The U.S. Supreme Court should reject the idea of a secret law or directive that purports to regulate public behavior yet cannot be disclosed, several public interest groups argued yesterday.
The groups filed amicus curiae briefs in support of a petition by John Gilmore, who challenged a government requirement that he produce official identification in order to board an airplane and was told that he could not see the underlying policy document because it is “sensitive security information.”
The government says (pdf) that Mr. Gilmore had adequate notice of the ID requirement without inspecting the written policy.
But “The laws of the United States do not permit the Executive Branch to govern public conduct through secret laws,” wrote Marcia Hofmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Court should therefore agree to review the Gilmore matter. The FAS Project on Government Secrecy signed on to the EFF brief (pdf).
Other amicus briefs were filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The latest briefs, and other background on the case, can be found here.
See also “Groups ask high court to review aviation ID policies,” by Andrew Noyes, National Journal’s Technology Daily, November 14.
Secrecy News will resume publication after Thanksgiving.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.