection, the government satisfied the first showing required
by Parhat.
The government also satisfied the second part of the
Parhat standard because we face no difficulty “determin[ing]
whether the information [the government] has designated
properly falls within the categor[y] it has described.” Parhat,
532 F.3d at 853. The government designated for protection a
precise item of information—''' ''' ''' ' '' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''—
that indisputably falls into the narrow category of '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''. Indeed, this case fits squarely within the
government’s rationale for protection. Although the
government has determined ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' As the ''' ''' Declaration explains, ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

-- 14 of 19 --

15
'''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''''
''''' ''' ''' ''' ' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''. Thus, the government
met its burden for protection under Parhat.
B
Because the government satisfied Parhat, the district
court was required to defer to the government’s assessment of
the harm to foreign relations and national security that would
result from officially disclosing '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''. As we explained in Fitzgibbon, the failure to
give deference when it is due is error. 911 F.2d at 755.
There, pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request, the
district court ordered the CIA to disclose information about a
former CIA station location, over the CIA’s objection that
such disclosure would cause harm to national security. Id. at
758–59. We faulted the district court for “essentially
perform[ing] its own calculus as to whether or not harm to the
national security . . . would result from disclosure” of the
information, and held it should have “accord[ed] substantial
weight and deference” to the Executive Branch’s
“determination of possible harm.” Id. at 766. Thus,
“declin[ing] to adopt the abuse-of-discretion review that [the
plaintiff] urge[d] upon us,” we reversed. Id.
Here, the district court simply declared:
I don’t understand how [declining to protect
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '' ' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ] will
interfere in anything. . . . ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

-- 15 of 19 --

16
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' '''' '''
June 30 Tr. ''' ''' ''' ''' ; see also July 8 Op. ''' ''' (rejecting as
“speculative and conclusory” government’s “arguments that
the release ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' would cause
significant harm to the interests of the government”). It is not
entirely clear why the district court found the ''' ''' '''
Declaration so baffling. As discussed above, it provided a
detailed and logical explanation of the impact of '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' on the government’s foreign relations and national
security interests. Parhat did not free courts to substitute
their own policy judgments for those of the executive. The
district court was not entitled to toss the ''' ''' ''' Declaration
aside merely because it disagreed with its premise. Deference
required acknowledging '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' , not the
judiciary, is tasked with undertaking ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ' '' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''', and that
the Executive Branch officials bearing this responsibility
possess far greater resources and aptitude than the judiciary
for determining what will aid, and what will undermine, their
mission. The district court’s inability to “understand” how
permitting ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' “will interfere in anything,”
June 30 Tr. ''' ''' ''', did not license the court to “perform[] its
own calculus as to whether or not harm to the national
security . . . would result from [the] disclosure,” Fitzgibbon,
911 F.2d at 766.

-- 16 of 19 --

17
In particular, the district court erred by elevating
Ameziane’s interest ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' over the government’s interest in ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' Such prioritizing was an executive prerogative, and
it was “not within the role of the [district] court[] to second-
guess executive judgments made in furtherance of that
branch’s proper role.” Bismullah, 501 F.3d at 187–88
(internal quotation marks omitted). Crucially, this does not
mean Ameziane never will have the opportunity to ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' . Rather, it
means only that those ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ' '' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''
''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' The failure to accord
“substantial weight and deference,” Fitzgibbon, 911 F.2d at
766, to the government’s assessment of its foreign relations
and national security interests was error.
C
Finally, the district court erred by basing its ruling on an
inappropriate factor. The court held that the “[m]ost
important[]” factor weighing against the government’s
request for protection was that “protecting ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '
''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' would serve little purpose” because ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' July 8 Op. ''' ''' . The first
problem with the district court’s approach is ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''

-- 17 of 19 --

18
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
'''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
'''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' '''
''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
'''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' '''' '''' ''' ''' '''' '''''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''''
'''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''
''' ''' ''' ''' ''''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''

-- 18 of 19 --

19
IV
For the foregoing reasons, the government’s motion to
designate ''' '''' ''' '''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' as
“protected” information under the Protective Order should
have been granted. Thus, the order of the district court is
Reversed.

-- 19 of 19 --