# Prologue — Edmonds v. Department of Justice

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0074%3A0

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Prologue
- **Published:** January 1, 2005
- **Citation:** 546 U.S. 1031

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0074%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.