Al-Tamir v. Biden

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJanuary 8, 2025
DocketCivil Action No. 2025-0015
StatusPublished

This text of Al-Tamir v. Biden (Al-Tamir v. Biden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Al-Tamir v. Biden, (D.D.C. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NASHWAN AL-RAMER ABDULRAZZAQ (ISN 10026),

Petitioner, No. 17-cv-1928 (EGS) v.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR, et al.,

Respondents.

NASHWAN AL-TAMIR (ISN 10026),

Petitioner, No. 25-cv-0015 (EGS) v.

SECOND AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR HABEAS CASES INVOLVING TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES FOR COUNSEL ACCESS TO DETAINEES AT THE UNITED STATES NAVAL BASE IN GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, IN HABEAS CASES INVOLVING TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION

The Court finds that the above-captioned civil cases involve national security

information or documents, including TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED

INFORMATION (“TS/SCI”), the storage, handling, and control of which require special

security precautions and access to which requires a security clearance and a “need to know.”

These cases might also involve other protected information or documents, the storage,

handling, and control of which might require special precautions in order to protect the

security of the United States and other significant interests. Accordingly, to protect the national security, and for good cause shown, the Court

ORDERS that the following Second Amended Protective Order for Habeas Cases

Involving TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (“TS/SCI

Protective Order”) and Procedures for Counsel Access to Detainees at the United States

Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Habeas Cases Involving TOP

SECRET/SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (“TS/SCI Procedures for

Counsel Access”) apply in the above-captioned cases:

I. PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR HABEAS CASES INVOLVING TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION

A. Overview and Applicability

1. This TS/SCI Protective Order establishes procedures that must be followed by petitioners and their respective counsel, all other counsel involved in these matters, interpreters and translators for the parties, personnel or support staff employed or engaged to assist in these matters, and all other individuals who, in connection with these matters, receive access to classified national security information or documents or other protected information, including the Privilege Team as defined in the TS/SCI Procedures for Counsel Access, see infra Section II.B.6, and the Special Litigation Team as defined in the TS/SCI Procedures for Counsel Access, see infra Section II.B.7.

2. The procedures set forth in this TS/SCI Protective Order apply to all aspects of these matters and may be modified by further order of the Court upon its own motion or upon application by any party. The Court retains continuing jurisdiction to enforce or modify the terms of this TS/SCI Protective Order.

3. Nothing in this TS/SCI Protective Order precludes the government’s use of classified information as otherwise authorized by law outside of these matters.

4. As appropriate and needed, petitioners’ counsel are responsible for advising their employees, petitioners, and others of this TS/SCI Protective Order’s contents.

5. Petitioners’ counsel are bound by the terms and conditions set forth in the TS/SCI Procedures for Counsel Access, see infra Section II. To the extent such terms and conditions place limitations on petitioners’ counsel in their access to and interaction with petitioners or handling of information, this TS/SCI Protective Order specifically incorporates by reference all terms and conditions established in the procedures contained in the TS/SCI Procedures for Counsel Access. Any violation of those terms and conditions also will be deemed a violation of this TS/SCI Protective Order.

6. The Privilege Team shall not disclose to any person any information provided by petitioners’ counsel or petitioners, other than information provided in a filing with the Court, unless such information, if it were monitored information, could be disclosed under the TS/SCI Procedures for Counsel Access. Any such disclosure shall be consistent with the provisions of the TS/SCI Procedures for Counsel Access.

B. Definitions

7. As used in this TS/SCI Protective Order, the words “documents” and “information” include, but are not limited to, all written or printed matter of any kind, formal or informal, including originals, conforming copies and non- conforming copies, whether different from the original by reason of notation made on such copies or otherwise, and further include, but are not limited to:

a. papers, correspondence, memoranda, notes, letters, reports, summaries, photographs, maps, charts, graphs, interoffice and intra-office communications, notations of any sort concerning conversations, meetings, or other communications, bulletins, teletypes, telegrams, facsimiles, invoices, worksheets, and drafts, alterations, modifications, changes, and amendments of any kind to the foregoing;

b. graphic or oral records or representations of any kind, including, but not limited to, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotapes, sound recordings of any kind, and motion pictures;

c. electronic, mechanical or electric records of any kind, including, but not limited to, tapes, cassettes, disks, recordings, electronic mail, films, typewriter ribbons, word processing or other computer tapes or disks, and all manner of electronic data processing storage; and

d. information acquired orally.

8. Unless otherwise stated, the terms “classified national security information and/or documents,” “classified information” and “classified documents” mean:

a. any classified document or information that was classified by any Executive Branch agency in the interests of national security or pursuant to Executive Order, including Executive Order 12958, as amended, or its predecessor Orders, as “CONFIDENTIAL,” “SECRET,” or “TOP SECRET,” or additionally controlled as “SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (SCI),” or any classified information contained in such document;

b. any document or information, regardless of its physical form or characteristics, now or formerly in the possession of a private party that was derived from United States government information that was classified, regardless of whether such document or information has subsequently been classified by the government pursuant to Executive Order, including Executive Order 12958, as amended, or its predecessor Orders, as “CONFIDENTIAL,” “SECRET,” or “TOP SECRET,” or additionally controlled as “COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION (SCI)”;

c. verbal or non-documentary classified information known to petitioners or petitioners’ counsel; or

d. any document and information as to which petitioners or petitioners’ counsel were notified orally or in writing that such document or information contains classified information.

9. All classified documents, and information contained therein, shall remain classified unless the documents bear a clear indication that they were declassified by the agency or department that is the original classification authority of the document or the information contained therein (hereinafter, “original classification authority”).

10. The terms “protected information and/or documents,” “protected information,” and “protected documents” mean any document or information the Court deems, either sua sponte or upon designation pursuant to paragraph 35 of this TS/SCI Protective Order or paragraph 34 of the Protective Order first entered by this Court in 08-mc-442 on September 11, 2008, not suitable for public filing.

11.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 421
50 U.S.C. § 421
Offenses
50 U.S.C. § 783

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Al-Tamir v. Biden, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/al-tamir-v-biden-dcd-2025.