Scottus News

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will add another case involving state secret privileges to the next debate schedule, which allows the government to block the release of sensitive national security information in the lawsuit. The court also rejected the challenge to the requirement that only men register for the draft, and the three judges explained that Congress is now reviewing the issue.Both announcements are here On the order list On Monday morning, the judges were released from a private meeting on Thursday, June 3.

Court award FBI v. Fazaga, The FBI’s request for review in a case filed by members of the Muslim community in Southern California against the FBI and several FBI agents. Three Muslim men claimed that the FBI targeted their religious beliefs and used confidential informants to gather information about Muslims as part of an anti-terrorism investigation. The dispute in the court now stems from the government’s claim to the privilege of state secrets. The Federal District Court dismissed the claim after agreeing to the privilege to allow the government to withhold certain evidence, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the ruling. It believes that the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law outweigh the privileges of state secrets and give the district courts the power to resolve (privately and without the need for parties to attend) litigation cases.

The FBI came to the Supreme Court in December 2020 and asked the judge to weigh it.The Trump Administration’s Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Wall believes that the Court of Appeal’s decision “has astonishing consequences of changing the limited provisions of FISA and aims to Guarantee Incorporate national security information into a mechanism to overturn the administrative department’s invocation of state secret privileges, and make rulings on the substantive relief requirements of private parties based on state secrets. “

The case may be debated sometime in the fall. By then, this will be the second time the justices have encountered state secret privileges. In April of this year, the judge approved the government’s request for a review of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. In the case of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay He sought documents and testimony from two former CIA contractors in the “black field” where he was detained in 2002 and 2003. The Ninth Circuit ordered the district court to review whether the information covered by the privilege is possible or not.

Also on Monday, the judges rejected a request to weigh whether the requirement that only men can register for the draft is constitutional. The court announced that the news was issued nearly 40 years after the judge supported the Military Service Act against similar changes, but there is one key difference: women can now participate in the war.

The dispute brought to court was brought up by the National Men’s League, a non-profit organization whose goal is to “end the harmful stereotypes of boys and men”, and two young men, James Lesmeister and Anthony David Sri Lanka, they are required to register as a draft. Challengers represented by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that it is unconstitutional for MSSA to require men, not women, to register.Despite the Supreme Court’s 1981 ruling Rostock v. Goldberg The challenger admitted that things have changed since then.Specifically, the court Rostek It was inferred that the purpose of registration was to replace combat troops, but women were prohibited from participating in combat at that time. However, in 2013, the Ministry of National Defense officially lifted the ban.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Sonia Sotomayor) Statement on refusal to review Judges Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh joined. Like the challenger, Sotomayor observed that since the court’s ruling in 2016, “the role of women in the military has changed dramatically”. RostekHowever, Sotomayor went on to say that the committee set up by Congress to study the possibility of universal registration requirements issued a report last year recommending the removal of the male-only requirement. In March of this year, she added that the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senator DR.I. Jack Reed “expressed his’hope’ that the gender-neutral registration requirement will be’incorporated into the next national defense bill.” Sotoma Joel concluded that although Congress has not actually taken any action yet, the court’s practice of deferring it to Congress on defense and military issues “do not review the issue when Congress is actively weighing issues.”

The judges will hold another private meeting on Thursday, June 10, and the meeting is expected to issue an order at 9:30 am on Monday, June 14

This article is Originally published in Howe on the Court.