Classification Decisions are Reviewable by Courts, Govt Admits
Executive branch decisions to classify national security information are subject to judicial review in Freedom of Information Act cases, government attorneys acknowledged in a brief filed yesterday.
That potentially explosive question arose following an extraordinary ruling by a federal judge ordering the U.S. Trade Representative to release a one-page classified document that had been requested under the FOIA by the Center for International Environmental Law. The document’s classification was not “logical,” said DC District Judge Richard W. Roberts last March, and therefore it was not exempt from public disclosure.
The government appealed that ruling in September, but stopped short of asserting that the court had no authority to order release of the classified document.
Yesterday, in response to arguments presented in an amicus brief from media organizations, government attorneys made their acceptance of judicial review explicit in a final reply brief.
“We agree that district courts (and courts of appeals) play an important role in evaluating the government’s compliance with its obligations under FOIA, in Exemption 1 cases [involving national security classification] as well as others….”
“We have not sought to diminish the role of courts in FOIA Exemption 1 cases, nor have we suggested that the Executive’s determination that a document is classified should be conclusive or unreviewable,” attorneys wrote in the November 27 brief (at p. 8).
In other words, the government did not assert that the executive has some kind of transcendent Article II classification power, nor did government attorneys contend (à la Egyptian President Morsy) that the judicial review provisions of FOIA are an unconstitutional infringement on executive authority.
This was the crucial information policy question that was raised by the move to appeal Judge Roberts’ highly unusual disclosure order, and the government has more or less resolved it by submitting to the discipline of judicial review.
What remains is a bona fide dispute: Was the decision to classify the USTR document well-founded and plausible, as the government insists, and therefore entitled to judicial deference? Or was it illogical, as the lower court ruled, nullifying the document’s exemption from FOIA?
Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for February of next year.
The FAS Nuclear Notebook is one of the most widely sourced reference materials worldwide for reliable information about the status of nuclear weapons, and has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists since 1987.. The Nuclear Notebook is researched and written by the staff of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project: Director Hans […]
On 14 April 2023, the Belarusian Ministry of Defence released a short video of a Su-25 pilot explaining his new role in delivering “special [nuclear] munitions” following his training in Russia. The features seen in the video, as well as several other open-source clues, suggest that Lida Air Base––located only 40 kilometers from the Lithuanian border and the […]
A photo in a Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) student briefing from 2022 shows four people inspecting what appears to be a damaged B61 nuclear bomb.
In early-February 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) had informed Congress that China now has more launchers for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) than the United States. The report is the latest in a serious of revelations over the past four years about China’s growing nuclear weapons arsenal and the deepening […]