SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Speaking before a panel of three judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit, Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny
They argue that when a legal opinion is adopted by an agency as legal justification for its action, the opinion loses its advisory nature and is thus subject to disclosure. Failure to do so amounts to what senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) refer to as "secret law."
"The OLC opinion at issue in this case set forth for the executive branch an authoritative, controlling interpretation of federal surveillance and privacy statutes," argued EFF staff attorney Mark Rumold.
"In its cover letter to McClatchy, the Office of Legal Counsel disclosed more detail about its legal position, specifying a section of a 1978 federal wiretapping law that the Justice Department believes gives the FBI the authority," the paper reports. "That section of the law appears to be what was redacted from the inspector general's report and reveals the type of records the FBI would be seeking."
They continue:
Nonetheless, Tenny told the judges Tuesday "there's no evidence" that the FBI relied on the memo after it was issued.
"There's no evidence that the FBI ever did anything to anyone in the public based on the rationale in this OLC opinion," he said.
The opinion, he said, is "classic deliberative process material."
_____________________
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Speaking before a panel of three judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit, Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny
They argue that when a legal opinion is adopted by an agency as legal justification for its action, the opinion loses its advisory nature and is thus subject to disclosure. Failure to do so amounts to what senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) refer to as "secret law."
"The OLC opinion at issue in this case set forth for the executive branch an authoritative, controlling interpretation of federal surveillance and privacy statutes," argued EFF staff attorney Mark Rumold.
"In its cover letter to McClatchy, the Office of Legal Counsel disclosed more detail about its legal position, specifying a section of a 1978 federal wiretapping law that the Justice Department believes gives the FBI the authority," the paper reports. "That section of the law appears to be what was redacted from the inspector general's report and reveals the type of records the FBI would be seeking."
They continue:
Nonetheless, Tenny told the judges Tuesday "there's no evidence" that the FBI relied on the memo after it was issued.
"There's no evidence that the FBI ever did anything to anyone in the public based on the rationale in this OLC opinion," he said.
The opinion, he said, is "classic deliberative process material."
_____________________
Speaking before a panel of three judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit, Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny
They argue that when a legal opinion is adopted by an agency as legal justification for its action, the opinion loses its advisory nature and is thus subject to disclosure. Failure to do so amounts to what senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) refer to as "secret law."
"The OLC opinion at issue in this case set forth for the executive branch an authoritative, controlling interpretation of federal surveillance and privacy statutes," argued EFF staff attorney Mark Rumold.
"In its cover letter to McClatchy, the Office of Legal Counsel disclosed more detail about its legal position, specifying a section of a 1978 federal wiretapping law that the Justice Department believes gives the FBI the authority," the paper reports. "That section of the law appears to be what was redacted from the inspector general's report and reveals the type of records the FBI would be seeking."
They continue:
Nonetheless, Tenny told the judges Tuesday "there's no evidence" that the FBI relied on the memo after it was issued.
"There's no evidence that the FBI ever did anything to anyone in the public based on the rationale in this OLC opinion," he said.
The opinion, he said, is "classic deliberative process material."
_____________________