No. 05-190 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- SIBEL EDMONDS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE, THE PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT SECRECY OF THE FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS, THE NATIONAL WHISTLEBLOWER CENTER, THE PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT, PUBLIC CITIZEN, INC., THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, THE NATIONAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COALITION, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL AIR DISASTER ALLIANCE, AND SEPTEMBER 11TH ADVOCATES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- MEREDITH FUCHS Counsel of Record National Security Archive, George Washington University 2130 H St. NW, Suite 701 Washington, D.C. 20037 October 10, 2005 202-994-7059 ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................ ii INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE........................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 4 ARGUMENT............................................................... 5 I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIO- RARI TO CLARIFY TO THE LOWER COURTS THE SIGNIFICANT ROLE THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW PLAYS IN EVALUAT- ING THE GOVERNMENT’S DEMANDS FOR SECRECY ........................................................ 5 a. Excessive Secrecy Imposes Significant Social Costs on Society ............................. 5 b. Secrecy Has Grown Exponentially Over the Last Four Years and Government Of- ficials Admit That Much of it is Unnec- essary ........................................................ 11 c. Meaningful Judicial Review of Government Secrecy is Necessary to Prevent Overreach- ing ............................................................. 14 CONCLUSION............................................................ 20 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES ACLU v. Dep’t of Defense, 339 F. Supp. 2d 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ................................................................. 6 Am. Friends Serv. Comm. v. Dep’t of Defense, 831 F.2d 441 (3d Cir. 1987) ................................................... 13 Dep’t of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976) ................... 9 Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2002)................................................................................ 13 EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973)........................................ 19 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).......................... 19 Herring v. United States, No. 03-CV-5500-LDD, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18545 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 10, 2004)................................................................................ 16 In re United States, 872 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ........... 20 Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)............. 15 Korematsu v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 1406 (N.D. CA 1984)................................................................ 15 New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) .................................................................... 5, 10, 15 Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., Inc., 415 U.S. 1 (1974) .............................................................. 9 United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) .................................................................. 13, 16, 20 Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)................................... 20 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES U.S. Const. art. I, § 5.......................................................... 18 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8.......................................................... 19 U.S. Const. art. I, § 9.......................................................... 19 U.S. Const. art. II, § 2 .................................................. 18, 19 5 U.S.C. § 552 ................................................................. 9, 19 6 U.S.C.S § 133 (2005)........................................................ 13 49 U.S.C.S. § 114 (2005)..................................................... 13 49 U.S.C.S. § 40119 (2005)................................................. 13 50 U.S.C.S. § 1861 (2005)................................................... 13 LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS Emerging Threats: Overclassification and Pseudo- classification: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Nat’l Sec., Emerging Threats, and Int’l Relations of the H. Comm. on Gov’t Reform, 109th Cong. (2005) ................................................................................ 6 Intelligence Community’s Response to Past Terrorist Attacks Against the United States from February 1993 to September 2001: Hearing Before the J. H./S. Intelligence Comm., 107th Cong. (2002) ................ 8 Joint Investigation Into September 11th: Hearing Before the J. H./S. Intelligence Comm., 107th Cong. (2002)...................................................................... 8 Report of the Comm’n on Reducing and Protecting and Reducing Gov’t Secrecy, S. Doc. No. 105-2, at 8 (1997) ............................................................................. 6 S. Rep. No. 813 (1965).................................................... 9, 19 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page S. Rep. No. 93-854 (1974)................................................... 19 Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations of the House Committee on Gov’t Reform Hearing, 108th Cong. (2004) .............................................................................. 12 OTHER AUTHORITIES 9/11 Commission Hearing, Testimony of Porter Goss (2003)...................................................................... 12 Aaron Edlin & Joseph E. Stiglitz, Discouraging Rivals: Managerial Rent-Seeking and Economic Inefficiencies, 85 Am. Econ. Rev. 1301 (1995) ................. 7 About ISOO .......................................................................... 6 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, art. 9, June 26, 1981........................................................11 American Convention on Human Rights, art. 13, Nov. 22, 1969....................................................................11 Cass R. Sunstein, Why Societies Need Dissent (2003) ................................................................................ 9 Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Secrecy: The American Experience (1998)............................................................ 10 Donald Rumsfeld, War of the Worlds, Wall St. J., July 18, 2005..............................................................10, 11 Erwin N. Griswold, Secrets Not Worth Keeping: The courts and classified information, Wash. Post, Feb. 15, 1989............................................................. 12, 16 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 10, Nov. 4, 1950..............................................................................11 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Inter-American Comm’n on Human Rights, Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, para. 4, Oct. 19, 2000 ....................................................................11 ISOO, 2001 Report to the President (2002) ........................11 ISOO, 2004 Report on Cost Estimates for Security Classification Activities for 2004 (2005).........................11 ISOO, 2004 Report to the President (2005) ........................11 ISOO, Report to the President (2002) ................................ 10 Kennedy Assassination Records Review Bd., Final Report (1998) .................................................................... 7 Nat’l Acad. of Sciences, Seeking Security: Pathogens, Open Access, and Genome Databases (2004) ................................................................................ 7 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) ................................................................................ 8 Office of Inspector General, Dep’t of Justice, A Review of the FBI’s Actions in Connection With Allegations Raised by Contract Linguist Sibel Edmonds 31 (2005)..................................................... 1, 17 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 19, Dec. 10, 1948, UN Resolution 217A(III).........................11 Veto Message from President Ford to the House of Representatives (Oct. 17, 1974)..................................... 19 William G. Weaver & Robert M. Pallitto, State Secrets and Executive Power, 120 Pol. Sci. Q. 85 (2005) .............................................................................. 14 1 INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE Amici Curiae submit this brief in support of Petitioner Sibel Edmonds, a contract linguist fired by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in retaliation for reporting serious problems in the translation unit where she worked.1 Ms. Edmonds brought this case to challenge her termination and seek redress for government disclosures to the media about