SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 12 2009, 02:39pm EDT
Contact:
Matthew Allee, (202) 580-6922 or mallee@constitutionproject.org
Constitution Project Dismayed by Department of Justice Request for Review of State Secrets Case
Ninth Circuit previously rejected administration's far-reaching state secrets claim in Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan
WASHINGTON
The Obama administration filed a brief today seeking a full bench, or en banc, review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision earlier this year in Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan. In April, the Court rejected the administration's claim that the "very subject matter" of a case alleging torture is a state secret. The Constitution Project praised the Court's decision and is troubled by the Obama administration's continued adoption of an overly-broad assertion of the state secrets privilege, as exhibited by today's filing.
"The Obama administration's decision to continue to press its overly-expansive state secrets claim undermines the new administration's commitment to transparency, accountability and the rule of law," said Sharon Bradford Franklin, Constitution Project Senior Counsel. "We are very disappointed by the Department of Justice's continued assertion of the Bush administration interpretation of the privilege as an immunity doctrine. The Ninth Circuit's decision in April properly recognized the critical role of courts in checking executive branch secrecy claims. The bedrock of our nation's government is a system of checks and balances - a system that is undermined by the overbroad version of the state secrets privilege asserted by the Obama administration."
Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan concerns allegations by five people that defense contractor Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of Boeing, flew them to a foreign country where they were tortured as part of the CIA's extraordinary rendition program. The Bush administration intervened in the case on behalf of Jeppesen, seeking dismissal of the lawsuit on the basis of the state secrets privilege. The Obama administration has adopted the Bush administration's broad claim for dismissal of the entire lawsuit, claiming the very subject matter is a state secret.
In February, just before oral argument, the Constitution Project called on Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse the position taken by the Bush administration in this case, and to consent to having the trial judge in the Jeppesen lawsuit review the evidence claimed to be secret and determine whether enough non-privileged evidence is available for the case to proceed. To see the letter sent to the attorney general, go to:
https://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/Letter_to_Holder_Regarding_Mohamed_v_Jeppesen_Dataplan.pdf
In 2007, the Constitution Project released a report signed by a broad bipartisan coalition that endorsed reforming the state secrets privilege. The report is available at:
https://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/52.pdf
The Constitution Project is a politically independent think tank established in 1997 to promote and defend constitutional safeguards. More information about the Constitution Project is available at https://constitutionproject.org/.
LATEST NEWS
Labor Unions Worldwide Applaud ICJ Ruling Affirming Workers' Right to Strike
One Somali labor federation said the ruling "represents a major victory for workers, trade unions, and social justice across the world."
May 22, 2026
Labor leaders around the world cheered Thursday's landmark World Court ruling affirming that the right to strike is protected under international law.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled 10-4 in an advisory opinion—meaning it's not legally binding—that “the right to strike of workers and their organizations is protected” under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention of 1948, also known as International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 87.
However, the tribunal also declared that its finding "does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right."
The case originated with a 2023 request by the ILO Governing Body amid disagreement among the agency's three constituencies—governments, workers, and employers—over the right to strike.
"For decades, this issue has generated one of the deepest disputes within the ILO's tripartite structure... creating a deadlock over the interpretation of international labor standards," explained Kenyan labor law expert Ayaga Max Liambilah.
"Workers and trade unions argued that the right to organize becomes ineffective without the ability to strike, viewing strikes as essential tools for collective bargaining and protection of workers' interests," he said. "Employers' organizations, particularly the International Organization of Employers (IOE), maintained that Convention 87 does not expressly include a right to strike and that reading it into the convention creates obligations never explicitly negotiated by states."
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) representative Paapa Danquah told the court during proceedings that “strike action has been our vital tool... to improve labor conditions and to defend our human dignities."
IOE secretary general Roberto Suárez Santos countered that Convention 87 does not explicitly address the right to strike. After the court's decision, he underscored that the tribunal did not rule on the "precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right.”
Unions and workers around the world welcomed the ICJ decision.
“We thank the World Court for this advisory opinion," said ITUC secretary general Luc Triangle, whose organization represents more than 200 million workers in over 160 countries. "The court has confirmed that international law supports the long-standing understanding shared not only by unions, but across large parts of the ILO system for decades."
“This is an important moment for legal certainty, for social justice, and for the credibility of the international labor standards system," he added.
Sonny Matula, president of Federation of Free Workers—a Filipino labor organization—"joyfully and warmly" welcomed the ruling.
"In the Philippines, this is not a foreign concept," he said. "Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution expressly recognizes the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law."
"The strike is labor's last voice when dialogue has failed," Matula added. "Without the right to strike, we can say that freedom of association is like a silent campaign, unheard."
Christy Hoffman, general secretary of the Union Network International (UNI) Global Union, said in a statement that “as any trade unionist will tell you, there is no right to organize without the right to strike!"
"The two are inseparable foundations of any functional and fair industrial relations system," Hoffman asserted. "Congratulations to the many advocates who argued the point so brilliantly before the ICJ, and to the ITUC for its steadfast commitment to this case."
The Federation of Somali Trade Unions (FESTU) issued a statement applauding the ICJ ruling, which it said "represents a major victory for workers, trade unions, and social justice across the world."
"It reaffirms with legal certainty that the right to strike is inseparable from freedom of association and constitutes a fundamental pillar of democratic labor relations, collective bargaining, and the protection of workers’ dignity, rights, and interests," FESTU continued.
"The court’s opinion has reinforced the legitimacy of the ILO supervisory mechanisms and restored clarity on a matter that for years had been the subject of intense international debate and institutional disagreement," the federation added. "This is a defining moment in the history of the global trade union movement and a major achievement for multilateralism, social justice, and international law."
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO—the largest US labor federation—said that "this decision affirms decades of judicial precedent and what workers around the world know: There is no right to organize and bargain collectively without the right to strike."
"When workers are barred from taking collective action on the job, they cannot defend their rights and demand the workplace conditions and contracts they are owed," she continued. "The freedom to join a union becomes an empty formality."
"At a moment when workers’ organizations face sustained attacks around the world, this opinion reaffirms that the freedom to withhold one's labor is not a privilege granted by the powerful, but a fundamental human right grounded in international law," Shuler added. "The AFL-CIO commends the International Trade Union Confederation and its legal team for their efforts in this result."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Go Home': Greenlanders Protest New US Consulate as Trump Envoy Makes Clear Takeover Threat Remains
"I think it's time for the US to put its footprint back on Greenland," said the president's envoy, Jeff Landry.
May 22, 2026
Hundreds of Greenlanders demonstrated outside the new US Consulate in Nuuk on Thursday as President Donald Trump's envoy signaled that he's still seeking to control the self-governing Danish territory that straddles the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.
Various Greenlandic politicians also declined invitations to attend the opening of the consulate, with Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen telling the local outlet Sermitsiaq that "we haven't made a decision in principle, but I won't participate."
Protesters were armed with Greenland's red and white flag and signs that read "USA ASU," which translates to "Stop USA," as well as messages in English, including "Make America go away!" and "We are not for sale!" Their chants included "Greenland belongs to Greenlanders," "Go home," and "No means no."
"It's very important, now more than ever, to show the American people what we already said, that no means no, and that the future and self-determination of Greenland belongs to the Greenlandic people," said Aqqalukkuluk Fontain, a 37-year-old IT account manager and protest organizer, according to The Guardian.
"The protest itself is not to provoke Donald Trump or Jeff Landry but to show the world that Greenland has its own democracy," Fontain added. Landry, the Republican governor of Louisiana and the president's envoy to the island, arrived in Nuuk on Sunday.
The newspaper noted Trump's envoy traveled there "uninvited with a delegation including a doctor, who caused fury by saying he was there to 'assess the medical needs of Greenland.' Landry briefly attended a business conference with the US ambassador to Denmark, Kenneth Lowery, and left Nuuk on Wednesday night."
During Landry's "ham-handed trip," The New York Times reported, "he offered chocolate chip cookies and red MAGA hats to people he met on the street. He didn't get many takers, and Greenlandic officials criticized the visit."
It was Landry's first visit to the island of 57,000 since Trump appointed him as envoy in December. On Monday, he met with Greenlandic Foreign Minister Múte Egede and Nielsen, who called the talks "constructive," even though there was "no sign... that anything has changed" regarding Trump's position.
While polling has shown Americans and Greenlanders alike oppose Trump's takeover threats, Landry told Agence France-Presse near the end of his trip that "I think it's time for the US to put its footprint back on Greenland."
"I think that you're seeing the president talk about increasing national security operations and repopulating certain bases in Greenland," he continued. "Greenland needs the US."
The envoy made similar remarks on Friday during a Fox News appearance, highlighting Greenland's oil resources amid soaring global prices—which stem from Trump's illegal war on Iran that led the Iranian government to restrict ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route for fertilizer and fossil fuels.
In addition to waging war on Iran and continuing to threaten both Greenland and Cuba, Trump invaded Venezuela early this year, abducting President Nicolás Maduro and seizing control of the South American country's nationalized oil industry.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not Up to the Task': Calls Mount for Ken Martin to Resign Over 2024 DNC Autopsy Debacle
"The DNC should select a new leader who demonstrates competence, creativity, moral clarity, and a relentless commitment to actually changing the broken Democratic Party brand.”
May 22, 2026
The disastrous release of the Democratic National Committee's 2024 election "autopsy" report on Thursday has brought about a reckoning for the committee's chair, Ken Martin, who is facing calls to resign from legislators and other influential figures in the party.
The 192-page report, written by strategist Paul Rivera in the wake of former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss to President Donald Trump, was panned as amateurish and incomplete, even more than 18 months after the election. Rivera was reportedly fired on Friday.
Aside from being filled with glaring spelling and factual errors and containing several unfinished sections and self-contradicting annotations, it neglected key issues widely believed to have contributed to the Democratic nominee's defeat: Most acutely, her continued backing of Israel as it perpetrated a genocide in Gaza, her inability to address working- and middle-class voters' concerns about affordability, and the shambolic attempt by former President Joe Biden to run for a second term despite his old age and his earlier indications he would serve for only four years.
Many Democrats now see it as a damning indictment of Martin, who was elected as DNC chair last year in part on promises to conduct a thorough and transparent review of the party's defeat. Not helping was his sudden pivot in late 2025 to attempt to bury the report he once championed, only releasing it this week after it leaked to CNN despite mounting pressure from party members.
On Friday morning, Axios quoted an ideological mix of Democratic legislators describing the report's release as the final straw for Martin.
"He should resign," Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) told Axios, citing "his lack of leadership" and saying it is "utterly nuts it took us this long to release the autopsy."
In a radio interview Thursday, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said in response to a caller who argued Martin should be replaced: "I agree... Having what we have right now is not doing it."
Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) told Semafor that "there doesn't seem to be a plan to turn things around and the clock is ticking... I believe it's time for him to move on."
Despite a push by Martin's allies to arm state party chairs with talking points expressing that they are "fully confident in his leadership," NOTUS reported that inside private DNC group chats and one-on-one conversations, dissension is brewing, and there is even talk of forcing a vote of no confidence to oust the chairman.
"People feel gaslit" by Martin's flip-flopping, one unnamed DNC member told the outlet. "You kept telling people it was coming, then when you didn’t release it, you didn’t even tell everyone the real reason why.”
“While I don’t believe that there are enough votes to pass a vote of no confidence yet, I think there’s more of a permission structure now to have a more open conversation about it,” said another member who NOTUS described as an ally of Martin's. “If they think this is going to make things go away, no, this is only going to ramp up now.”
That's the hope of many in the party's grassroots, who said the entire saga demonstrated Martin's unfitness for a role with major responsibilities as Democrats head into existentially important elections in 2026 and 2028.
Dan Pfeiffer—a former Obama administration staffer whose Pod Save America podcast cohosts held Martin's feet to the fire as he fought to keep the autopsy hidden—called the release "a disaster of his own making."
"He didn’t pick a qualified person to run the autopsy. The fact that he was apparently shocked by the work product shows there was no oversight of the process," Pfeiffer said on social media. "Once he saw that the report was poorly done, he just decided to start lying to everyone about why it wasn't being released."
"In '28, the DNC will set the primary calendar, decide how delegates are awarded, sponsor the debates, and put on the convention," he said. "If no one trusts the DNC, it will be harder to unite the party around the eventual nominee."
Amanda Litman, the president of Run For Something, a group that recruits progressive candidates for office, said in a video posted to social media Thursday that putting together a report composed of "pure gibberish," without access to any of the underlying interviews or materials that buoyed its conclusions, called into question the DNC's ability to be "a fair, competent... conductor of the Democratic presidential primary."
"Ken Martin is not up to the task of being DNC chair—the most important part of which is preparing to run the presidential primary process with trust and competency—and should resign," she added on Friday.
David Hogg, who served as the DNC vice chair in 2025 before being pushed out by Martin over his efforts to support primary challengers against some entrenched party elders, said the autopsy saga was a "demoralizing joke" for the party.
In a release from his political action committee, Leaders We Deserve, Hogg said, "Martin should resign, and the DNC should select a new leader who demonstrates competence, creativity, moral clarity, and a relentless commitment to actually changing the broken Democratic Party brand."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular