Prologue — Edmonds v. Department of Justice

ait 1 he

No.____ 95 190 AUS 3 goog

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

—-_- =

SIBEL EDMONDS,

Petitioner,

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,

Respondents.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ARTHUR B. SPITZER

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA

1400 20th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 457-0800

MARK ZAID

KRIEGER & ZAID, PLLC

1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 454-2809

ANN BEESON

Counsel of Record

MELISSA GOODMAN

BEN WIZNER

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

UNION FOUNDATION

125 Broad Street

New York, New York 10004

(212) 549-2500

Counsel for Petitioner

jreeennenenendenttiienens

l.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Whether the court of appeals erred .n affirming dismissal

of a retaliatory termination case by an FBI whistleblower,

based on the state secrets privilege, prior to any discovery

or consideration of non-privileged evidence.

Whether the count of appeals violated the First

Amendment when it sua sponte excluded the press and

public from the argument of this case, without case-

specific findings demonstrating the necessity of closure.

ii

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

The petitioner in this case is Sibel Edmonds. The

respondents are the United States Department of Justice; the

Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the following

individuals sued in their official capacities: Alberto Gonzales,

Attorney General of the United States; Robert S. Mueller, II,

Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Thomas

Frields, Supervisory Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau

of Investigation’s Washington Field Office; and George

Stukenbroker, Chief of Security of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation’s Washington Field Office.

RULE 29.6 STATEMENT

In accordance with United States Supreme Court Rule

29.6, petitioner states that she has no parent companies or

non-wholly owned subsidiaries.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Se IEE FES HIND wiisnsbidicitosndecashetooseionrbiendcsasevieies i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS............:cccccosssssesscsocsscees ii

Pe WM FEA IETON wriscieesinesirstncrunssocincapsuasasspsnanstnsniiecblll

EE FUE REE bscssnitstevcaphsicntinsrsagauneysatesinaanion vi

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI....................... |

NT MRAP TY ics iis insu cedcecocoasdennccinyennasndaiabianvesiocdércsesien |

PA RII his nts vircishodacetius dese rslihchemabiabiileseasbiebinponstacauiadl |

CONSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY

Fe Ee Pe Ye VIED ses epissessrssintescccaselosbsddreaitcensiucuenies 1

SEAT EPMITS OF Tlie CASE a. cccccccasssisesorsescesssdessccosooreutes 2

A. Ms. Edmonds’ Termination ..................c:cccccscerseseeenee 2

Dy POOGRO TO sais tin ibs ccccshnccanigcpacborinteiteiitiauieye >

1. Filing of Suit and Invoca:ion of the Privilege...... 5

2. Wiattict Comte nee ciecsscccsssesnsesccocesevede 7

3. The Inspecter General’s Report on Ms.

EGMONES AUCBMIONG .. 5ccceccscoicsesecsseocsveseovesseeereees 9

4. The Court of Appeals’ Closure of the

Courtroom and the Affirmance.....................2... 12

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION................. 14

I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW TO

CLARIFY THE PROPER SCOPE AND

APPLICATION OF THE STATE SECRETS

A. Lower Courts Have Repeatedly Confused the State

Secrets Privilege with the Totten Rule..................... 15

B. Ms. Edmonds’ Case Illustrates the Harms that

Il. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW TO

CONSIDER THE COURT OF APPEALS’ SUA

SPONTE EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND

PUBLIC FROM THE COURTROOM.......00.......ccccccee 26

Se accvccivvrcinioes sestetinisepetniediabtytuitdethacniahdestpiinisin 30

capacitance sarcsisebcsoncanndebeipepdiianmistbaleitiintemsiiaentsisad la

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

ACLU v. Brown, 619 F.2d 1170 (7th Cir. 1980) .............0000 21

Bank Line v. United States, 163 F.2d 133 (2d Cir. 1947).....17

Bareford v. General Dynamics Corp., 973 F.2d 1138

OE ile TUE deticetbcrcinteconiaelann pamibseoliniglicpdidaies hci tegciesiataiiaades 18

Black v. United States, 62 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 1995).....19, 21

Bowles v. United States, 950 F.2d 154 (4th Cir. 1991)........ 20

Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Dev. Corp.,

3Z3 F. Sapp. 2d $2 (D.D.C. 2006) ...cccovccccocsercssocrsecseveesecere 7

Clift v. United States, 597 F.2d 826 (2d Cir. 1987).............. 20

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) ............cccccceesseeeeeees il

Cresmer v. United States, 9 F.R.D. 203 (E.D.N.Y. 1949).....17

Doe v. United States, 253 F.3d 256 (6th Cir. 2001)............. 27

DTM Research, L.L.C. v. AT&T Corp., 245 F.3d 327

Sy; eae a a Gee Ome PI BOs Horan DEE Oe 19

Elisberg v. Mitchell, 709 F.2d 51 (D.C. Cir. 1983)........ 20, 21

Farnsworth Cannon, Inc. v. Grimes, 635 F.2d 268

sR RE Tee Ste ee 18, 19, 20

Firth Sterling Steel Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 199 F. 353

AA eis dee wicnicpsitihdadenisiaminaidedinienbitisintéiatinnisidlictiieis 17

Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Internat’| Ltd., 776 F.2d 1236

ee MUN codaceicheaiissintdactbinstachiighnatnseianineatientbepstoinnidigs 20, 22

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court,

re Ce GE cicinhcterchaisiticinsinineiiepdnipenisineieavatiinsiniikcidasal 27

Halpern v. United States, 258 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1958)....21, 22

Heine v. Raus, 399 F.2d 785 (4th Cir. 1968).................. 20, 21

vii

Herring v. United States, 2004 WL 2040272, *8

GR RE: [ie ccticdenatecstatniocertsacsinenssiblatipeicani 16

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 983 F.2d 74

CAG BIE) enarcvenrsveretinnisincrcstinteitaitbiitemartaacteddeininionial 27

In re United States, 872 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ....... 19, 22

Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1998)......... 20, 21

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 323 F.3d 1006

Re Se | PRESNOMERR EN 1 ak CUO OEL Me Tate WCDI SOUR Bf ets 21

Molerio v. FBI, 749 7.2d 815 (D.C. Cir. 1984).............. 19, 21

Monarch Assurance P.L.C. v. United States, 244 F.3d 1356

I Sal ID ciesiovnicasinicdiatinenenetieidntinddinecewdeasbediitohioees 19, 20

New York Times Co. v. United States,

SF EB FOO CEG AA) ccisittcienivicitiisceplbaiatsonsincmatitahecpiiicisoas 27, 28

Pollen v. Ford Instrument Co., 26 F. Supp. 583

GRIEF. BRIO D ccivtticrerniinnecasbrscrcansepsinenepevivitneseanitnansinitinin 17

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court,

GED Betis SOE LAD ce tschetnitabanbinpiacenetinneninisambatiiintiiatisuntii 27

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,

OD Si Se CED cectiscenteendencirsciintaieinibehiciindemphiniatientita 26

Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980) cessescssscssssessssee 24

Spock v. United States, 404 F. Supp. 510

EPID BO Fa piciivewscisiniiinictelocticaiaabspitiiniitpacdidebummdnsebiainiin 19

Tenet v. Doe, 125 S.Ct. 1230 (2005) .........ccccccesseeceeseneeees 18 23

Tenenbaum v. Simonini, 372 F.3d 776 (6th Cir. 2004) ...19 21

Tilden v. Tenet, 140 F. Supp. 2d 623 (E.D. Va. 2000)......... 20

Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1875).......cccccceceeeeeeeeee 17

United States v. Moussaoui, 65 Fed. Salut 881

(6D CU, BEGET sctariciccvecittcabicsensnitiitiatidcnesdatceialiccininasietaicin 28

viii

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) ..... 14, 1S, 22 29

Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)..........ccccccccveeeeeevevees 18 23

Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Haw/Peace Educ. Project,

SEEN. RETO RAPES P cocmidhsbbiainthstantniubeisbeccnctnibcedncttoneedestenne 23

Zuckerbraun v. General Dynamics Corp., 935 F.2d 544

NETS. AP IOD dicsth-dedl Aclaschaebabedenebedaitnasineovednaenapuanaserbetanee 18

Legislative Materials

148 Cong. Rec. $5842 (June 20, 2002) .........ccccceeeseecseeeereneees 3

Testimony of Thomas Devine, Government Accountability

Project, Senate Governmental Affairs Comm. on S.1358,

Nov. 12, 2003, at 9, at

http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/1 11203devine.pdf. ............ 25

DOJ Oversight: Counterterrorism & Other Topics: Hearing

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 108th Cong.

SI IIE ichinaaheicatacdnskdeduntpepuegnttaiatnetbmgeicetaatnnserveseemmeneuseetsraencees 7

Other Authorities

A Review of the FBI's Actions in Connection with Allegations

Raised by Contract Linguist Sibel Edmonds, Unclassified

Summary, January 2005, Office of Inspector General, at

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/050 1/final.pdf...... passim

Barry Siegel, The Secret of the B-29, L.A. TIMES,

SRE a ee SE ST ee 16

Bill Conroy, DEA Whistleblower Exposes CIA's “War of

Pretense,” ONLINE JOURNAL, Sept. 15, 2004,

at http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/

09 1504Conroy/09 1 504conroy. html .............cccceeeeerereereeees 22

Eric Lichthlau, Whistle-blowing Said to be Factor in an

F.B.1. Firing, N.Y TIMES, July 28, 2004 ...........cccccecsseeeeees 8

ix

Federal Bureau of Investigation's Foreign Language

Program -- Translation of Counterterrorism and rare *

Counterintelligence Foreign Language Material, Rep. No.

04-25, July 2004, Office of Inspector General, at

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0425/final .pdf......9

Federal Bureau of Investigation's Foreign Language

Translation Program Follow-up, Rep. No. 05-33, July

2005, Office of Inspector General,

FE PE Sa 5

Letter from FBI Director Mueller to Senator Hatch, dated

July 21, 2004, at

http://www.pogo.org/m/hsp/hsp-04072 1 -Mueller.pdf ....... 8

R. Jeffrey Smith, Access to Memos is Affirmed, WASH. POST,

PRI: ti AP ccknsnibssitnciniicthdhgnnnitige ditt ndakeniidibapuoniipeentiiitaiapiba 12

William G. Weaver & Robert M. Pallitto, State Secrets and

Executive Power, 120 POL. Sci. Q. (Spring 2005) .....21, 22

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner Sibel Edmonds, a former translator for the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who was terminated in

retaliation for reporting serious security breaches and

potential espionage within the FBI's translation unit, seeks

review of the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia affirming the dismissal of her

retaliatory termination case on the basis of the state secrets

privilege. Petitioner also seeks review of the Court of

Appeals’ sua sponte exclusion of the press and the public

from appellate argument.

OPINIONS BELOW

The order of the court of appeals is unreported.

Appendix ("App.”) la-2a. The opinion of the district court is

reported at 323 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.D.C. 2004). App. 5a-33a.

JURISDICTION

The court of appeals entered its judgment on May 6,

2005. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28

U.S.C. § 1254(1). The jurisdiction of the court of appeals

was invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The jurisdiction of the

district court was invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

provides in relevant part that “Congress shall make no law

... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The

Fifth Amendment provides that “No person shall be . . .

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of

law.” The pertinent provisions of the Privacy Act are

reprinted in the Appendix. See App. 39a-46a.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Ms. Edmonds’ Termination

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,

Sibel Edmonds was hired by the FBI as a contract linguist to

perform translation services in the Bureau's Washington

Field Office. Court of Appeals Joint Appendix (“C.A.

App.”) 38 (Compl. 4{ 10-12). To obtain the requisite

security clearance, Ms. Edmonds was subjected to, and

passed, a polygraph examination and a ten-year background

investigation. C.A. App. 38 (Compl. { 14).

Between December 2001 and March 2002, Ms. Edmonds

reported a number of incidents to FBI management officials

that pointed towards “serious breaches in the FBI security

program and a breakdown in the quality of translations as a

result of willful misconduct and gross incompetence.” C.A.

App. 39 (Compl. ¥ 15). Ms. Edmonds’ reports of misconduct

included allegations that numerous communications had been

intentionally left untranslated or mistranslated, thereby

jeopardizing intelligence and law enforcement investigations

related to the September 11 attacks and other c soing

counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and law enforcement

investigations. Ms. Edmonds also reported concerns of

potential espionage within the translation unit. Specifically,

she reported that a fellow employee who had been granted a

security clearance had past and ongoing associations with one

or more targets of an ongoing FBI investigation and was

apparently leaking information to those targets; that the same

employee had improperly instructed Ms. Edmonds and

another employee not to listen to or translate certain FBI

wiretaps concerning those targets; and that the employee in

question had threatened the lives and safety of Ms. Edmonds

and a member of her family who resided in a foreign country.

Finally, Ms. Edmonds reported that FBI managers had failed

to take corrective action in response to her concerns, but had