The Government cites a number of cases in opposition to
plaintiffs’ standing. None are apposite. In Laird v.
Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) (cited in Gov’t Trial Mem. at
27), the Supreme Court declined to find standing for
individuals who claimed that their activities were being
chilled by the mere existence of a statute which allowed
a governmental body to conduct investigative work. Id.
at 13-14. The Court distinguished that situation from
the type at issue here where the statute sets forth
specific penalties to be imposed on individuals--
indefinite military detention. Thus, unlike in Laird,
here there is no need for the fruits of the statute to
be used for some later purpose; the fruit of the
exercise of § 1021 is indefinite detention.
Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (cited in Gov’t
Trial Mem. at 18-19) is also inapposite. In Lyons, the
issue was whether an individual who had been placed in a
chokehold by the police could seek broad injunctive
relief against a policy allowing for such chokeholds.
Id. at 101. The Court found standing lacking because no
facts suggested that the plaintiff had any expectation
of ever being placed in a chokehold by the police
again--i.e., the plaintiff did not face a realistic
threat of recurrence.
Here, of course, plaintiffs are engaged--and the facts
as found by this Court make it clear they would continue
to engage (without the fear of detention)--in the
testified-to First Amendment activities. This Court has
found as a fact that plaintiffs’ writings, speeches, and
associational activities are by no means at an end. This
Court has also found that those activities have already
been chilled. On these facts, the Supreme Court’s
holding in Lyons is simply inapplicable.
The Government also cites Daimler-Chrysler for the
proposition that facts supporting standing must appear
affirmatively in the record. (See Gov’t Trial Mem. at
18, 26.) In Daimler-Chrysler, disgruntled residents of
Toledo, Ohio brought a lawsuit alleging injury based on
tax breaks given to Daimler-Chrysler. The Supreme Court
found standing lacking for those state-taxpayer
plaintiffs on the same grounds that it repeatedly denies
standing to federal taxpayers challenging a particular
expenditure of federal funds--i.e., “interest in the
moneys of the Treasury . . . is shared with millions of
others; is comparatively minute and indeterminable; and
the effect upon future taxation . . . so remote,
fluctuating and uncertain, that no basis is afforded for
an appeal to the preventive powers of a court of
equity.” Daimler-Chrysler, 547 U.S. at 343 (quoting
Mass. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 486 (1923)).
Here, the Court held an evidentiary hearing and has made
findings of fact: the plaintiffs specified the actual
work they have done and intend to do; they testified
credibly as to their fear and lack of understanding of §
1021(b)(2); and the Government at that hearing would not
state that they would not be detained for these
activities. In other words, there are no factual
similarities between Daimler-Chrysler and the case
before this Court.
1.
Preenforcement Challenges
The Supreme Court has recognized that preenforcement
challenges can be appropriate in the context of statutes
that impose criminal penalties, Holder, 130 S. Ct. at
2717, as well as in the context of the First Amendment,
Am. Booksellers, 484 U.S. at 393. Section 1021(b)(2)
implicates both.
In
the context of a criminal statute, plaintiffs must,
however, face a credible threat of prosecution. See
Holder, 130 S. Ct. at 2717; Babbitt v. United Farm
Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979)(“When
contesting the constitutionality of a criminal statute,
‘it is not necessary that [the plaintiff] first expose
himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled
to challenge [the] statute that he claims deters the
exercise of his constitutional rights.’” (citing Steffel
v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974)); see also Doe v.
Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973). If prosecution is not
“remotely possible,” then a plaintiff lacks standing.
Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 299 (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 42 (1971)).
In
Amnesty International USA v. Clapper, 638 F.3d 118 (2d
Cir. 2011), cert. granted, 132 S. Ct. 2431 (2012), the
Second Circuit allowed a preenforcement challenge where
the plaintiffs alleged a prospective injury to First
Amendment rights, and showed an actual and well-founded
fear of injury--not that the injury had already
occurred. Id. at 131, 135. In support of such a finding
the Second Circuit stated: “[T]he fact that the
Government has authorized the potentially harmful
conduct means that the plaintiffs can reasonably assume
that government officials will actually engage in that
conduct by carrying out the authorized [injury].” Id. at
138. [29]
Similarly, in Vermont Right to Life, the Second Circuit
found that where a plaintiff has alleged an intention to
engage in a course of conduct “arguably affected” with a
constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute,
and a credible threat of prosecution exists, the
plaintiff should not be made to wait until he or she has
been prosecuted to seek redress. 221 F.3d at 382. There,
the organization bringing the challenge would have been
subject to a civil rather than criminal charge. The
court found that distinction to be of “no moment” given
the constitutional issues involved. Id. at 382 (“The
fear of civil penalties can be as inhibiting of speech
as can trepidation in the face of threatened criminal
prosecution.”); see also Va. Soc’y for Human Life, Inc.
v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 263 F.3d 379, 390 (4th Cir.
2001) (preenforcement challenge allowed when the
presence of the regulation resulted in the plaintiffs
changing their conduct).
2.
Facial Challenges
Whether or not a facial challenge is permissible
implicates plaintiffs’ standing. Under Lujan, it is
clear that traditional rules of standing require that a
plaintiff have injury in fact. A facial challenge seeks
to invalidate a statute in all of its
applications--going beyond those which a particular
plaintiff would him or herself have standing to bring.
Stevens, 130 S. Ct. at 1587.
In
a case decided one year after Lujan, Alexander v. United
States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993), the Supreme Court
reiterated the long-standing principle that when a
plaintiff is challenging a statute as overbroad and
impinging on First Amendment rights, facial challenges
are permissible. Id. at 555. That enables a plaintiff to
challenge the statute in its entirety. Stevens, 130 S.
Ct. at 1587 (in a facial challenge in the context of the
First Amendment protections of speech, a law may be
invalidated as overbroad if a substantial number of its
applications are deemed unconstitutional, judged in
relation to the statute’s “plainly legitimate sweep”).
Alexander and Stevens follow the Supreme Court’s earlier
holdings of, inter alia, City of Chicago v. Morales, 527
U.S. 41 (1999), and Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601
(1973). In Morales, the Court found that because the
statute was challenged on First Amendment grounds, it
implicated the doctrine of “jus tertii” or third-party
standing. In the context of the First Amendment, the
Court also held that a plaintiff is not required to show
that there are no legitimate applications of the
statute. Morales, 527 U.S. at 55. In Broadrick, the
Court stated that because the First Amendment needs
“breathing space,” the traditional rules of standing are
relaxed when the challenge relates to speech. 413 U.S.
at 611. “Litigants, therefore, are permitted to
challenge a statute not because their own rights of free
expressions are violated, but because of a judicial
prediction or assumption that the statute’s very
existence may cause others not before the court to
refrain from constitutionally protected speech or
expression.” Id. at 617.
3.
Commitments regarding Conduct
A
number of courts have found that a commitment that a
statute will not be enforced against a particular
plaintiff does not eliminate standing. See, e.g.,
Stevens, 130 S. Ct. at 1591 (finding a statute facially
invalid on First Amendment grounds, and refusing to
“uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the
Government promised to use it responsibly”); Am.
Booksellers, 484 U.S. at 393 (“[T]he State has not
suggested that the newly enacted law will not be
enforced, and we see no reason to assume otherwise.”);
Vt. Right to Life, 221 F.3d at 383 (“The State also
argues that VRLC’s fear of suit could not possibly be
well-founded because the State has no intention of suing
[plaintiff] VRLC for its activities. While that may be
so, there is nothing that prevents the State from
changing its mind.”); [30] Mental Hygiene Legal Serv.,
785 F. Supp. 2d at 220 (finding standing because
although law enforcement officials said they would not
enforce the statute against the plaintiffs, nothing
prevented future law enforcement officials from taking a
contrary position).
In
Stevens, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “the First
Amendment protects us against the Government; it does
not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige.” 130 S.
Ct. at 1591. In Stevens, the Government had committed
that it would apply the statute at issue more narrowly
than it might be read. Rather than accepting such
assurances that plaintiffs need not be concerned, the
Supreme Court found the Government’s position an
implicit acknowledgment of the potential constitutional
problems of a more natural reading. Id.
4.
Analysis
This Court has found that the facts support each
plaintiff’s standing to bring a preenforcement, facial
challenge with respect to § 1021(b)(2). This Court has
analyzed separately each plaintiff’s standing regarding
his or her First and Fifth Amendment challenge and finds
each plaintiff has standing with respect to each claim.
a.
Injury
With regard to their First Amendment challenge, at the
March hearing each plaintiff testified credibly that,
specifically due to concerns about § 1021(b)(2), he or
she has already experienced a chilling of his or her
written or oral speech or associational activities. The
Court’s findings as set forth above, and more briefly
summarized here, demonstrate actual chilling has
occurred. Hedges testified that he changed speeches he
planned to make, avoided certain associations, and was
concerned about articles or writing he expected to
undertake. O’Brien testified that she was withholding
articles from publication; Wargalla testified that her
organization had to contemplate changing participants in
an online conference; Jonsdottir stated she has declined
speaking engagements. See Part II, supra. In addition,
each plaintiff testified credibly to ongoing concerns
regarding expected future First Amendment activities.
See Part II, supra. Such chilling of speech constitutes
actual injury. Indeed, it is precisely the type of
chilling that the Supreme Court has found as a basis for
standing--including to bring a facial challenge. See
Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 630.
With respect to their Fifth Amendment challenge, each
plaintiff testified credibly that he or she had read the
statute and did not understand its scope and, in
particular, whether his/her activities would fall within
that scope. See Part II, supra. Without such
definitional scope, and in the face of the Government’s
inability to provide definitions for the key terms at
issue or define the scope of § 1021(b)(2) and
unwillingness to state in March that plaintiffs’
activities could not subject them to detention, there
are adequate grounds to find plaintiffs’ vagueness
concerns valid. [31]
Finally, preenforcement challenges are permissible in
just such contexts. Here, based on credible testimony,
this Court has found that each plaintiff has engaged in
activities in which he or she is associating with,
writing about, or speaking about or to al-Qaeda, the
Taliban, or other organizations which have committed (or
are associated with organizations that have committed)
terrorist acts against the United States. The words of §
1021(b)(2) can be read to encompass such activities.
These plaintiffs need not wait until they have been
detained and imprisoned to bring a challenge--the
penalty is simply too severe to have to wait. See, e.g.,
Holder, 130 S. Ct. at 2717; Babbitt, 422 U.S. at 298;
Vt. Right to Life, 221 F.3d at 382.
The Government’s statement--this Court cannot call it a
“commitment” in light of its qualified
language--regarding the unlikelihood of enforcement for
certain specified acts does not eliminate plaintiffs’
standing as to either claim.
First, the fact that the Government has taken two
different positions (one in which the Government refused
to make any commitment) undercuts the viability of the
later (qualified) statement. Second, standing attaches
at the outset of a case., Lujan, 504 U.S. at 569 n.4,
meaning that the later statement comes too late. Third,
the Supreme Court has made it clear in both the First
and Fifth Amendment contexts, a plaintiff need not rely
upon “noblesse oblige”--hoping that enforcement will not
occur, or that one law enforcement official’s
interpretation will be the same as another’s. See
Stevens, 130 S. Ct. at 1591; FCC v. Fox Television
Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. at 2317.
Plaintiffs meet the requirements for demonstrating the
necessary injury or impact on their conduct for
standing.
b.
Causation
Each plaintiff testified credibly that § 1021(b)(2) has
caused a chilling of First Amendment activities and an
actual fear of detention due to the vagueness of §
1021(b)(2)’s scope. See Part II, supra. There can
therefore be no doubt as to whether Lujan’s second
required element has been met. It has been.
c.
Redressability
The Government argues that plaintiffs lack standing
because any injury supposedly deriving from § 1021(b)(2)
cannot be redressed by the constitutional challenge
since the Government has precisely the same detention
authority under the AUMF. (Gov’t Trial Mem. at 30-31.)
That is not so.
The argument is premised on the erroneous assertion (as
the Court has discussed more fully above) that § 1021
and the AUMF are the same. They are not. In particular,
§ 1021(b)(2)--the very provision which plaintiffs seek
to enjoin--provides for a much broader scope of military
detention than provided for in the AUMF.
It
is unavailing that the Government asserts that it has,
without congressional authorization, unilaterally
expanded the AUMF’s detention scope by virtue of its own
interpretation. The Supreme Court previously has
rejected that very argument. See Hamdi, 542 U.S. at
516-18. Simply by asserting that § 1021 is a
reaffirmation of the AUMF does not make it so when its
scope is plainly broader. Accordingly, enjoining §
1021(b)(2), a new statute with uniquely broad scope,
necessarily would redress plaintiffs’ injuries.
Plaintiffs meet all the required elements to establish
standing.
B.
Principles of Mootness and Analysis
To
have an actual case or controversy pursuant to Article
II, a case must also be “real and live, not feigned,
academic or conjectural.” Russman v. Bd. of Educ., 260
F.3d 114, 118 (2d Cir. 2001). This Court addresses
whether the Government’s newly articulated position
(i.e., that § 1021(b)(2) does not apply if the conduct
of plaintiffs is independent as described, and described
accurately, and no more than what has been described)
renders this action moot. [32]
When the issues between parties are no longer live, or
have become merely conjectural, the case may be moot.
See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 489 (1969). There
are certainly instances where an originally justiciable
action has been rendered moot during the course of
litigation. However, a case is not moot when there is a
reasonable expectation that the alleged violation may
recur. See Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982);
United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633
(1953).
This case is not moot. First, at the March hearing, the
Government declined to state that any of plaintiffs’
conduct would not be encompassed by § 1021(b)(2). See
Hedges, 2012 WL 1721124, at *14-15 (citing Tr. I). In
its motion for reconsideration, the Government’s
position changed first to a broad statement--“the
conduct alleged by plaintiffs is not, as a matter of
law, within the scope of the detention authority
affirmed by section 1021” (Recons. Mem. at 2)--and then
to a more complicated, qualified statement (set forth
above but worth reciting again here):
As a matter of
law, individuals who engage in the independent
journalistic activities or independent public
advocacy described in plaintiffs’ affidavits and
testimony, without more, are not subject to law of
war detention as affirmed by section 1021(a)-(c),
solely on the basis of such independent journalistic
activities or independent public advocacy. Put
simply, plaintiffs’ descriptions in this litigation
of their activities, if accurate, do not implicate
the military detention authority affirmed in section
1021.
(Recons. Mem. at 4.) This qualified statement,
reiterated in the Government’s pre-trial memorandum (Gov’t
Trial Mem. at 20), is a multi-part, carefully
constructed exception to the Government’s view of
detainable conduct. The parts consist of the following
elements, each of which is not itself defined and each
of which narrows the assurance: (1) independent (2)
journalistic activities; or (3) independent, (4) public
advocacy, (5) described in plaintiffs’ affidavits and
testimony, (6) without more, (7) are not subject to the
law of war detention as affirmed by section 1021(a)-(c),
solely on the basis of such conduct. That language is
followed by the additional statement that plaintiffs’
descriptions (a) in this litigation of their activities,
(b) if accurate, (c) do not implicate military
detention.
The totality of those qualifications hardly provides
plaintiffs reasonable assurance that there is no
likelihood of detention under § 1021. Indeed, the
opposite is true. Confronted initially by the
Government’s position that it would not state whether
plaintiffs’ known activities could subject them to
detention under § 1021, plaintiffs had a legitimate
concern. This Court so found as a matter of fact based
upon plaintiffs’ trial testimony. It was, as this Court
previously stated in its May 16 Opinion, a surprising
position for the Government to have taken--but take that
position it did, and it must now own it.
The Government’s qualified position is hardly
reassuring. It follows a much clearer position of,
essentially, “we can’t tell you if a plaintiff will be
detained for these specific, actual activities.” This
Court and (presumably) plaintiffs reasonably assume that
the Government’s first and second positions were crafted
carefully, and that the presence of qualifiers in the
second has real (if uncertain) meaning.
The clearest statement the Government could have
provided it did not. At the very outset of this case,
the Government could have moved for dismissal (e.g.,
with an early motion for summary judgment) based upon an
affidavit of someone with authority who could have
stated that protected First Amendment activities
occurring by Americans on American soil are not subject
to § 1021(b)(2). This would have made plaintiffs’ burden
much more difficult. [33] No such statement was made.
Shifting positions are intolerable when indefinite
military detention is the price that a person could have
to pay for his/her, or law enforcement’s, erroneous
judgment as to what may be covered. [34]
VI. THE JUDICIARY’S ROLE IN STATUTORY REVIEW
This case presents a justiciable case or controversy
under Article III of the Constitution. The Court now
turns to its determination with respect to the merits
and the question of appropriate relief. Set out below is
an overview of how the Court proceeds through various
interlocking arguments.
Plaintiffs assert that § 1021(b)(2) violates their
constitutional rights pursuant to the First, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments. The Government admonishes the
Court to avoid reaching the constitutional questions
even if plaintiffs have standing. The Government argues
that the judiciary should play no role here--or, at
most, an ex post facto one in which it reviews habeas
petitions challenging detention determinations. The
Court deals with this “quasi-abstention” issue first,
then moves on to the merits of the constitutional
questions raised and whether permanent injunctive relief
is appropriate.
A.
The Court as Guardian of the Constitution
It
is certainly true that courts should, if possible, avoid
reaching constitutional questions. See Califano v.
Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 692 (1979). This Court takes
that principle seriously and has proceeded here only
after careful consideration as to whether constitutional
avoidance is possible. It is not.
The Court is also mindful of its oath. When squarely
presented with an unavoidable constitutional question,
courts are obliged to answer it. That principle traces
its history back to the earliest years of this Country’s
independent and constitutional existence. Federalist
Paper No. 78 states:
No legislative
act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be
valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the
deputy is greater than his principal; that the
servant is above his master; that the
representatives of the people are superior to the
people themselves.
. . .
Nor does this
conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the
judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes
that the power of the people is superior to both;
and that where the will of the legislature, declared
in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the
people, declared in the Constitution, the judges
ought to be governed by the latter rather than the
former.
The Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton).
Chief Justice Marshall affirmed that principle in case
law. See Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L. Ed.
60 (1803) (“[T]he constitution controls any legislative
act repugnant to it. . . . It is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what
the law is.”). He stated:
So if a law be
in opposition to the constitution; if both the law
and the constitution apply to a particular case, so
that the court must either decide that case
conformably to the law, disregarding the
constitution; or conformably to the constitution
disregarding the law; the court must determine which
of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is
the very essence of judicial duty.
. . .
Those then who
controvert the principle that the constitution is to
be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are
reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts
must close their eyes on the constitution, and see
only the law.
This doctrine
would subvert the very foundation of all written
constitutions . . . It would be giving the
legislature a practical and real omnipotence . . .
The judicial
power of the United States is extended to all cases
arising under the constitution.
Id. at 178.
There is no doubt, however, that, as John Marshall
argued in 1800, “[t]he President is the sole organ of
the nation in its external relations, and its sole
representative with foreign nations.” Annals, 6th Cong.,
col. 613 (1800). Even the President’s powers are,
however, exercised in subordination to the applicable
provisions of the Constitution. United States v.
Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936).
When it comes to separation of powers, and the courts’
ability to intervene in constitutional questions, the
Government has previously argued that this doctrine
should preclude the judiciary from ruling on the
constitutionality of certain statutes. The Supreme Court
has rejected that argument. For instance, in Elrod v.
Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 353 (1976), the Government argued
that the Court should not address the statute at issue
based on principles of the separation of powers. The
Supreme Court stated:
More
fundamentally, however, the answer to petitioners’
objection is that there can be no impairment of
executive power, whether on the state or federal
level, where actions pursuant to that power are
impermissible under the Constitution. Where there is
no power, there can be no impairment of power.
427 U.S. at 353.
Similarly, in Hamdi, the Supreme Court stated:
[W]e
necessarily reject the Government’s assertion that
separation of powers principles mandate a heavily
circumscribed role for the courts in such
circumstances. Indeed, the position that the courts
must forgo any examination of the individual case
and focus exclusively on the legality of the broader
detention scheme cannot be mandated by any
reasonable view of the separation of powers, as this
approach serves only to condense power into a single
branch of government. We have long since made clear
that a state of war is not a blank check for the
President when it comes to the rights of the
Nation’s citizens.
542 U.S. at 535-36.
A
court, as here, presented with an unavoidable
constitutional question, is obligated to rule upon it.
B.
Judicial Review of Military Statutes
The Government also argues that this Court should
decline to address the constitutional questions raised
by § 1021(b)(2) particularly because of the President’s
role and authority in “foreign affairs.” [35] (See Gov’t
Trial Mem. at 1 (arguing that this context “should cause
extreme hesitation” and “require the most exacting
scrutiny to ensure that if the judicial power is to be
exercised in such a far-reaching manner it is clearly
within the Court’s jurisdiction to do so”), 11 (“Due
respect for a coequal branch of government requires that
Congress be taken at its word.”), 32 (“courts must
‘recognize that the Constitution itself requires such
deference to congressional choice’ in those areas due to
separation of powers and the ‘lack of competence’ on the
part of the courts”), 37 (“As a threshold matter, a
military-force authorization--or a statute like section
1021, restating and rearticulating part of such a force
authorization--is not a proper subject of vagueness
analysis”), 45 (“in this case, which involves the
Constitution’s separation of powers in the context of
national defense and security, it is particularly
inappropriate to issue an injunction.”; “[B]ased on
separation of powers principles, the courts have
recognized that an injunction running against the
President would be extraordinary”), 46 (“The reasons for
denying injunctive relief against the President are all
the more compelling where, as here, a plaintiff seeks
relief against the President as Commander-in-Chief under
the Constitution”; “But more fundamentally, it is not
for plaintiffs--or this Court--to determine which
authorities are necessary or appropriate for the conduct
of an ongoing war.”).)
At
the August hearing, the Government stated quite clearly
that the only role that the Court should have with
respect to reviewing the scope of § 1021 is in the
context of post-detention habeas reviews. Tr. II at 118.
That is an unacceptable position.
First, as set forth above, when properly presented with
an unavoidable constitutional question, this Court has
an obligation to answer that question.
Second, it is unreasonable to expect a habeas review
that can take many years to resolve, to provide adequate
relief for those detained. That must be particularly
true when detention arises from or relates to the
exercise of protected First Amendment rights, and when
an individual may not have understood (due to the
statute’s lack of definitional structure) that his or
her conduct could subject him or her to detention. Some
of the recent Guantanamo habeas reviews have taken more
than ten years. [36] If a court finds a detention
unconstitutional, that is far too long to wait. While
awaiting determination on their civil habeas review, the
detained individual is deprived of his or her liberty
and, no matter what the official designation, he or she
is a prisoner. Suggesting that post-habeas review
provides sufficient relief is remarkable when even the
Government’s qualified position regarding plaintiffs’
activities implicitly concedes that § 1021(b)(2) has
been or may well be used to detain someone for conduct
protected by the First Amendment. Any period of
detention (let alone years) for what could be an
unconstitutional exercise of authority, finds no basis
in the Constitution.
Third, although the Government has cited a number of
authorities for the proposition that it would be
extraordinary for this Court to enjoin an act of the
President, those cases are inapposite. (See Gov’t Trial
Mem. at 45-46.) This Court does not disagree with the
principle that the President has primacy in foreign
affairs. That is entirely different from using the fact
that the United States may be engaged in armed conflict
overseas to subject American citizens or others acting
on American soil to indefinite military detention. There
is no support for such an extension of Article II
authority. The cases cited by the Government relate to
the President’s performance of official duties, such as
the counting of representatives as set forth in Article
I, § 2, cl. 3 of the Constitution. See, e.g., Franklin
v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992).
Section 1021(b)(2) does not present a similar factual
situation. Instead, § 1021(b)(2) provides for indefinite
military detention of anyone--including U.S.
citizens--without trial. [37] It is simply not the case
that by prefacing this statute with the provision
“Congress affirms . . . the authority of the President .
. . to detain covered persons . . .,” it is outside of
the purview of judicial review. If that were the case,
it would reveal an extraordinary loophole through which
the legislative and executive branches could create
immunity from judicial oversight simply by having
Congress provide broad, undefined authorization. Under
that theory, courts would be unable to review acts taken
as a result of such authorization or the authorization
itself. And, under that theory, referring to a
unilaterally broadened authority as a “reaffirmation”
would effectively ratify actions previously taken; this
exercise of legislative or executive authority finds no
basis in the Constitution.
Contrary to the assertions of the Government, in ruling
on the constitutional questions before it, this Court is
doing nothing either extraordinary or unprecedented.
There is a long history of courts ensuring that
constitutional rights are protected, even in a military
context.
In
Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C. Md. 1861), the
Supreme Court made clear that the President does not
have the power to arrest; that the liberty of the
citizen is not conferred on the President to do with
what he will; and that no argument will be entertained
that it must be otherwise for the good of the
government. Id. at 149 (“And if the high power over the
liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be
conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be
found in plain words in [Art. II of the Constitution];
but there is not a word in it that can furnish the
slightest ground to justify the exercise of that
power.”). The Court continued,
government,
for self-defense in times of tumult or danger. The
government of the United States is one of delegated
and limited powers; it derives its existence and
authority altogether from the Constitution; and
neither of its branches, executive, legislative or
judicial, can exercise any of the powers of
government beyond those specified and granted.
Id.
In
the Brig Amy Warwick, 67 U.S. 635 (1862), the Government
had similarly argued that the judiciary should not--or
perhaps could not--rule on certain issues. There, the
Supreme Court stated “[counsel for the Government
argues] in well-considered rhetoric, his amazement that
a judicial tribunal should be called upon to determine
whether the political power was authorized to do what it
has done.” Id. at 645. The Court continued,
The principle
of self-defense is asserted; and all power is
claimed for the President. This is to assert that
the Constitution contemplated and tacitly provided
that the President should be dictator, and all
Constitutional Government be at an end, whenever he
should think that the ‘life of the nation’ is in
danger . . . It comes to a plea of necessity. The
Constitution knows no such word.
Id. at 648.
A
few years later, in Milligan, the Supreme Court held:
“Neither the President, nor Congress, nor the Judiciary
can disturb any one of the safeguards of civil liberty
incorporated into the Constitution, except so far as the
right is given to suspend in certain cases the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus.” 71 U.S. at 4. The Court
stated, “No book can be found in any library to justify
the assertion that military tribunals may try a citizen
at a place where the courts are open.” Id. at 73.
In
Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. 304, while acknowledging the
President’s pre-eminent role in foreign affairs, the
Supreme Court also acknowledged that that power does not
extend to all domestic affairs. He cannot, for instance,
determine whom to arrest domestically; the scope of the
arrest authority is determined by criminal statutes. Id.
at 330-32. Yet, it is beyond cavil to suggest that
criminal statutes are not subject to judicial review.
In
Justice Murphy’s Korematsu dissent, he reiterated the
principle that “[w]hat are the allowable limits of
military discretion, and whether or not they have been
overstepped in a particular case, are judicial
questions.” 323 U.S. at 234 (citing Sterling v.
Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 401 (1932)). Justice Jackson
also dissented in Korematsu, stating, “I should hold
that a civil court cannot be made to enforce an order
which violates constitutional limitations even if it is
a reasonable exercise of military authority. The courts
can exercise only the judicial power, can apply only
law, and must abide by the Constitution, or they cease
to be civil courts and become instruments of military
policy.” Id. at 247.
As
stated above, in its pre-trial memorandum the Government
relies heavily on the case which Justice Scalia has
rightly criticized as “not the Court’s finest hour”--Quirin.
The Government argues that Quirin establishes the
constitutionality of military detention and punishment
of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. (See, e.g., Gov’t Trial
Mem. at 33-34.)
It
is certainly true that a United States citizen was among
the Germans who landed in Third Reich uniforms on the
beaches of Long Island, New York, with the intention of
proceeding to New York City and detonating explosive
devices. Quirin, 317 U.S. at 7-8. However, those facts
are a far cry from the broad sweep of First Amendment
rights into § 1021(b)(2). Although this Court rejects
the principles of Quirin on the same basis as that so
well-articulated by Justice Scalia, it is bound to
follow this case as Supreme Court precedent if it is
applicable to the question before this Court. It is not.
As
stated, the facts are inapposite. There, the Germans,
who landed in (at least partial) uniform (which they
then buried on the beach) brought the World War II
battlefield to New York soil; they were armed with
destructive devices and following orders of a country
with which the United States was at war. Quirin is not a
case in which an American, not in uniform, carrying
arms, or reporting to a foreign government, was taken
from his home in the United States, and detained by the
military, for writing or having written works speaking
favorably about enemy forces, or for raising questions
regarding the legitimacy of American military actions.
It is those activities which § 1021(b)(2) captures (so
far as one can decipher from the Government’s position).
Quirin is inapposite here.
The Government is wrong to ground a wide-sweeping
ability of the executive branch to subject anyone at all
to military detention in Quirin. That argument
eliminates Constitutional guarantees (under many
provisions of the Constitution) in one fell swoop; it
ignores as irrelevant all of the language, past and
present, regarding limits on executive authority to
arrest and--as applied to First Amendment
activities--would privilege such detention ability above
the prohibition that “Congress shall pass no law . . .
abridging the freedom of speech.” The Government’s
reading of Quirin is therefore both wrong and dangerous
and this Court rejects it.
VII. THE FIRST AMENDMENT
A.
Section 1021(b)(2) Is An Impermissible Content-Based
Restriction
First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the
Constitution and cannot be legislated away. U.S. Const.
amend. I (“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging
the freedom of speech.”); see also Stevens, 130 S. Ct.
at 1584; Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525,
567 (2001) (“There is no de minimis exception for a
speech restriction that lacks sufficient tailoring or
justification.”); United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp.,
Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 812 (2000) (laws designed or
intended to suppress or restrict expression of specific
speakers contradict basic First Amendment principles).
There is no doubt that the First Amendment protects the
spoken and written word as well as the right of free
association. DeJonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353,
365 (1937) (peaceable assembly for lawful discussion
cannot be made a crime); see also New York Times v.
United States, 403 U.S. 713, 724 (1971) (“Open debate
and discussion of public issues are vital to our
national health. On public questions, there should be
‘uninhibited, robust and wide-open’ debate.” (citation
omitted)); Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 708
(1969); United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 263
(1967).
“‘As a general matter, the First Amendment means that
government has no power to restrict expression because
of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its
content.’” United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537,
2542 (2012) (citing Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties
Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002)). In the recent Alvarez
decision, the Supreme Court held that content-based
restrictions of speech are presumed invalid and that the
government bears the burden of showing their
constitutionality. Id. A question for this Court is
whether § 1021(b)(2), with its undefined breadth
capturing both speech and non-speech activities,
actually falls within the category of a content-based
restriction. “[T]he principal inquiry in determining
content neutrality is whether the government has adopted
a regulation of speech because of agreement or
disagreement with the message it conveys.” Turner Board.
Sys., Inc. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm., 512 U.S. 622, 642
(1994) (quotation marks and alterations omitted).
As
this Court stated in its May 16 Opinion, § 1021(b)(2)
does have a legitimate, non-First Amendment aspect:
catching and brining to justice real terrorists.
However, its breadth also captures a substantial amount
of protected speech and associational activities. The
Government’s qualified position regarding plaintiffs’
activities demonstrates that the scope of the statute is
intended to be broad enough to capture some First
Amendment activities. Otherwise, why not have a “saving
clause” as in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A/B? Why not have said
plainly, “No First Amendment activities are captured
within § 1021?” Why, instead, have made such a qualified
statement regarding what are clearly First Amendment
activities? That is, that they will not be subject to §
1021(b)(2) so long as those activities are as they have
described them, if accurate, without more, and
independent? And, why make it clear that such statement
does not apply to any (even similar) future activities?
Section 1021(b)(2) is not a traditionally content-based
restriction; encompassing content is not its only
purpose or achievement. However, covering content is at
least one purpose--and in so covering it “compel[s]
speakers to utter or distribute speech bearing a
particular message.” See Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 512
U.S. at 642. In other words, § 1021(b)(2) has a
content-directed aspect. Accordingly, the Court finds
that § 1021(b)(2) is subject to strict scrutiny. Id.
[38]
To
pass this “most exacting scrutiny,” Turner Broad. Sys.,
Inc., 512 U.S. at 642, § 1021(b)(2) must be “justified
by a compelling government interest” and “narrowly drawn
to serve that interest.” Brown v. Ent’mt Merchants Ass’n,
131 S. Ct. 2729, 2738 (2011). Although there may be a
very compelling government interest--here, the exercise
of detention authority in the war on terror for the
protection of the United States--as set forth below, the
Court finds that § 1021(b)(2) is not narrowly tailored
in any way. The imposition of indefinite military
detention, without the procedural safeguards of precise
definition of what can subject an individual to such
detention (see Part IX infra (discussing plaintiffs’
Fifth Amendment challenge to § 1021(b)(2)’s vagueness)
cannot be said to be narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the
statute does not pass muster under the First Amendment
itself and is unconstitutional for that reason alone.
B.
Plaintiffs Have Made A Valid Facial Challenge
Plaintiffs have made a facial challenge to the
constitutionality of § 1021(b)(2) on the basis that it
violates core rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
This Court agrees that the statute impermissibly
encroaches on the First Amendment and that a facial
challenge is appropriate in these particular factual
circumstances.
As
found as fact by this Court, plaintiffs are writers,
journalists, and activists whose work falls within the
protections of the First Amendment. There has been no
claim by the Government in this case that any of
plaintiffs’ work falls into one of the very narrow
exceptions of protected speech--i.e., speech which
incites violence, or is obscene, defamatory, or
integrally related to criminal behavior. See, e.g.,
Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2544; Stevens, 130 S. Ct. at
1584; Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York
State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 127 (1991); Roth
v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957); Beauharnais v.
Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 254-55 (1952); Brandenburg v.
Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-48 (1969); Giboney v. Empire
Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949); Chaplinsky
v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 57172 (1942). Thus,
while it is certainly the case that not all speech or
associational activities are necessarily protected by
the First Amendment, the Court here finds as a matter of
fact that plaintiffs’ speech and associational
activities are within protected categories (e.g., none
is obscene, defamatory, seeks to incite violence, or is
otherwise integral to a criminal act).
The Government has been on notice of the specifics of
plaintiffs’ claims since receipt of the verified
complaint. Based on the procedures required by this
Court, prior to the March hearing, plaintiffs submitted
sworn declarations setting forth the basis for their
concerns; the Government then had an opportunity to
depose any plaintiff who intended to testify at trial.
The Government also had an opportunity to cross-examine
plaintiffs at the March hearing. Bluntly stated, nothing
was left to the imagination: the Government was on
notice of each of the speech and associational
activities in which each plaintiff engaged.
The Government knew that Hedges was a writer and
journalist whose work took him to the Middle East and
that in connection with his work he associates with
members of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other groups on the
State Department’s Terrorist List; it knew about the
type of articles written by O’Brien that, inter alia,
have commented on aspects of military detention in
Guantanamo; it knew about the associational activities
of Wargalla, and that her organization has been on a
list of terrorist or extremist groups; and it knew about
Jonsdottir’s participation with WikiLeaks, her
anti-(Iraq) war activism, and production of an
anti-(Iraq) war film.
Based on this extensive and detailed prior notice, the
Court takes seriously the Government’s position at the
March hearing that it could not provide any assurance
that such activities would not subject any plaintiff to
detention under § 1021(b)(2). See Hedges, 2012 WL
1721124, at *14-15 (citing Tr. I). That the Government
subsequently changed its position to a qualified one
does not erase the essential point made: First Amendment
activities are not outside of § 1021. [39]
The Government’s initial position vis-à-vis
plaintiffs--and indeed its qualified, second
position--is consistent with the fact that the
Government quite carefully avoids arguing that §
1021(b)(2) does not encompass activities protected by
the First Amendment. Indeed, read in this light, the
qualifications of plaintiffs’ activities “as described,”
“if accurate,” assuming they are “independent,” and
“without more,” indicate that protected speech and
associational activities are within § 1021(b)(2)’s
scope, but provide these plaintiffs with a “limited
pass.” Not once in any of its submissions in this action
or at either the March or August hearings has the
Government said, “First Amendment activities are not
covered and could never be encompassed by § 1021(b)(2).”
Instead, the Government’s arguments against plaintiffs’
overbreadth claim are crafted in terms of whether a
facial challenge is appropriate because of the extent to
which the statute has a legitimate sweep. (Gov’t Trial
Mem. at 33-35.) The Government argues that in the
Court’s May 16 Opinion, this Court did not properly
weigh the legitimate sweep of the statute against any
infringement on First Amendment rights. (Id. at 35.) The
Government attempts to elide the implicit and
extraordinary concession that First Amendment conduct is
captured by § 1021 by referring back to its qualified
position (that these plaintiffs, for the independent
activities they have described, if accurately described,
without more, would not be subject to detention under §
1021). (See Gov’t Trial Mem. at 20.) At the August
hearing, however, the Government made clear that that
assurance was not prospective--even as to protected
First Amendment activities--and went only so far as it
went--which is quite narrow indeed. As set forth below,
the Government’s arguments fail.
In
Stevens, the Government similarly argued, “Whether a
given category of speech enjoys First Amendment
protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the
value of that speech against its societal costs.” 130 S.
Ct. at 1585. Justice Roberts wrote,
As a
free-floating test for First Amendment coverage,
that sentence is startling and dangerous. The First
Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend
only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc
balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The
First Amendment reflects a judgment by the American
people that the benefits of its restrictions on the
Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution
forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment
simply on the basis that some speech is not worth
it.
Id.; accord Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2543-44.
In
the recent Alvarez decision, the Supreme Court similarly
rejected such an argument:
Permitting the
government to decree this speech to be a criminal
offense . . . would endorse government authority to
compile a list of subjects about which false
statements are punishable. That governmental power
has no clear limiting principle. Our constitutional
tradition stands against the idea that we need
Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.
Id. at 2547 (citation omitted). “The mere potential for
the exercise of that power casts a chill, a chill the
First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought
and discourse are to remain a foundation of our
freedom.” Id. at 2548. The Court then expounded,
The First
Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to
speech we do not like. . . . Society has the right
and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic and
rational discourse. These ends are not well served
when the government seeks to orchestrate public
discussion through content-based mandates.
Id. at 2550. Justice Kennedy noted that prior decisions
cannot be taken as establishing a “freewheeling
authority to declare new categories of speech outside
the scope of the First Amendment.” Id. at 2547 (citing
Stevens, 130 S. Ct. at 1586).
In
speech cases, this Court must ask whether a “substantial
number of [a statute’s] applications” are
unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s
plainly legitimate sweep. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. at 1587
(citing Washington State Grange v. Washington State
Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 n.6 (2008)). The
Government argues that this Court’s May 16 Opinion found
that § 1021 has a plainly legitimate sweep. (Gov’t Trial
Mem. at 33.) That is correct with respect to the portion
of § 1021 directed at prosecuting and detaining those
involved in the attacks on September 11, 2001, and where
§ 1021(b)(2) can be read to cover members of al-Qaeda
fighting U.S. forces on a battlefield outside of U.S.
territory. However, the Government errs in its argument
that this legitimate sweep ends plaintiffs’ facial
challenge. (Gov’t Trial Mem. at 34.)
The determinative question for this Court is the one
posed in Stevens, as stated above--whether §
1021(b)(2)’s “plainly legitimate sweep” is outweighed by
its “substantial number of” unconstitutional
applications. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. at 1587; see also U.S.
v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 293 (2008). How is a court to
make such a measurement?
In
Stevens, the Supreme Court acknowledged that a court
cannot undertake the analysis without “first knowing”
what the statute covers. Id. at 1587 (citing Williams,
553 U.S. at 293). Despite the Government’s assurances
that the statute at issue was not aimed at the conduct
the Supreme Court focused on (hunting), the Court
nonetheless found that the statute had an “alarming
breadth.” Id. at 1588. So too here. As the Second
Circuit recently stated in Commack Self-Service Kosher
Meats v. Hooker, 680 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2012), “When a
statute is capable of reaching expression sheltered by
the First Amendment,” a greater degree of specificity is
required so that parties may know what actions may fall
within the parameters of a statute. Id. at 213. Section
1021(b)(2) is devoid of the required specificity.
In
addition, in Robel, the Supreme Court affirmed a finding
that a section of the Subversive Activities Control Act
impermissibly tread on First Amendment rights. The Court
reiterated the principle that “precision of regulation
must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching
our most precious freedoms.” 389 U.S. at 265 (citation
omitted). In Robel, the Court noted that it was not
unmindful of congressional concern over the danger of
sabotage in national defense industries, but noted that
Congress needed to have a more narrowly drawn statute.
“The Constitution and the basic position of First
Amendment rights in our democratic fabric demand nothing
less.” Id. at 267-68.
Further, courts should look at such restrictive
regulations with exacting scrutiny and ask whether it is
“actually necessary” to achieve its interests. Alvarez,
132 S. Ct. at 2549. Here, § 1021(b)(2) does not meet
that standard. As set forth above, there is no reason §
1021 could not have a definitional framework that
excludes protected conduct. Moreover, there are a
variety of criminal statutes that capture speech or
associational activities which are involved in criminal
activities. There is no reason for § 1021(b)(2) to
encroach on protected First Amendment rights.
The Government points to Williams in support of its
contention that § 1021(b)(2) is facially valid. (See
Gov’t Trial Mem. at 34-35.) In Williams, the Supreme
Court upheld a facial challenge to a criminal child
pornography statute. The statute was challenged as
overbroad under the First Amendment and impermissibly
vague under the Fifth. In finding the statute
constitutional, the Supreme Court relied on the fact
that simply the ability to conceive of some
impermissible applications was insufficient to establish
that the statute was overbroad. 553 U.S. at 303. Here,
unlike in Williams, there is a trial record setting
forth specific First Amendment conduct that the
Government initially would not say was outside of §
1021’s scope--but later said, perhaps the conduct would
be outside of its scope, but only if such activities met
certain qualifications. Plaintiffs’ activities are
known. This is not a situation as that in Williams
requiring imagination or speculation.
Section 1021 must be measured against the backdrop of
the other, numerous statutes which are targeted more
directly at criminal conduct associated with terrorist
activity, and of the fact that the AUMF continues in
force and effect. None of those other statutes have been
found to have encompassed protected speech.
Notably, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, the criminal statute
discussed above (and in Holder) aimed at proscribing
“material support” of terrorists, has a First Amendment
saving clause. Section 1021 does not. There is a
“catch-all” clause at the end of the statute: “Nothing
in this section is intended to limit or expand the
authority of the President or the scope of the [AUMF].”
NDAA § 1021(d). What does § 1021(d) really accomplish?
Nothing of significance. The premise of § 1021(b)(2) is
wrong--and, therefore, its logic (including § 1021(d))
misses. The title of § 1021 suggests that it is a
“reaffirmation” of the AUMF. As stated earlier and
throughout this Opinion, it is not. To the extent
Congress understood that the Executive’s unilateral
expansion of the interpretation of the AUMF fit within
the original authorization granted to the President, it
was mistaken.
Thus, if § 1021(b)(2) is actually intended to do
anything at all new, its sweep in regards to First
Amendment rights is substantial, and is substantial in
relation to whatever new activity is captured by §
1021(b)(2). The Government’s reluctance to define the
scope of § 1021 leaves a one-sided evidentiary record in
favor of plaintiffs as well as an ineluctable outcome
for this Court. In other words, the Court finds that §
1021(b)(2) is new. There is a logical flaw in stating an
intention not to expand authority when Congress has set
forth what is, in fact, new and broad authority. See
Stevens, 130 S. Ct. at 1590 (finding a saving clause
inadequate when it required an unrealistically broad
reading of the clause). [40]
It
is all the more difficult for plaintiffs, citizens
generally, or this Court to feel confident in a
determination as to § 1021(b)(2)’s scope when so many of
its terms remain undefined. This Court discusses the
terms “substantially supported,” “associated forces,”
and “directly supported” below. Their vagueness presents
constitutional concerns pursuant to the Fifth Amendment,
but also supports plaintiffs’ arguments here with
respect to the First Amendment: if a plaintiff does not
know what “substantially support” means, could a news
article taken as favorable to the Taliban, and garnering
support for the Taliban, be considered to have
“substantially supported” the Taliban? How about a
YouTube video? Where is the line between what the
Government would consider “journalistic reporting” and
“propaganda”? What does “independent” mean? Would being
paid by Al-Jazeera to do a series of articles run afoul
of § 1021(b)(2)? Who will make such determinations? Will
there be an office established to read articles, watch
videos, and evaluate speeches in order to make judgments
along a spectrum of where the support is “modest” or
“substantial”? What if the article is written in New
York City and sent over the Internet? Can the Government
then choose whether to pursue the writer under §
1021(b)(2) and impose indefinite military detention, or
can it choose to prosecute under 18 U.S.C. §§
2339A-2339B with full constitutional guarantees? [41]
These questions demonstrate only a few of the real
problems with a statute that captures some amount of
undefined activities protected by the First Amendment.
See Bd. of Airport Comm’rs of the City of L.A. v. Jews
for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569 (1987)(affirming facial
invalidation of a statute that reached a substantial
amount of protected speech); Schaumberg v. Citizens for
a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620 (1980)(affirming a facial
invalidation of a statute on First Amendment grounds).
The type and amount of speech and associational
activities in which plaintiffs engage are varied. The
Government has not stated that such conduct--which, by
analogy, covers any writing, journalistic and
associational activities that involve al-Qaeda, the
Taliban or whomever is deemed “associated forces”--does
not fall within § 1021(b)(2). Accordingly, this Court
finds that a substantial amount of conduct relative to
the statute’s legitimate sweep is captured. This is not
a mathematically precise exercise, nor could it be given
the lack of § 1021(b)(2)’s definitional structure.
IX. THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND DUE PROCESS
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court reiterated that a
“fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws
which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice
of conduct that is forbidden or required.” See Fed.
Commc’ns Comm. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S.
Ct. 2307, 2317 (2012). People of common intelligence
must not have to guess at the meaning of a statute that
may subject them to penalties. Id. (citing Connally v.
Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)). “This
requirement in clarity in regulation is essential to the
protections provided by the due process clause of the
Fifth Amendment.” Id. (citing Williams, 553 U.S. at
304).
If
the vagueness of a statute leaves a person of ordinary
intelligence in doubt, as to what conduct falls within
or is excluded from its scope, it is impermissibly
vague. Id. Such statutes also may allow or require
predictable subjective judgments by law enforcement
authorities as to when to enforce and when not. Id. The
question is not whether a statute makes it difficult to
prove an incriminating fact, but whether there is doubt
as to what fact must be proved. Id.
In
Fox, the Supreme Court stated, “Just as in the First
Amendment context, the due process protections against
vague statutes prevent parties from being at the mercy
of noblesse oblige.” 132 S. Ct. at 2318 (citing Stevens,
130 S. Ct. at 1591). The degree of vagueness that the
Constitution tolerates depends in part on the nature of
the enactment. See Rothenberg v. Daus, No. 10-4411-cv,
2012 WL 1970438, at *2 (2d Cir. July 27, 2012)(citing
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455
U.S. 489, 498 (1982)).
Plaintiffs have asserted that they do not understand the
terms “substantially supported,” “directly supported,”
or “associated forces.” The Court finds that plaintiffs
who testified are individuals of at least of common
intelligence. The Court finds credible their testimony
that they do not understand what these undefined words
mean in the statute.
The reasonableness of this position is self-evident.
When the Government was asked by the Court what the
words “substantially supported” mean, it was unable to
provide a definition; the same was true for “directly
supported.” [42 There can be no doubt, then, these terms
are vague. The Government did offer that “associated
forces” should be defined according to the law of war,
though the Court notes that in the March 2009 Memorandum
the Government conceded that even in the war on terror,
the laws of war are not well-defined. (See March 2009
Mem. at 1 (“This body of law, however, is less
well-codified with respect to our current, novel type of
armed conflict against armed groups such as al-Qaida and
the Taliban.”).)
In
response to plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment challenge, the
Government argues two seemingly contradictory points:
(1) that military detention statutes are necessarily
vague and are therefore not susceptible to a vagueness
analysis (Gov’t Trial Mem. at 37), but also (2) that
“properly construed,” the statute is not impermissibly
vague (id. at 40).
In
formulating its argument that § 1021 is not susceptible
to a vagueness challenge, the Government essentially
concedes the statute’s vagueness: “[a]uthorizations of
military force (which encompass detention authority,
[citation omitted]) are always, and necessarily, stated
in general terms.” (Gov’t Trial Mem. at 37-38.) In
support of that position the Government cites a variety
of statutes that were used to authorize the use of force
against Vietnam, Germany (1917), Japan (1941), Spain
(1898), Mexico (1812) and Britain (1812). (Id. at 38 n.
24.) These statutes, of course, were authorizations for
this country to engage in war or open hostilities with
foreign governments (or organized foreign entities
seeking recognition as the “government”); not one of
those statutes authorized indefinite military detention
of U.S. citizens for conduct that could occur in their
own home in New York City, Washington, D.C., Toledo, Los
Angeles--anywhere in this land.
As
discussed above, in comparing § 1021(b)(2) to the AUMF,
it is incorrect to suggest that § 1021(b)(2) is a simple
reaffirmation of the AUMF. It does more: it has a
broader scope and directly refers to the law of war as
an interpretive background. Section 1021(b)(2), which
describes a category of “covered person” who can be
detained, does not exclude American citizens, and is not
limited to individuals on the field of battle or who
bear arms. It is unlike the military force authorization
statutes the Government cites in its pre-trial
memorandum.
To
the extent that § 1021(b)(2) purports to confer
authority to detain American citizens for activities
occurring purely on American soil, it necessarily
becomes akin to a criminal statute, and therefore
susceptible to a vagueness analysis. Constitutional
guarantees require that criminal statutes carry an array
of due process protections. If it did not, then § 1021
must be interpreted as follows: Congress has declared
that the U.S. is involved in a war on terror that
reaches into territorial boundaries of the United
States, the President is authorized to use all necessary
force against anyone he deems involved in activities
supporting enemy combatants, and therefore criminal laws
and due process are suspended for any acts falling
within the broad purview of what might constitute
“substantially” or “directly supporting” terrorist
organizations. If this is what Congress in fact intended
by § 1021(b)(2), no doubt it goes too far. Although §
1021(b)(2) does not, strictly speaking, suspend the writ
of habeas corpus, it eliminates all other
constitutionally-required due process (indeed, leaving
only the writ).
The Government argues that the types of concerns that
give rise to vagueness challenges cannot be squared with
military-force authorization: § 1021 is designed to
prevent those engaged in hostilities against the United
States from returning to the field of battle, it does
not proscribe particular criminal conduct. (Gov’t Trial
Mem. at 39.) This argument dangerously elevates form
over substance.
There can be no doubt that § 1021 provides that if an
individual “substantially supports” the Taliban, he or
she can be detained indefinitely. That certainly sets
forth a penalty for conduct that is, accordingly,
proscribed by virtue of the penalty of indefinite
military detention without trial. In any event, if all
that § 1021(b)(2) is doing is stating that although it
does not proscribe conduct, it can be the basis for a
citizen’s indefinite military detention, then it makes
no sense to argue that a citizen cannot challenge that
statute on vagueness grounds. A citizen has just as much
interest--indeed, perhaps more--in understanding what
conduct could subject him or her to indefinite military
detention without a trial as he or she does in
understanding the parameters of a traditional criminal
statute that carries a statutory maximum term of
imprisonment and cannot be enforced in the absence of
full criminal due process rights.
In
Hamdi, the Supreme Court made its position perfectly
clear: “We reaffirm today the fundamental nature of a
citizen’s right to be free from involuntary confinement
by his own government without due process of law.” 542
U.S. at 531. The Court confirmed that if a citizen has
actually fought with the enemy and is detained on the
battlefield, the law of war and realities of combat may
render military detention necessary and appropriate. Id.
The Court stated:
Striking the
proper constitutional balance here is of great
importance to the Nation during this period of
ongoing combat. But it is equally vital that our
calculus not give short shrift to the values that
this country holds dear or to the privilege that is
American citizenship. It is during our most
challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation’s
commitment to due process is most severely tested;
and it is in those times that we must preserve our
commitment at home to the principles for which we
fight abroad.
Id. at 532 (citations omitted). In Robel, the Supreme
Court stated a similar principle: “It would indeed be
ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would
sanction the subversion of one of those liberties . . .
which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.” 389
U.S. at 264.
At
the August hearing, the Government argued that this
Court’s role with respect to § 1021(b)(2) should be
limited to consideration of a detainee’s petition for
release pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus. That
argument is premised upon an extraordinary proposition:
that American citizens detained pursuant to § 1021 are
not entitled to the presumption of innocence and
requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. In other words, relegating a court simply to a
habeas review means that the detainee has been divested
of fundamental due process rights. This becomes clear
with reference to the fact that the Government’s burden
of proof with respect to habeas petitions is
“preponderance of the evidence,” not “beyond a
reasonable doubt” as required for criminal convictions.
See, e.g., Almerfedi v. Obama, 654 F. 3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir.
2011)(preponderance of the evidence standard applies to
habeas petitions); [43] see also Al-Odah v. U.S., 611
F.3d 8, 13-14 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (preponderance of the
evidence standard is constitutional in evaluating a
habeas petition from a Guantanamo detainee). A
“preponderance standard” simply asks whether a fact is
more likely than not--51 percent likely--versus beyond a
reasonable doubt.
This Court rejects the Government’s suggestion that
American citizens can be placed in military detention
indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might
subject them to detention, and have as their sole remedy
a habeas petition adjudicated by a single decision-maker
(a judge versus a jury), by a “preponderance of the
evidence” standard. That scenario dispenses with a
number of guaranteed rights.
In
its pre-trial memorandum, the Government spends only one
page of a 49-page memorandum defending the language of §
1021(b)(2). (Gov’t Trial Mem. at 41-42.) The Government
fails adequately to address why there is no requirement
for knowing conduct, to provide any specificity as to
what substantial support means and how that might
compare, for instance, to material support as defined in
18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A-2339B. It never addresses the phrase
“directly support” and it never addresses the fact that
“associated forces” is a moving target. [44]
At
the March hearing and in prior memoranda submitted in
this matter, the Government had argued that the terms
“substantially supported,” “directly supported,” and
“associated forces” had all been previously defined in
case law. This argument is absent from the Government’s
pre-trial memorandum (though it may be implicit in its
statement that § 1021 should be read “in context”). (See
Gov’t Trial Mem. at 42.) In fact, the terms as used in §
1021(b)(2) have not been previously defined in case law;
no case provides a solid reference point for the
Government’s position.
First, the Government conceded at the March hearing that
there is no case that dealt with what “directly
supported” means. Tr. I at 216. That language first
appears in the March 2009 Memorandum.
Second, no court has defined “substantial support.”
There are cases in which detention pursuant to an
allegation of “material[] support” is at issue. See,
e.g., Al-Bihani, 590 F.3d at 873. In Al-Bihani, the D.C.
Circuit specifically rejected the wholesale importation
of the “laws of war” into domestic law. It found,
however, that the 2006 and 2009 MCAs provided for
military detention of those individuals who
“purposefully and materially supported” enemy
belligerents of the United States or its coalition
partners (the MCAs are not, however, statutes
authorizing the use of military force). At the August
hearing in this action, the Government stated that the
MCA plays no role in the case before this Court. This
Court agrees: the phrase “materially supported” as used
in Al-Bihani does not shed light on the interpretation
of “substantial support,” as used in § 1021(b)(2).
Moreover, even in the MCA there is a requirement that
the “material support” be purposeful. Notably, §
1021(b)(2) does not require that the conduct which could
subject an individual to detention be “knowing” or
“purposeful.”
Finally, in terms of “associated forces,” at the March
hearing, the Government referred repeatedly to that term
being defined by the laws of war. See Tr. I at 216-17.
Of course, as the Supreme Court said in Hamdi, the laws
of war are not and should not be part of the domestic
laws of the United States. In addition, however,
“associated forces” is an undefined, moving target,
subject to change and subjective judgment. It would be
very straightforward for Congress to alleviate this
vagueness by tethering the term to a definition of (for
instance) specific organizations.
Accordingly, the respective meanings of the terms at
issue are unknown; the scope of § 1021(b)(2) is
therefore vague; but the penalty of running afoul of it
is severe. Section 1021(b)(2) is, therefore,
impermissibly vague under the Fifth Amendment.
X.
PERMANENT INJUCTIVE RELIEF
Section § 1021(b)(2) violates rights guaranteed by the
First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution. The Court turns finally to the
question of appropriate relief. Plaintiffs have sought
only injunctive relief.
In
its May 16 Opinion, this Court preliminarily enjoined
enforcement of § 1021(b)(2) and invited Congress to
amend the statute to rectify its infirmities. See
Hedges, 2012 WL 1721124, at *2, *27, *28. To date,
Congress has not passed any amendments.
The Supreme Court has set out a four-part test for a
determination as to the appropriateness of permanent
injunctive relief: plaintiffs must demonstrate (1) that
they have or imminently will suffer irreparable injury,
(2) that monetary damages will not redress the injury,
(3) that, considering the balance of hardships between
the plaintiffs and Government, injunctive relief is
warranted, and (4) that the public interest would not be
disserved by the issuance of an injunction. See Monsanto
Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2756
(2010); eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388,
391 (2006). Plaintiffs meet each of those factors.
In
this case, there is a factual record developed at a full
evidentiary hearing upon which the Court can rely. As
stated above, the Government chose not to submit any
evidence whatsoever in support of its position, but
relies on legal argument and cross-examination. The
Court’s determinations regarding the elements plaintiffs
must meet for issuance of a permanent injunction are
based on its factual findings.
The factual record demonstrates that plaintiffs have
already been harmed and will continue to be harmed by
potential enforcement of § 1021(b)(2). At the trial of
this matter, Hedges, O’Brien, Wargalla, and Jonsdottir
all testified to facts showing a chilling of their
written, oral or associational activities. That is
actual injury. Moreover, each of the plaintiffs expects
to continue to engage in the same activities as he or
she has in the past. Thus, whatever strength one can
attribute to the assurances the Government provided,
those assurances explicitly do not apply to any First
Amendment activities that were not stated at the March
hearing, that have happened since, or will happen in the
future. Plaintiffs’ injury is imminent and ongoing. The
law considers injury to First Amendment rights to
constitute irreparable harm. Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373;
Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 81-82 (2010).
In
addition, imprisonment without trial and for an
indefinite period certainly constitutes irreparable
harm. A plaintiff need not wait until such detention has
occurred to challenge the statute. See Holder, 130 S.
Ct. at 2717.
The second element is also easily met. Plaintiffs are
not suing--nor could they–-for monetary damages. They
are suing to prevent indefinite military detention.
Should such detention occur, money damages would never
be adequate as a matter of law. Cf. Illinois Migrant
Council v. Pilliod, 540 F.2d 1062, 1071 (7th Cir. 1976)
(finding that monetary damages were insufficient to
compensate the plaintiffs--a class of persons of Mexican
ancestry--who had been subject to illegal stops and
interrogations by the INS in violation of the Fourth
Amendment).
The balance of the hardships also clearly weighs in
plaintiffs’ favor. The Government already has ample
authorization to pursue those actually involved in the
attacks on September 11, 2001, and it has a host of
criminal statutes (referred to above) that it can use to
prosecute those who engage in a variety of activities
that endanger lives or constitute terrorism. According
to the Government, § 1021 is merely a reaffirmation of
the AUMF--a position with which the Court disagrees. If,
however, the Government is taken at its word, then
enjoining its ability to enforce § 1021(b)(2) removes no
tools from the Government’s arsenal. Most importantly,
since Congress may pass no law abridging rights
guaranteed by the First Amendment, enjoining enforcement
of a statute that does just that cannot deprive Congress
or the executive branch of that which they have no right
to have.
The last element relates to the weighing of the public
interest: does the public have a greater interest in
preservation of its First Amendment and due process
rights that are infringed by § 1021(b)(2), or in having
the statute potentially available for use by law
enforcement authorities? Here too, the fact that,
according to the Government, § 1021(b)(2) adds nothing
new to their authority, is decisive. Enjoining the
statute will therefore not endanger the public. The
Government did not put forward any evidence at trial
that it needed the statute for law enforcement efforts;
in contrast, plaintiffs did present evidence that First
Amendment rights have already been harmed and will be
harmed by the prospect of § 1021(b)(2) being enforced.
The public has a strong and undoubted interest in the
clear preservation of First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Accordingly, this Court finds that plaintiffs have met
the requirements for issuance of permanent injunctive
relief.
XI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this Court permanently
enjoins enforcement of § 1021(b)(2) in any manner, as to
any person. [45] The Court invites Congress to examine
whether there are amendments that might cure the
statute/s deficiencies I or whether, in light of
existing authorization and existing criminal statutes§
1021 is needed at all.
This Court has stated its position, as directly
presented to it by the Government I that the AUMF and §
1021(b) (2) are not the same; they are not co-extensive.
Military detention based on allegations of
"substantially supporting" or "directly supporting" the
Talibanl al-Qaeda or associated forces, is not
encompassed within the AUMF and is enjoined by this
Order regarding § 1021(b) (2). No detention based upon §
1021(b) (2) can occur.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this
action.
SO
ORDERED:
Dated: New York, New York
September 12, 2012
Katherine B. Forrest
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
_______________
Notes:
27. The majority in
Hamdi cites Quirin approvingly. As set forth below, the
facts of that case are inapposite to those before this
Court. This Court references Justice Scalia’s criticism
of Quirin as further support for the fact that
plaintiffs, who are not Supreme Court Justices, could
similarly reasonably believe that the AUMF (even against
the backdrop of Quirin) does not provide a sweeping
basis for broad domestic detention authority by the
Executive.
28. In American
Booksellers, the statute at issue required a “knowing
display” of certain materials. 484 U.S. at 383. The
lower court found that 95 percent of the conduct of the
booksellers would not be affected by the statute; a
finding of a five percent impact was sufficient for its
facial invalidation. Moreover, in that case, the
evidence adduced at the preliminary injunction hearing
also constituted the evidence for the trial on the
merits. Id. at 389.
29. As this Court
found in its May 16 Opinion, § 1021(b)(2) is equivalent
to a criminal statute--without the due process
protections afforded by one. See Hedges, 2012 WL
1721124, at *18. There is no conceivable doubt that the
possibility of being placed in indefinite military
detention is the equivalent of a criminal penalty.
Indeed, perhaps in many circumstances, worse.
30. In an analogous
situation, courts have held that even voluntary
cessation of illegal conduct has not eliminated
standing. See Linton v. Comm’r of Health & Env’t, 30
F.3d 55, 57 (6th Cir. 1994) (“It is well-established
that voluntary termination of unlawful conduct will not
automatically remove the opposing party’s standing.”).
31. The Government
argues that the Court’s questions improperly shift the
burden of establishing standing from plaintiffs to the
Government. The Court posed those questions to the
Government after plaintiffs had testified credibly
regarding their reasonable fear of prosecution under §
1021(b)(2). The questions were asked to provide the
Government with an opportunity to rebut plaintiffs’
reasonable fear--i.e., the Court had, subsequent to
plaintiffs’ testimony, determined that plaintiffs’ fear
of detention under § 1021(b)(2) was reasonable, unless
the Government could rebut such a showing. Those
questions were the Court providing the Government with
just such an opportunity; in no way was the Court
alleviating plaintiffs of their burden.
32. The party seeking
to have a case dismissed as moot bears a heavy burden.
United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633
(1953).
33. Three plaintiffs
are not American citizens (O’Brien, Wargalla, and
Jonsdottir). However, their First Amendment activities
do occur on U.S. soil, including via the Internet or
travel to speeches.
34. There is an
exception to the general mootness doctrine that provides
a separate basis for declining to find this case
moot--i.e., when an action is capable of repetition but
is likely to evade review. See Murphy, 455 U.S. at 482.
It is indisputable that any future Attorney General--or
even the current one--may decide to change enforcement
practices. The fact that such a “change of mind” could
be coupled with indefinite military detention militates
against a finding of mootness. The Court has found as a
factual matter that these plaintiffs have engaged in
activities about which the Government originally could
give no assurances--and that they will continue to
engage in similar activities in the future. The
Government has explicitly declined to provide any
assurances regarding any of plaintiffs’ future
activities.
35. The Government’s
argument regarding the President’s role in foreign
affairs is particularly inapposite in the context of a
statute in which a critical question is the legitimacy
of its applicability to, inter alia, activities by
Americans or on American soil.
36. See, e.g.,
Al-Bihani, 590 F.3d at 869 (acknowledging the
petitioner’s 2001 detention), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct.
1814 (2011).
37. At the time that
he signed the NDAA into law, President Obama issued a
signing statement with respect to § 1021 in which he
stated that he would not subject American citizens to
indefinite military detention “without trial.” This is a
carefully worded statement--it is not saying that the
President will not detain American citizens under §
1021--or what type of trial (with what rights) that
individual might have. In any event, nothing prevents
him from changing his mind since “signing statements”
are not law; and a new administration could certainly
take a different position.
38. Even if the Court
were to find that § 1021(b)(2) is not directed at
speech, it still would find that speech is captured on
the fringe of § 1021(b)(2) and thus, “imposes burdens on
speech” that are “greater than [that which] is essential
to the furtherance” of a governmental interest. Turner,
512 U.S. at 642, 662 (quotation marks omitted).
39. Plaintiffs also
assert claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, which
makes the First and Fifth Amendment applicable to the
states. That amendment does not actually provide
plaintiffs a separate claim with separate elements.
40. The closest § 1021
comes to having a “saving clause” is § 1021(e): “Nothing
in this section shall be construed to affect existing
law or authorities relating to the detention of United
States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United
States, or any other persons who are captures or
arrested in the United States.” NDAA § 1021(e) (emphasis
added). That saving clause, however, relates only to
detention, specifically. Had Congress omitted the
language emphasized above, the Court would not be
entertaining this action as the “saving clause” would
then encompass the First Amendment.
41. The Court notes
that although 18 U.S.C. § 2339A contains a First
Amendment saving clause, the recent indictment handed
down in this District against Minh Quang Pham is based
upon the transmission of “propaganda.” Indictment,
United States v. Pham, 12 Civ. 423 (S.D.N.Y. May 24,
2012)
42. This deficit was
particularly odd in light of the Government’s contention
that § 1021(b)(2) has been part of the AUMF for a
decade; one would think that if that were so, then
definitions would be readily available.
43. In Almerfedi,
after a seven year detention, the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (Judge Friedman),
found that the Government had not proven that it was
more probable than not that Almerfedi was purposefully
part of or materially supported the Taliban or al-Qaeda;
the Court of Appeals reversed. See Almerfedi, 654 F.3d
at 8 n.2. Almerfedi was alleged to be an al-Qaeda
“facilitator” who frequented al-Qaeda guesthouses in
Iran and helped fighters infiltrate Afghanistan. The
district court found the Government’s evidence in
support of these allegations insufficient based on a
preponderance of the evidence. The Court of Appeals
reversed--finding that the district court had made an
error in its legal application of the preponderance
standard by weighing evidence piece by piece rather than
as a whole, and reversed with directions to deny the
petition. On June 11, 2012, the Supreme Court denied
certiorari. Almerfedi v. Obama, No. 11-683, 2012 WL
2076354 (June 11, 2012).
44. On the one hand,
in its pre-trial memorandum the Government argues that §
1021(b)(2) is “tied to military action against al-Qaeda
and Taliban forces authorized by the AUMF.” (Gov’t Trial
Mem. at 42.) However, this argument is carefully crafted
and does not exclude the concept of associated forces.
45. Plaintiffs assert
five causes of action (see Verified Am. Compl. ~~ 29-44
(Dkt. No. 4-1)}, only four of which are addressed by
this Opinion. Plaintiffs did not pursue Count II (a
Fifth Amendment challenge to rendition of covered
persons) and thus that claim is deemed abandoned for
purposes of this proceeding.
Return to Table of Contents