No Comment — September 23, 2011, 2:53 pm

Injudicious Judge

Earlier this week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit let stand, by a 6–6 vote, a panel decision authorizing an ACLU suit challenging warrantless surveillance of a group of scholars and journalists. At the core of the lawsuit is a challenge to surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The suit raised a number of extremely serious questions about the legislation, seeking injunctive relief that would have restricted its use for surveillance in the future. Justice Department efforts to block the ACLU suit have focused on such technical questions as standing, which governs who can bring a lawsuit and when.

When the Second Circuit opinions were released, most were scholarly discussions of the law. But one was not—an opinion issued by Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs. Revealingly, no other judge joined the Jacobs opinion, in which Jacobs called the lawsuit “frivolous” and stated that it was akin to a “plaintiff’s allegation that the C.I.A. is controlling him through a radio embedded in his molar.”

The plaintiffs—all of whom are involved in studying and writing about terrorist groups, and some of whom are eminent authorities regularly relied upon by the U.S. government—express concern that as FISA is apparently being interpreted, their communications would be routinely intercepted and examined by the NSA. The NSA has not credibly denied their contention. Indeed, retired senior NSA officials like Thomas Drake have openly acknowledged that such practices were routine during the Bush years.

A hardened civil-liberties skeptic could of course argue that the government is within its rights to engage in the warrantless surveillance of its citizens, but to compare those who complain about it to tin-hatted loons is irrational. The balance of Jacobs’s opinion was long on hyperventilating political rhetoric, and short on facts and legal argument.

Back in 2007, Jacobs told Adam Liptak of the New York Times, “I haven’t opened up a law review in years.” A review of his opinions bears this out. Indeed, there, no authority appears to surpass Dennis G. Jacobs. A noteworthy example is an opinion addressing the suit brought on behalf of Maher Arar, the Canadian computer engineer who was sent to Syria on the orders of Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson. Arar was brutally tortured in Syria, though it turned out he had been sent there because of some false information given to the Americans by their Canadian counterparts. Canada paid Arar millions in restitution, but the Bush Administration refused even to talk to him and sought to block his suit. In the Second Circuit opinion dismissing it, Jacobs decided that the fact that Canada wouldn’t accept Arar back home was essential to the resolution of the case. Unfortunately for Jacobs and his colleagues, however, this wasn’t, in fact, a fact: Canada had agreed to receive Arar. So the Second Circuit opinion in a highly visible case turned on an invention by Judge Jacobs, making it one of the most embarrassing decisions in the court’s history—one it has yet to correct.

Jacobs’s contempt for lawyers who represent Guantánamo defendants pro bono is famous. Indeed, he made it the subject of a lecture to a conservative audience in which he suggested that “anti-military animus is pervasive” among legal elites. His argument would be familiar to those who listen to the radio broadcasts of Rush Limbaugh, but not to those who have dealt with the pro-bono programs of the law firms involved in Guantánamo defense work, which is founded on a partnership between the firms and uniformed military lawyers, who serve as detailed counsel.

“Great harm can be done when the legal profession uses pro bono litigation to promote political ends,” Jacobs argued in another lecture. This is particularly the case when lawyers oppose the government, he said, terming this an “anti-social influence.” In the Jacobs view, citizens apparently have no business questioning the decisions their government makes on national-security grounds; those who do so are know-nothing busybodies; and the courts should keep out of the entire area. Judge Jacobs’s views are common enough among judges addressing national-security issues around the world, but they are quite unusual among those sitting in democratic societies. Glenn Greenwald sheds more light on his biases and writings here.


Reader James J. Beha II responds:

Scott Horton writes that Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs “decided that the fact that Canada wouldn’t accept Arar back home was essential to the resolution of the case.” However, according to a previous Horton post, to which he linked as support, this was not true, and thus “the Second Circuit opinion in a highly visible case turned on an invention by Judge Jacobs, making it one of the most embarrassing decisions in the court’s history.” But the notion that the decision in Arar “turned” on whether Canada would accept Arar into the country is an invention by Horton.

By way of background, Congress has never created an explicit cause of action allowing an individual to sue federal officials for constitutional violations. However, in some circumstances, courts have found an implied right of action for such violations—a so-called “Bivens action,” after a 1971 Supreme Court decision. The Bivens Court noted that it would not find such an implied cause of action in cases involving a “special factor counseling hesitation.” In the years since Bivens, courts have been reluctant to extend the implied Bivens action to other contexts. As the Second Circuit explained in another case, “Because a Bivens action is a judicially created remedy . . . courts proceed cautiously in extending such implied relief.” The Arar case required the Second Circuit to decide whether to recognize a Bivens action against federal officials for deporting Arar to Syria to be tortured.

Judge Jacobs dedicated nearly half of the fifty-nine-page majority opinion to explaining his conclusion that there is no implied cause of action against federal officials for extraordinary rendition because a number of special factors counsel hesitation in that context. Based on these factors—notably separation-of-powers issues—the Court concluded that a Bivens action over extraordinary rendition would be inappropriate.

After reaching this conclusion, the Court discussed some of the difficult policy decisions raised by Arar’s case, leading Jacobs to write the following paragraph:

Consider: should the officers here have let Arar go on his way and board his flight to Montreal? Canada was evidently unwilling to receive him; it was, after all, Canadian authorities who identified Arar as a terrorist (or did something that led their government to apologize publicly to Arar and pay him $10 million). Should a person identified as a terrorist by his own country be allowed to board his plane and go on to his destination? Surely, that would raise questions as to what duty is owed to the other passengers and the crew. Or should a suspected terrorist en route to Canada have been released on the Canadian border–over which he could re-enter the United States virtually at will? Or should he have been sent back whence his plane came, or to some third country? Should those governments be told that Canada thinks he is a terrorist? If so, what country would take him? Or should the suspected terrorist have been sent to Guantanamo Bay or—if no other country would take him—kept in the United States with the prospect of release into the general population?

Under any fair reading of this passage, the Court neither considered it a “fact” that Canada would not accept Arar, as Horton wrote, nor found it essential to its decision. Jacobs was simply describing the difficult decision facing officials who had been told that a traveler passing through JFK was a terrorist. And, indeed, Jacobs later stated that his discussion of the policy implications did not factor into the Court’s decision: “Given the ample reasons for pause already discussed, we need not and do not rely on this consideration in concluding that it is inappropriate to extend Bivens to this context” (my emphasis).


Scott Horton replies:

Mr. Beha makes a fair point in noting Jacobs’s use of the word “evidently,” but he is wrong to dismiss the significance of this counterfactual assumption. The core of the Jacobs ruling is that considerations of national security should provide an exception to the principle, anchored in solemn treaty assurances given by the United States, that government officials are accountable for decisions that result in a person’s rendition to torture. To that end, his counterfactual fantasies about Canada’s unwillingness to permit the return of one of its citizens play a vital animating role — even though the decision turns on the broader concept of a more blanket immunity. Jacobs’s willingness to gin up fake facts in the service of his theory marks this opinion and is a prime reason why, as Judge Calabresi wrote — with his characteristic restraint, “When the history of this distinguished court is written, [Judge Jacobs’s] decision will be viewed with dismay.”

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 165 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

January 2017

The Monument Wars

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Trouble with Defectors

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Over the River

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

House Hunters Transnational

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Lords of Lambeau

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

A Window To The World

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Post
Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Over the River·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ashley arrived for her prenatal appointment at Black Hills Obstetrics and Gynecology, in Rapid City, South Dakota, wearing a black zip-up hoodie and Converse sneakers.1 To explain her absence from work that morning — a Tuesday in April 2015 — she had told a co-worker that she was having “female issues.” She was twenty-five years old and eight weeks pregnant. She had been separated from her husband, with whom she had a five-year-old son, for the better part of a year. The guy who’d gotten her pregnant was someone she’d met at the gym, and he’d made it abundantly clear that he wanted nothing more to do with her. Ashley found herself hoping that the doctor would discover some kind of fetal defect, so that her decision would be easier. She glanced across the waiting room at a television playing a birth-control ad and laughed darkly. “Jesus, Lord, it would be so nice if someone just pushed me down a flight of stairs.”

In the exam room, she perched on the table with her feet crossed at the ankles, her blond hair brushing the back of her pink hospital gown. “I don’t know what’s available for me here,” she told her doctor, Katherine Degen, who sat facing her on a stool. “I figured nothing.”

 Some names and identifying details have been changed. 

“Big, fat zero, unfortunately,” Degen said, making a 0 with her fingers. The last doctor who provided abortions in Rapid City retired in 1986, three years before Ashley was born.

The baby was due in November, when Ashley, who was a nurse, hoped to be enrolled in a graduate program to become a nurse practitioner. Getting pregnant as a teenager had forced her to put that dream on hold, but she had thought that she was finally ready; she had even submitted her application shortly before the March 15 deadline. For the first time in her adult life, Ashley felt as if her plans were coming together. Then she missed her period.

It would be too difficult to attend school as a single mother of two, Ashley knew. She had made an appointment for three weeks from now at the nearest abortion clinic, in Billings, Montana, 318 miles away. But just a week and a half ago, her husband had said he wanted to get back together and offered to raise the child as his own. Was it a sign that she was meant to continue the pregnancy? As a rule, Ashley approached her problems with resolve. She was capable and tough; she liked shooting guns and lifting weights. She kept track of her stats and checked off her goals as she achieved them one by one. Yet the dilemma before her had shaken her confidence. She leaned back and turned to watch the ultrasound screen. The black-and-white image danced. A sharp, fast thumping emerged from the machine. As Degen removed the wand, Ashley wiped the corner of her eye.

Photograph (detail) by Brian Frank
Article
A Window To The World·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ashley arrived for her prenatal appointment at Black Hills Obstetrics and Gynecology, in Rapid City, South Dakota, wearing a black zip-up hoodie and Converse sneakers.1 To explain her absence from work that morning — a Tuesday in April 2015 — she had told a co-worker that she was having “female issues.” She was twenty-five years old and eight weeks pregnant. She had been separated from her husband, with whom she had a five-year-old son, for the better part of a year. The guy who’d gotten her pregnant was someone she’d met at the gym, and he’d made it abundantly clear that he wanted nothing more to do with her. Ashley found herself hoping that the doctor would discover some kind of fetal defect, so that her decision would be easier. She glanced across the waiting room at a television playing a birth-control ad and laughed darkly. “Jesus, Lord, it would be so nice if someone just pushed me down a flight of stairs.”

In the exam room, she perched on the table with her feet crossed at the ankles, her blond hair brushing the back of her pink hospital gown. “I don’t know what’s available for me here,” she told her doctor, Katherine Degen, who sat facing her on a stool. “I figured nothing.”

 Some names and identifying details have been changed. 

“Big, fat zero, unfortunately,” Degen said, making a 0 with her fingers. The last doctor who provided abortions in Rapid City retired in 1986, three years before Ashley was born.

The baby was due in November, when Ashley, who was a nurse, hoped to be enrolled in a graduate program to become a nurse practitioner. Getting pregnant as a teenager had forced her to put that dream on hold, but she had thought that she was finally ready; she had even submitted her application shortly before the March 15 deadline. For the first time in her adult life, Ashley felt as if her plans were coming together. Then she missed her period.

It would be too difficult to attend school as a single mother of two, Ashley knew. She had made an appointment for three weeks from now at the nearest abortion clinic, in Billings, Montana, 318 miles away. But just a week and a half ago, her husband had said he wanted to get back together and offered to raise the child as his own. Was it a sign that she was meant to continue the pregnancy? As a rule, Ashley approached her problems with resolve. She was capable and tough; she liked shooting guns and lifting weights. She kept track of her stats and checked off her goals as she achieved them one by one. Yet the dilemma before her had shaken her confidence. She leaned back and turned to watch the ultrasound screen. The black-and-white image danced. A sharp, fast thumping emerged from the machine. As Degen removed the wand, Ashley wiped the corner of her eye.

Artwork by Imre Kinszki © Imre Kinszki Estate
Article
The Lords of Lambeau·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ashley arrived for her prenatal appointment at Black Hills Obstetrics and Gynecology, in Rapid City, South Dakota, wearing a black zip-up hoodie and Converse sneakers.1 To explain her absence from work that morning — a Tuesday in April 2015 — she had told a co-worker that she was having “female issues.” She was twenty-five years old and eight weeks pregnant. She had been separated from her husband, with whom she had a five-year-old son, for the better part of a year. The guy who’d gotten her pregnant was someone she’d met at the gym, and he’d made it abundantly clear that he wanted nothing more to do with her. Ashley found herself hoping that the doctor would discover some kind of fetal defect, so that her decision would be easier. She glanced across the waiting room at a television playing a birth-control ad and laughed darkly. “Jesus, Lord, it would be so nice if someone just pushed me down a flight of stairs.”

In the exam room, she perched on the table with her feet crossed at the ankles, her blond hair brushing the back of her pink hospital gown. “I don’t know what’s available for me here,” she told her doctor, Katherine Degen, who sat facing her on a stool. “I figured nothing.”

 Some names and identifying details have been changed. 

“Big, fat zero, unfortunately,” Degen said, making a 0 with her fingers. The last doctor who provided abortions in Rapid City retired in 1986, three years before Ashley was born.

The baby was due in November, when Ashley, who was a nurse, hoped to be enrolled in a graduate program to become a nurse practitioner. Getting pregnant as a teenager had forced her to put that dream on hold, but she had thought that she was finally ready; she had even submitted her application shortly before the March 15 deadline. For the first time in her adult life, Ashley felt as if her plans were coming together. Then she missed her period.

It would be too difficult to attend school as a single mother of two, Ashley knew. She had made an appointment for three weeks from now at the nearest abortion clinic, in Billings, Montana, 318 miles away. But just a week and a half ago, her husband had said he wanted to get back together and offered to raise the child as his own. Was it a sign that she was meant to continue the pregnancy? As a rule, Ashley approached her problems with resolve. She was capable and tough; she liked shooting guns and lifting weights. She kept track of her stats and checked off her goals as she achieved them one by one. Yet the dilemma before her had shaken her confidence. She leaned back and turned to watch the ultrasound screen. The black-and-white image danced. A sharp, fast thumping emerged from the machine. As Degen removed the wand, Ashley wiped the corner of her eye.

Photograph (detail) by Balazs Gardi
Article
With Child·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

"She glanced across the waiting room at a television playing a birth-control ad and laughed darkly. 'Jesus, Lord, it would be so nice if someone just pushed me down a flight of stairs.'"
Photograph (detail) by Lara Shipley

Months after Martin Luther King Jr. publicly called the U.S. the “world’s greatest purveyor of violence ‚” that he was killed:

2

Temporary, self-absorbed sadness makes people spend money extravagantly.

One of the United Kingdom’s largest landlords published guidelines banning “battered wives” and plumbers, among others, from renting his more than 1,000 properties. “It’s just economics,” he said.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Who Goes Nazi?

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis."

Subscribe Today