Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page1 of 70 rs; L__ __ fiYF No. 14-4432(L), No. 14-4764(Con) IN TilE UNITE D STATES COURT OF A PP E!\LS POR TI IE SECOND CIRCUIT Docket Nos. 14-4432(L) , 14-4764(Con) THE NEW YORK TrMES COM PANY, CH ARLIE S/\ VACE, SCCY!T SH ANE. i\MERICAN CIV I L LIB ERTIES UN IO! , AMERICAN CIV IL LIBERTII~S UN IO N FOUNDATION, P/aintijfv-A ppe/lanls, v UNITED STATES LJEPARTMENT OF JUSTIC.I :. l NCLlJDING ITS COMPONE T THE OFF ICF: 0 1-· D cFENS I~. INC L UDING ITS COMPONENT U.S. SPEC IAL OPERATIONS COMMA~D, CEN TR AI. I NT I ~ LU GENCE AGENCY, U :Gi\L COUNS EL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF Defendants-Appellees. ON APPEAL PROM THE UNI T ED STATI:::S DISTR ICT COURT FOR THE SOU TH ER D ISTRI CT OF EW YORK !3RIEP FOR DEFENDANTS-APPGLLEE.S RFN.IAMI C. MIZER ,1cling Assislanf Atlorne::y General MATTHEW M. COLIYTTE SHARON SWINGLE THOMAS PULl-JAM Allorneys, Appellole Sllt/T PREET BHARJ\RJ\ United S'tates A lfom ey SARAH S. N ORMAND Assistunl United Slates !l/wrney Southern Dist ric t of New Y.ork . Civil Divi sion, Roo m 7250 U. S. Dcpat1meni of .Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington . D.C. 20530 (202) J53-26X9 .;I tlorneys for 86 Cha m bcrs S trcct New York, NY 10007 (212) 637-2709 Defendan/s-.tlppel/ees Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page2 of 70 ySI '------ (U) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ·(U) Preliminary Statement ........... ... ......... ... ........ .. .. .. ..... ..... ~ ... .... ....... ...... ... ..... .......... I (U) Statement of Jurisdiction ...... .. .. ... ...... ... .......... ...... ..... ... .... ...... .. . ~ .. ...... ........ .. ... .... 3 (U) Statement ofissues Presented .......... ..... .... ... .. ............... ...... .......... ............. ... .. ... . 3 (U) Statement ofthe Case .. ... .. .. .. ................ ... .. .... ... ........ .... .. .... ........ .. .. ...... ..... .:...... .. 4 A. (U) Statutory Background ... ...... .. .. .. ............. .. .. ...... .. .. .... .. .. .. ..... ....... .. .. .4 B. (U) Factual and Procedural Background .. .... .... .. :.... .... ......... ,.. ........ .. .... 5 I. (U) Plaintiffs' FOJA Requests and OLC's Responses ..... ... ..... .. 5 2. (U) Proceedings on Prior Appeal.. ....... .;......... ... ... ... ... .... , .... ....... 7 3. a. . (U) The Court' s Ruling on Appeal and Issuance of the Court's Initial Public Decision ...... ....... .. ...... .... ... ....... 7 b. (U) The CoUit 's Rulings on the Government's Petition for Rehearing and Issuance of the Redacted OLC-DOD Memorandum ..... ... .. ......... ... .... .... ................ 12 (U) District Court Proceedings on Remand .... ............ .:........... . l3 a.· (U) District Court Decision Upholding Withholding . ofTen OLC Legal Memoranda in Whole or in Part.. .... 13 b. (U) Govem111ent's Classification Review and .the District Court's Sealing Order ... ...... ....... ..... ....... ....... ..... l9 c. (U) Denial ofReconsideration ... .... .... ..... .. .. ............... ..... 21 (U) Summary of Argument.. .... ... ...... ... .. .... ...... ....... .... .. .. ..... ... .... .. ........ ... ... .... .... ..... 22 (U) Standard of Review ... ........... .. ... .......... .................... ... ............ ........ ... ... .... .. .. ..... .24 / ySI '------ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page3 of 70 np rpS/~L___ _ _ _ _ _ . . (U) ARGUMENT .. :................................................................... :···•·····~:........... ~ ....... 25 . L (U) The District Court Properly Applied this Court's Prior: ·Rulings to Sustain the Qovern.'ment's Withholdings ..................... :.:.... 25 . A. B. · (U) The District Court Correctly Upheld Withholding ·of the Redacted Portions of the February 2010 A~laqi ·. · Memorandum ......................................... ~ ......~ ............ .'.:............. 25 Th~ District Court Correctly Upheld the Withholding in Full of0 · . . I C. j........................,. ......................... Jo . (U) The Dist~ict Court Properly Upheld the Withholding in Full ofthe Remaining OLC Legai.Memoranda .. ~ ................ . . 35 l. I . . 2. l. . · (U) The March .2002 Memorandum Providing Legal .Advice Concerning the Assassination Ban in Executive Order 12,333 ................................ ~... ~ ......... :··· .. ·······~-:... ~ .. 40 I 3.· D. 36 ' - - - - - - - - - - - ' ].......................................... 42 . . (U) Plaintiffs' Remaining Contentions Lack Merit .......~ ......... .43 . ' \ ' 1. (U) This Court Addressed the Sta~us of Factual Material in the OLC-DOD Memorandum and Held That It Was Properly Classified and Not Waived .......... 43 2. (U) The District Gourt Applied the Correct 3. (U) Legal Analysis Can Be Withheld Under. Exemptions 1 and 3 When Its Disclosure Would Reveal-Classified and Statutorily Protected lnfolinati 0n .:......................... :........................................... 41 . · · Standard for Official Di~closure ...........·.......................... .45 ·. .,StAL.-----:-:--------l~ . ii I ' Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page4 of 70 II. 4. (U) The OLC Memoranda Do Not Constitute Agency Working Law ........ ... ..... .... .. ........ ..... .~ .., ............ 49 5. (U) The District Court Properly Performed a Segregability Analysis of Each Responsive Me1norandun1 .. .. .-.: ............. .... ....... .. ._.. .... .... .:... ... .. . ,......... . 52 (U) The Di strict Court Properly riled the Public Opinion Prepared by the Government, Which Redacts Classified and Privileged .· Inforn1ation ........... ..... ....... ........ ... .... .. ......... .... ........ .... .................. ~ .. .. 53 A. · (U) Plaintiffs Have No First Amendment Right of ·A ccess to Classified or Privileged Information in a Judicial Opin ion ....... .. ........_..............._........ ....... ... .. :.. .... ....... ..:............ ·... ~ . 54 B. (U) The RedaCted Material Identified by the District Court Was Properly Classified ............... ..... .. ...... ... .......... .. :... ...... ....... 59 (U) CONCLUSION ..... ... .... ............. ..................... ........... ........·......... ... ... .. .. .......·..... . 61 (U) CERTIFICATE OF COMPUAN~E (U) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE yS' '------=~ ii i Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page5 of 70 ,----~~~- -~ rl'fF 'JISI/'------ (U) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (U) Page (U) Cases (U) ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ........ .. ......... .... .. .... ....... .. ..... ..... .. .46 (U) ACLU v. DOD, 628 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ............. ....... .... .... .·.. .... .. .... :..... .46 (U) ACLU v. DOJ, 681 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 20 12) .. ... ... .... ..... .... .... 25, 55 , 56, 57, 59, 60 ' (U) Afshar v. Department ofState, 702 F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1983) .... ... ...45 , 46, 50 (U) Amnesty lnt '/ USA v. CIA, 728 F. Supp. 2d 479 (S.D.N.Y. 201 0) .. .......... .. 39, 41 (U) Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA, 334 F.3d 55 (.D.C. Cir. 2003) ..... ... ............. .. ................. .. ....... . . ... ... ...... ..... .. ..... ....... .. ..... .......... 46 (U) Brennan Centerfor Justice v. U.S Dep 't ofJustice, 697 F.Jd 184 (2d Cir. 2012) .. .... .......... .. ......... ........... .... .. .. .... ................. .... ..... .:·....... 5, 49, 50, 51 (U) Brinton v. Dep't o.fState, 636 F.2d 600 (D.C. Cir. 1980) .. ........ ..... ...... ... ......... 29 (U) CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (1985) ...................................................................... .4 (U) Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988) ... ..... .. .... .............. .. 55 , 58 (U) Diversified Group, inc. v. Daugerdas , 217 F.R.D. 152 · (S .D.N .Y. 2003) ... ... .~ ...... .. .. .... .. ............. .. .... ...... ... ..... .... ... .. .... .. .. ... ................ .... 51 (U) Electronic Fronlier Foundation v. DOJ, 739 F.3d l (D.C. Cir. 20 14) ...... ....... ...·.... .. ... _. .... .... .. ......... ....... ...... :........ .. ........ ...... .. .... ... 51, 52 (U) £/-Masri v. Vri ited States, 479 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2007) ................ .. ......... .. 60, 61 (U) Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 ( 1981) ....... .. ... .. .... ........ .... :............ ~ ....................... 58 (U) Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. I (1978) ............................ ... ................ 53, 54 1SI c _ _ _ __ _ _ IV Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page6 of 70 (U) In re Appi. of New York Times Co. to l)nsea/ Wiretap, 577 F.3d 40 I (2d Cir. 2009) .................. ......... .'... ... ......... ....... ........ .. ....... ... ........ ·.................... .- .. 56 ' (U) fn re Cnty. of Erie, 4 73 F.3d 413 (2d Cir. 2007) .. ........... ........... .. ... ~ .... 27, 34,44 (U) In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 493 F.3 d 152 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ................... ........ . 58 (U)ln re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) ....... :... .. ........ ...... . .'....................... 33 (U) In reSealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ............................. ... ...... 33, 39 (U) In reSealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (For. Intel. Surv . Ct. Rev . 2002) ....... ............ 56 (U) Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2009) ..... .... ....... .......... :......... ........... .45 . (U) McGehee v. Casey, 718 F.2d 11 37 (D.C. Cir. 1983) , ........ .. ......... .......... .... 53, 55 (U) MilitaJ y Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D .C. Cir. ·198 1) ................... .. .48 (U) Mobley v. DOJ, 870 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D .D.C. 20 12) ...... ............. .... .. .. ~ .............. .48 . . (U) Moore v. CiA, 666 F.3d 1330 (D.C. C ir. 20 11 ) .......... ......... ................ ... .. .. ..... .46 (U) Nat 'l Security Archive v. CiA, 752 F.3 d 460 (D.C. Cir. 20 14) ........... ...... .. 27, 44 (U) New York Times Co. v. DOJ, 872 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N .Y. 2012) ............................... .... ................. ............. .. ............................ .. 48 (U) Obaydullah v. Obama, 688 FJ d 784 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ... ~ ........ ....................... .. 56 (U) Pickard v. DOJ, 653 F .3d 782 (9th Cir. 2011 ) ............. .. .... .. ....................... ... .. .46 (U) Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. I (1986) .. .... :.. .. 54, 56, 5S, 59 (U) Siedle v. Putnam lnvs. , 147 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 1998) ........................................... 57 (U) Snepp v. US, 444 U.S. 507 (1980) ....................................... :.. . .'.: ....... ..... ......... 58 (U) United States v. A ref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008) ............................................. 55 ·,s,L..____ v Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page7 of 70 JlSI( ____ - _ {~ (U) United States v. Erie County, 763 F.3d 235 (2d C ir. 2014) .......... ... ... ....... . 58, 59 (U) J1:'ilner v. NSA, 592 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2009) .. ....... .............. ..... ......:........ ·...... 24, 25 (U) Wilson v. CIA, 586 F.3d 17 1 (2d Cir. 2009) ...................._. .............. ....... .... .46, 56 (U) Wolfv. ·CIA , 473 F.Jd 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ........... ................ .. .... .... ................ 25 (U) Constitution, Statutes, Rules, and Executive Orders · (U) U.S . Const., a1nend I ......·............................................. :..:.. .~ .............................. 24 (U) U.S. Const., a1nend IV .................... .. ~ .................... ...... .. _. ..................................... 8 (U) U.S. Const., amend V ......... ........................... .... ........... :............ :............_...... ....... 8 (U) National Security Act of 1947, as amended, . 50 U.S .C. § 3024(i)(l) .. .. ......... .......... .. .......... .... .......................... .4, 5, 26, 27, 3, 39 (U) · (U) (U) (U) (U) (U) 5 U.S.C. 5 U.S.C. 5 U.S.C. 5 U.S.C. 5 U.S.C. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) .... ...... .... ................. ..................................... :......... .... .. .- ....... 4 § 552(a)(4)(B) ...... ............ ....... .... ... ...... ............................. .:...... :.. .. .... . 57 §·552(b) ... .. ......................................................... : . ~ .................................. 4 § 552(b)(l ) ...... .. ....... ... ............ ~ .......................... .- ..... ~ .. :.. .. ... .........passim · § 552(b)(3) ....................................................... ....... ................ .... .passim § 552(b)(5 ) ................ :................................. ......... ....... .......... ...... .passim . . (U) 1.8 U.S.C. § 1119 ............ .- .·.......................... .. ............................ ·........ :~ ......·._.'....... .. 8 (U) 18 U.S.C. § 2441.: ................................................. .. ........... .... .. .. ................... _. ..... 8 (U) 29 U.S .C. § 1291 ..... .'.... .. ................. ......... .. .. ............... ~ ........ .. ...... ~ .... ................ .. 3 (U) 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ...... ..........~ ........ .. .. :.. ......................... ,......... ·.............. :.... ...... ..... 3 (U) Fed. R . Civ. P. 54(b) ................................... .. .'.. .... .... ................ _. ................... ~ ..... .. 3 (U) Executive Order 12,333 .......... .... .. :.. :.. .... .. .................. ................ ............ . 2; 23, 40 (U) Executive Order 13,526, 75 Fed. Reg. 707 (Dec. 29, 2009) ........ .4, 5, 47, 47, 48 'JSI·'------- VI -· ~ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page8 of 70 Tkj 1'-' L__ -- (U) P relimin ary Statement (U) This Court previously held that the government \Vaived the protections of l'reeclom of Information Act exemptions for certain lega l analysis in a July 20 I 0 Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") memorand um concerning the use of targeted lethal force against Anwar ai-Aul aqi (the "OLC-DOD Memorandum"). The Court ordered disclosure of th at legal analysis, whi le protecting from disclosure classified and privileged information in that mcmorandun1. The Court remanded to the district court to consider, inter alia. whether ten other OLC legal memoranda are exempt in whole or in part from di sclosure. (U) On remand, the district court inspected each of the len OLC legal memoranda ex parte foi· "determinati on of waiver of privileges and appropriate redaction" in light of th is Court's rulings . The district court correctly held that nine of th e memoranda \Vere properly withheld in full, and that. one opinio n was properly withheld in part. (U) Speci ficnlly , the distTict court upheld the wi thholdi ng in part of a February 20 I0 memorandum concerning Aulaqi whi ch was re leased publicly with redactions consistent with the redactions approved by th is Court in the OLC-DOD Memorandum . ySI L _ _ _ __ _ _ _ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page9 of 70 •J'St~L--------~ L-------------------------------~ The district court also upheld the withholding in full o1 jThe infonnation in tho.se rnem·oranda is classified~ protected by '---------..,.-------' stalute, and privileged, and protected by FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and 5. The district coutt also correctly concluded that the remainin~ ~remain exempt from disclosure in their enti.rety. J !Another memorandum provides legal advice on tl~e.assassination ban '------------' in Executive Order 12,333 that is materially different from the cursory dJscussion of that su~ject in. the OLC-DOD Memorandum.j j (U) In swn, the district court faithJ411y applied this Cotnt's rulings to uphold the chal.lenged withholdings. This Court should af11nn. y'st~L---------::=------~ 2 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page10 of 70 )>81 __ (lJ) Statement of .Juris diction (U) The district court had jurisdiction over these actions under 28 U.S.C. ~ 1331 . The district court issued a classified decision on September 30, 2014 , and a public, redacted version of its decision on October 31 , 2014, upho ld ing the government's challenged withho ld.in gs as to the ten OLC legal memora nda . (Special Appendix ("SPA") I 78-98). The order \Vas final and appea lable as it relates to the New York Times action, which sought on ly OLC legal memoranda . (Joint Appendix ("JA") 297, 301; SPA 197). ·rhc New York Times pl aintif'ls filed a timely notice of appea l (JA 10), and this Court has jurisdi ction under 28 U.S .C. § 129 1. Although the ACLU·action includes additional claims seeking other documents and information, the district court certi tied partial !ina! judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). (SPA 197). Foll owi ng the district court's denial of the ACLU's motion Cor reconsideration (JA 971 -74, SPA 199-200), the ACLU tiled a timely notice of appeal on December 24,2014 (JA 975-76). This Court has ju risdiction over the ACLU's appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. (U) Statement of IssUl'S Presented I. (U) Whether the district court properly upheld Lhe government ' s withh olding of one OLC legal memorandum in part and nine OLC.Icgal memoranda in full under POl A Exemptions 1, 3, and 5, where the withheld documents and ySI L...___ _ _ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page11 of 70 j~ yS!) c _ __ _ in !'ormation are properly classi tied, protected f'i·om di scl osure by the National Security Act, and privileged, and those protections have not been waived. 2. (U) Wheth er the district court property redacted classified and privileged information from its opinion before issuing the opinion publicly. (U) Statement of the Case A. (U) Statutory Background (U) FOIA generally requires an agency to search for and make reco rds promptly availab le in response to a request th at reasonably describes lhe records so ught. 5 U.S .C. § 552(a)(3). But Congress recogn ized " that public disclosure is not always in the public interest and thus provided that agency records may be with held fro m disclosure un~er any of the nine exemptio ns defined in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)." CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 166-167 ( 1985). (U) FOil\ Exemption I exempts from disclosure records that are ''specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the imercst of national defense or foreign policy" and "are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Exec utive order." 5 U.S.C. ~ 552(b)(l). Pursuan t to Executive Order 13,5 26, an agency may withhold inlormation that .has been determined to be class ified because its "unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause ident itla ble or desc ribable dam age to th e nation al security," and it " pertains to" specitied categories of information, includi ng "i ntelligence activ it ies (including I- yst~c___ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page12 of 70 .JfSI · '---------- covert action)," ''intelligence sources or 1nethods," or " foreign re lati ons or foreign activities ofthe United States." Exec . Order 13,526, ~ 1.4(c), (d), 75 fed. Reg. 707, 709 (Dec. 29, 2009). (U) FOIA Exemption 3 exempts from discl osu re records that are ''s pecifically exempted from disclosure by [another] stat11te" if the relevant statute " requires that the matters be withheld l'rom·the publi c in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue" or "establi shes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types or matters to be w.ithheld ." 5 U.S .C. § 552(b)(3). The National Security Act of 1947, as ame nded, specifically directs the Director ofNatiorud Inte lligence to " protect in telligence sources and method s from unautho ri zed disclosure. " 50 U.S .C. § 3024(i)( I). (U) FOIA Exemption 5 exempts from disclosure records that are ''imcr-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency." 5 U.S.C. ~ 552(b)(5). Exemption 5 encompasses traditional common-lm·v privileges, inclucli1ig the attorney-client and del iberativc process privileges. See Brennan Cenler.f(Jr Justice v. US Dep 't of Justice, 697 F.3d 184, 189 (2d Cir. 20 12). ySI ~--------~5-- Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page13 of 70 y$11.____ _ __ ------'1 ifF B. (U) Factua l and Procedural Background 1. (U) Plaintiffs' FOIA Requ ests and OLC's Responses (U) The New York Times action arises out oftwo FOIA requests submitted to OLC. The first request (the "Sha ne request") sought all 01 ,C ''opinions or memoranda since 2001 that address the legal status of targeted killings, assassination, or killing of people suspected of tics to AI Qaeda or other terrorist groups by employees or contractors of the United States government." (JA 297). The second request (the "Savage request") sought OLC ''memorandums ana lyzing the circumstances under which it would be la wful for United States armed forces or intell igence comm unity assets to target for killing a United States citizen who is deemed to be a terrorist." (JA 30 I). (U) OLC acknowledged the existence of one responsive record as it related to the Department of Defense ("000")- thc OLC-DOD Memorandum-but withheld the document in its enti rety under FOIA Exempt ion s l, 3, and 5. OLC refused to confirm or deny the existence of any other responsi ve documents insot~ll· as the Ne\.v York Times requests pertained to the Central Intelligence Agency (" CIA") or any other federal governm ent agencies. (JA 299). (U) The ACLU case arises out of POIA requests submi tted to Lhe Dcpat·tmcnt of Justice, CIA, and DOD seeking records re latin g to the targeted killing of U.S. citizens, incl.uding through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles . (JA 305- l6 , 248- ;& / '--------- Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page14 of 70 59, 345-56). During th e initial district co urt proceedings, OLC acknov,rlcdged th e ex istence of cl ass ifi ed respo nsi ve documents, inc ludi ng the OLC-DOD 1 Memorandum. (Ji\ 291-92) . The govcrni11ent determined, however, that no further details concerning those class ified records could be provided without causing undue harm to nationa l securi ty. (JA 191-97). (U) The di stri ct court upheld OLC's responses to plaintiffs' FOI A requests, as ,.ve il as th e responses provi ded by CIA and DOD, and granted summ ary judgment to the government. (SPA 1-73). 2. (U) Proceedings on Prior Appeal a. (U) The Court's Ruling on Appeal and Issuance of the Court's Initial Public Decision (U) Thi s Court afn rmed in part and reve rsed in part the di strict court's judgment. (SPA 79-175 , JA 871-922) . The Court rul ed that th e OLC-DOD Memorandum was properly class i tied . (SP i\ 113). The Court held , howe ver, th at the government had waived the protection of FOIA 's exemptions wi th respect to certain legal analysis in the OLC-DOD Memorandum, and that a redacted version 1 (U) This Cou rt's prior opin.ion stated th at OLC had withheld an OL C opinion related to DOD under Exemptions 1 and 3 that "is apparently nol the OLC-DOD Memo rand um," wh ich the Court und erstood to have been withheld only under Exe mption s I and 5. (SPA 94) . The sole respon sive class ifi ed OLC opinion rela ted to DOD was the OLC-DOD Memorandum, which was withheld under Exemptions I, 3, and 5. (JA 286-87, ~89, 291-92). The justifications for withholding were provided by OLC for Exemption 5 (JA 289-93), and the Ollice of the Directo r ofNational Tntelligence (" 00 !")for Exemptions I and 3. (JA 198-99, 29 1-94). -, ~ --- 7 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page15 of 70 ySI - 1.~ c____ _ _ l y ·· of the OLC-000 Mem orandum mu st be di sclosed. (SPA 109-34, 142). The Co urt 's waiver ruling was based principally on the release in February 2013 of a draft uncl ass ifi ed Department of Justice White Paper (the "OOJ White Pape r") contain ing legal analysis sim.ilar to certain lega l analysis in the OLC- 000 Memornndum, and on public statements by high-level government offic ial s acknowledgi ng the identity of the ta rget of th e operation contemplated in th e OLCDOD Memorandum, Anwar ai-Aulaqi, and the ex istence of relevan t OLC advice. (U) First, the Court fou nd "s ubstantial overlap in the legal anal yses in" th e OLC-DOD Memorandum and the DOJ White Paper. (SPA 120). The Court found th at the DOJ White Paper "virtual ly parallel s the OLC-DOD Memorandum in its ana lysis of the lawfulness of targeted killi ngs," notin g that ''[! ]ike the Memorandum, the DOJ White Paper explains why targeted killings do not violate IS U.S.C. s§ 1119 or 2441, or the Fou11h and fifth Amendments to the Co nstitu!ion , and includes an analysis ofwhy section 1119 encompasses a publi c authority justitication." (SPA 120) . Th e Court furth er noted that Attorney General Holder had publicly acknow ledged "the close relationship between the DOJ \Vhi tc Paper and previous OLC advice." (SPA 120-21 ). (U) Secon d, the Court relied on public statem ents by Executive Branch orficials, including statements by Attom ey Gen eral Holder and President Obama acknowled ging that the United States had targeted Aulaqi, the subject of the OLC- Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page16 of 70 ySIA.______ __ --- __ _j¢': DOD M e morand um . (SPA I 05-07). The Court also noted that Joh n Brenn an. th e nominee fo r Direc tor of the CIA and then-Assistant to the Presi dent for Homel an d Secu rity and Countet1errorism, explained at his confirmation hearing, in respon se to a qu estion abo ut the U.S. government's use of leth al force against a U. S. citizen, that "[t]he Office of Legal Counsel advice establishes the legal boundaries within wh ich we operate." (SPA I 05-06; see also SPA 124-26 (noting other public statements regarding Aulaqi strike)) . This Court concluded that "l.vvJhatever protection the lega l anal ys is [in the OLC-000 Memorandum] might once have had has been lost by virtue of public statements of public offi cials at the hi ghest leve ls and official di sclos ure of the DO.J White Paper. " (SPA 133-344). (U) The Cou rt made clear, how~vcr , that "ft] he C.i overnment's waiver applies only Lo the portions of the OLC-DOD Memorandum that explain legal reasoning." (SPA 124 (emph as is added)). "The loss of protection fo r the lega l analys is in the OLC-000 Memorandum docs not mean * * * that the entire documen t must be disclosed ." lSPA 123 ). (U) The Cout1 further held that the factual po rtion s of the OLC-DOD Memorandum , wi th disclosure. (S PA t\VO limited exceptions, remain chssiftcd and exempt from ' . J J 3, J 24, J 30). The Court spcci fically found that " no waiver of any operational. detai ls in th[e] documen t has occurred '' (SPA 113). Recogni zin g t.hat " in so me circu mstances legal analysis could be so intertwined \·Vith t~1cts Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page17 of 70 fS!IL..___ _ _ __ en titl ed to protection that disclosure of the analysis wou ld disclose such facts,'' the Court redacted "the entire section of the OLC-DOD Memorandum that includ es any mention of inte lligence gathering acti viti es." (SPA 130). The Court redacted the entirety of Part!, which consisted or certain factual materi al con cerni ng Aulaqi. (SPA 119). The Court held that only two discrete facts "no longer merit secrecy" : that Aulaqi was killed in Yemen, and that the CIA had an undefined operational rol e in the Aulaqi strike. (S PA 124, 126). Even within the legal reasoning portions ~--------------------------~ or· the OLC-DOD Memo ra ndum , tnoreover, the Court held that certain inJorrnation remains exempt ti·om disclosu~e. Specifically,j yS/~ L . . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 10 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page18 of 70 ySII L____ _ J .---------- --- - - (U) The other responsive OLC legal memoranda had not been submitted to this Cou rt for in camera inspection. (S PA 136). The Court directed the govern ment to su hn1it those memorand a "to the District Court for in camera exami nation and dete rn1i nation of waiver and appropriate redaction, in I ight of our rulings with respect to disclosu re and redaction of the legal reasoning in the OLC-000 Me morandu m." (SPA I 36). The Court also directed OI ,C to disclose a redacted version of a classi fi ed index ofrecords responsive to the ACLU's FOIA request, and ordered further proceedings on remand with regnrd to those records. (SPA 140). (U) This Court issued a public op ini on on Apri l 2 1, :?.O I 4, after prov iding. the decision to the government for classi!ication review. (JA 871-922). The public opinion redacted certain information contained in the classified opi nion also issued on that date, in order to preserve the govern ment's opportunity to seek further review with respect to certain di sclos ures of in for mat ion in the decision . (CA 31 n.1 ). Although the Court provided a court-redacted versio n of the OLC-DOD Me mora ndum lo the government for review, the Court did not attach that docUinent to its April 21, 2014 public opinion. II Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page19 of 70 'f'S!IL.___ _ _ _ _ ___,~ h. (U) The Court's Rulings on the Government's Petition for Rehearing and Issua11ce of the Redacted OLC-DOD M:cmorandum (U) The government sought panel rehearing or, in the alterna~ive, t·ehearing en bane. (CA 121-38), As relevant.he.re, the government urged the Court to make additional. redactions to the OLC·DOD Memorandum and the OLC index of classitied .responsive documents. (CA 128-36). (U) On June 23, 2014, the Court granted the rehearing petition as it related. to the Coutt's opinion and the OLC-DOD Memorandum, issuing a revised public decision and a pub.lic version of.the OLC-000 Memorandum . . that made the additional redactions and modifications sought by the government. (JA 923-29). \csee L-------------------------~--------~--~ CA 128-29 (identifying relevant passages); JA 927 ("We will make all of the redactions in the OLC-DOD Memorandum requested by the government.")). The Court also redacted several references to other classified and/or privileged OLC memoranda. (CA 130-31; JA 927). The Court e~1tered a partial judgment on June 26, 20.1.4, issuing a partial. remand of the matter to the district court to implement the Court's directive to inspect the other OLC opinions in eamera and determine any "waiver of privileges and appropriate redaction." (JA 930, SPA 143). ySI~L---~--~ 12 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page20 of 70 ~/ --== }~ '---------- _ J On July I 0, 2014, th e Court ruled on the remaining issue raised by the government's rehearing petiti on and not resolved in the earli er decision on reheari ng-whe ther to compel disclosure of the OLC index, as ordered by the Court. The Co urt re fused to allow the government to withhold the OLC index in its entirety (JA 934-47) , but permitted the redactio n of certain uddition al classified and privileged information prior to disctosu re, j l (CA 41 1-1 8; JA 9~4 ~deeming the "reason " indicate d by the Government in a sealed portion of its Petition" "sufficient to preclude disclosure" of certain li stings)) . 3. (U) District Court Proceedings on Remand a. (U) Dis trict Court Decision Upholding \Vithholdi ng of Ten OLC Lega l Memoranda in Whole or in Part (U) f'ollowing issuance of thi s Court's partial mandate, the district court directed the govern ment to provide it, ex parte, with unredacted copies or the other ten OLC lega l memoranda, together with an ex parte submission address ing the government's withholdings with regard to each memorandum . (JA 912). 2 After reviewing the ten OLC lega l memoranda and supporti ng classified declarations and memorandum , the distri ct court upheld the withholding of nine OLC legal 2 (U) ror this Court's convenience, a complete copy of the governm ent's submission to the district court is re roduced in the Classified Appendix. fs1 ___ _ 11 _J~ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page21 of 70 memoranda in their entirety. The court also approved the government's release of a redacted version of the tenth, and refused to compel disclosure of the withheld information in that document. (CA 454-74, SPA 178-98). ,L_ f '1-Vithholdin l --- --- --- l rhe district court firs t upheld the ---------- -- -- 1 __ j The district court reasoned that the government had not waived any privilege or exemption "by -=====:;--------;-- - - - - ' )IS! L - - - - - - : - : - - 111 ~ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page22 of 70 ySI ~---- virtue ofthe Administratio n' s public statements or its disclosure of the DraA: White Paper." (CA 456, SPA 180). The district court emphasized that th is Cou rt had taken "great pains to redact \ l(cA 456). (U) !The district coutt next upheld the L__ - - - - - - - - - - - government's with hold ing of pottions of a February 20 I 0 OLC iVIemorimdum to the Attorney General providing legal advice concerning a contemplated lethal operation against Aulaqi (the "February 2010 Aulaqi Memorandum'' ). (CA 45765; see CA 354-60 (Exhib it B, unredacted); CA 354-60 (Exhibit K, redacted)). The February 20 I0 Aulagi Memorandum was prepared six months before the OLC-DOD Memorandum, and pertains to the proposed Aulaqi operation that was the subject of the DO.! White Paper and the OLC-000 Ivlcmorandum. (CA 457). It memorialized informal oral advice and provided a more succinct assessment or the legality of a proposed operation against Aulaqi. (CA 256) . .- - - - - - - - - - - - _ _j The gov~.:rnment disclosed a ve rsion of the February 2010 Au laqi Memorandum to the plaintiffs, but redacted information of the same type and content as the information that this Co urt redacted from the pub! icly- rcleased version of the OLC-000 Memorandum. The district court upheld withholding of the redacted information , ruling that "[n]o privilege has heen waived as to the factual intelligence information or the strategic analys is" D JSI L__------:-:----- 15 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page23 of 70 ysiL----------'~ (CA 457; see CA 464 (noting that this Court "repeatedly rejected any contention that the protections of FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and 5 had been waived as to operational details")). 3 (U) The district court rejected the government's alternative argument that the February 20 I0 Aulaqi Memorandum could be withheld under Exemption 5 because it related to a separate deliberative process from the.OLC-DOD Memorandwn. However, the d.istrict court agreed that the redacted version of the Febmary 2010 Aulaqi Memorandum, which the government released to the p1aintif£c; on August 15, 2014 (CA 9, 229), disclosed the same information that .had been publicly revealed in the Court-redacted version of the OLC-DOD Memorandum. (CA 45-r8:....:-5::..:::9J:.)·:____' _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 3 }'SIA 16 ~ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page24 of 70 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page25 of 70 (U) Th.e district court also upheld the wi.thholdin.g of a .March 2002 OLC Memorandum analyzing the assassination ban in Executive Order '12,333 (the "March 2002 Memorandum~'). (CA 468-70; see CA 315-29). Although the district court noted that the OLC-DOD Memorandum released by this Court contained a "brief mention" ofExecutive Order 12,333, the district coutt concluded that the analysis .in. the March 2002 Memorandum is significantly different fi·om any legal analysis that this. Court held has been officially disclosed and for which privilege has been waived. (CA 468, 470). L-----------------------~ Finally, the district coUlt upheld the withholding of an OLC memorandum tha~ ,SIJ.L...-----:--------Jtp 18 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page26 of 70 .----'yu I'J:.:.j L__ _ __ - -- l~ L b. (U) Government's Classification Review and the District Court's Scaling Order (U) The distr ict court provided its decision to the gov ernment for classificatio·n review before public release. (SPA 178). The version provided contained provisional classitication markings, as we ll as italicized text, identifying tho se portions th at the district court believed were classified. (SPA 197; CA 454-74). (U) r:ollo wi ng its review, the go vernm ent provided the di strict court with a redacted version of the decision suitable for public filing, as well as an unredacted vers ion of the de cision containing corrected classification markin gs. (CA 475 ). The government expl ained that it had idcnti fied so me classi fi ecl material within the ,--============ =--= = -- · - ,.--========= L_--~~----------------------~~=-=-------~~----------~=---~ 1 (~)The district court questioned ~-- L----~------~---­ 'yS/ L-------------~ 19~ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page27 of 70 decision that the district court had provisionally marked for public release, and had identified certain unclassified .information that had been provisionally .marked as classified.. (CA 475). The government also identifi.ed certain p.r.ivileged material within the decision tor redaction. (CA 475). The district court accepted most of the government's redactions. 6 L---------------------~~ The only redaction that the distl'ict c.ourt disagreed with was the govemment's redaction of classified information on page 9 oft~e opinion that would tend to .reveatj And the government redacted privileged information describing a confidential request for legal advice";!.·_..l<~C~A~4~7~7...~.:.)·~------~ fS!~ 20 tprl? Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page28 of 70 (U) In its Sealing Order, the district co urt directed the Clerk ofCnurt to tile pub Iicly the redacted version of its deci sion that the government had provi ded, and orde red that the full, unrcdacted version ofthc decision remain unde r sea l. (SPA 176-77). The district court noted that it disagreed with redactions made by the government on page 9, but that, "[i ln order to preserve that issue for appellate review," the cou tt was filing on the pub lic docket the opinion with all of the govern ment' s proposed redactions . (SPA 176-77). c. (U) Den ia l of Reconsideration (U) The ACLU sought reconsideration, asking the district cou tt to consider whether the govern ment had officially acknowledged fac tuul information relating to its decision to target Au laqi . The district cou rt "summari ly and sua spo nte denied" th e ACLU's motion as to all documents other tha n the Februury 20 l 0 Aulaqi Memorandum. (.lA 23.7, Dkt. No . 97, at 5 & n.3 ). After considering a response ftled by the government to the motion, the court denied reconsideration as 21 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page29 of 70 ySIAL-------~ to that document as well, explaining: "I read the Second Circuit's decision in the same way the Government does-·that is, the Court of AppeaJs·has concluded that the Government has waive[d) its FOJA e·xemptions only to the extent of legal analysis." (SPA 199). fU) Summary of Argument The district com"t correctly upheld the government's withholding of one OLC memorandum in part and the remaining nine OLC memoranda in fuiiJ pursuant to FO:IA Exemptions .1, 3 and 5. See infra Point Ll r One provides legal advice L-----------------------------~ fs!~L-----,-----~ 22 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page30 of 70 J'S'~~---·~-----~ concerning the assassination ban in Executiv~ Order 12,333 that i.s far more extensive than, and different from, the cursory statements about that subject.il:). the OLC-DOD Memorandum and the DOJ White Paper. I !The district court L-----------------------------------~ correctly held that none of the l.egal advice provided in those memoranda matches the legal analysis in the OLC-DOD Memorandwn or DOJ White .Paper, and thus the memoranda remain classified, pi;"otected. from disclosure by statute, and/or .Privileged in their entirety. See infra Point I.C. 0 (U) Plaintiffs' contrary arguments are unavailing. The district court properly declined to order the release of factual information that this Court held remains properly classified and not waived. See infra Point l.D.J. Plaintiffs' argument that the district court applied an overly stringent standard for waiver is without merit. Applying the same standard employed by this Court, the district court correctly found that the withheld documents and information do not match the informatio11 that this Court hel~ to have been waived. See il?fr~ .Point I.D.2. (U) Plaintiffs' contention that legal analysis cam:1ot be classified or protected from disclosure by statute is also erroneous; legal analysis is exempt from disclosure under Exemptions I and/or 3 when its disclosure would reveal classified and/or statutorily protected information. See infi·a Point 1.0.3. Nor do the OLC "fs!L..____ _---;:;.:;------' J>fF 23 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page31 of 70 memoranda constitute age ncy '' working law." Rather, they conwy kgal advice and do not bind Executive Branch decis ionmakcrs to any parti cul ar co urse of acti on . See il?fra Pdint 1.0.4. And contrary to the pl aintiffs' claim, the distri ct court carefully co nducted a segregabil ity analysis of each responsive me mora ndum. See infra Point 1.0.5 . (U) Finally, the Court should reject plai nti ffs' contentio n t hat the district court vio lated the Fi rst Amendment by issuing the pu bli c opi ni on prepared by the governm ent, whic h redacts classified and pri vi leged information. Pla in tiffs have no First Amendment ri gh t of access to classified or pri vileged informati on contained in a judicial opinion. See i1~[ra Point li.A. Mo reo ver, th e redacted information idcnti tied by the di strict cou11 at page 9 of its opinion re ma ins current ly and properly class if·icd . See infra Point II.B . (U) Sta nda rd of Rev iew (U) The Co urt reviews de novo a district court's order sustaining an agency's wit hholdi ngs under FOI A. See Wilner v. NSJI, 592 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Ci r. 2009). Although the agenc y has the burden to establi sh the oppl icabi lity of the FOIA exe mptio ns, ''[ajffidavits or declaration s*** giving reasonably detailed exr lanations why any wi thh eld docum ents fa ll within an exemption arc sufficient to sustain the agency's burden .". !d. (internal quotati on marks omitted). The agency's dec laratio ns are entitled to a presumption of good faith, id., and where the ySIL,__ _ _ _,.---24 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page32 of 70 claimed exemptions implicate national security, the reviewing coun "'m ust accord substantial vveight to an agency's atTidavit concerning the details ofthe classified status of the disputed record."' ACLUv. DOJ, 681 F.3d 61 ,69 (2d Cir. 2012) (quot ing Wolj'v. CIA , 473 F.3d 370, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). ''Ultimately, an agency may invoke a FOIA exemption ir its justification 'appea rs logical or plausible."' /d. (quoting Wilner, 592 F.3d at 73). (U) A RG UMENT I. (U) The District Co urt Properly Applied thi Court's Prior Rulin gs to Sustai n the Government's Withholdin gs A. (U) Tilt~ District Court Correctly Up held Withholdin g of the Portions of the February 2010 Aulaqi Memorandum l~cdactcd (U) The February 20 l 0 1\ulaqi Memorandum was released to the plaintiffs in redacted form. The district cou1t correctly held that the withheld portions of the memo randum remain privileged, classitled, and/or protected from disclosure by statute, and are not subject to waiver under this Court's prior rulings in this case. (U) The introductory paragraph of the February 20 I 0 Aulaqi Memorandum cites to a privileged and un disclosed memo randum seeki ng lega l advice. (CA 228, 256). This privileged memorandum \va s not revealed in the DOJ White Paper, the DOD-OLC Memorandum, or any of the public statements on which this Colllt relied in finding a waiver of certain legal analysis in the OLC-DOD Memorandum, Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page33 of 70 - l ifF and it was properly redacted from the version of the f:ebruary 20 I 0 Aulaqi Memorandum released to the plaintitTs. ----------- ----- ] rart I of the February 20 I 0 Aulaqi Memorandum contains classitied and privileged facts conveyed to OLC by the cl_ie_n_L_ag-·e_'_1c_y.__ (C-"'A __2_2_7_, _3_9_0)_._r_·o ·_I_·examp~, P"'t I includes a I descripti~ , -(CA 257-58). 1 (U) Part I or the February 20 l 0 Aulaqi Memorandum is redacted in its entirety, just as this Court redacted the entire factual section of the OLC-DOD Memorandum. (SPA 145-46). This Court held in its prior decision that " [t]he government's waiver applies only to the portions of the OLC-DOD Memorandum that explain legal reason ing,'' not to ''any operational details" or information rertaining to " intelligence gathering activities." (SPA 124, 113, I 30). The information in Part I likewise remains exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption I as classified information, and und er Exemption 3 hy virtue of the National Security Act, which shields "intelligence sources and methods" fi·om disclosure. (CA 392); see 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)( I). (U) Because the facts in Part l of the February 20 I 0 Aulaqi Memorandum were provided to OLC by its client for the purpose of obtaining predecisionallegal udvice and were included in that advice, they arc also protected by Exemption 5 ~/ ,-------------- ----- 26 ------, ~ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page34 of 70 -- - - (~ '/' under both the deliberative process privilege, in sofar as their inclusion re ll ects OLC's view that they are relevant to its legal ana lysis , and under the attorn eycli en t pri vil ege, as confidet1tia l attomcy-cli ent communications. (CA 220, 228);. In re Cnty. c~lFrie, 473 F.3d 413, 418 (2d Cir. 2007); Nut '/ Security Archive v. CIA, 75 2 F.3cl 460, 464 (D.C. Ci r. 20 14). As this Co urt previo usl y held, ne ither the DOJ Whil e Paper nor publ ic statements by gove rnment officials waived the protection ofc lass il'i ed and privileged facts concerni ng Aulaqi. (S PA 113, 11 9, 124, 130). [~--- --~] The redacted portion s of Part!! of the February 20 10 Aulaqi Memorandum arc similarl y privileged, classified, and statutoril y protected, and those protections have not been waived . Part 11 anal yzes I L ySI .______ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page35 of 70 L_ __________________________ Part Ill of the February 20 I 0 /\ulaqi Memorandum con luins lega l analys is, the maj ority of which has been released. (CA 260-62, 358-60). The redacted portio ns of Patt Ill of the memora ndum - - ----------------------- ---- --- r- ---- -- - t_ _ - - - - - -------------- ]Each ofthcse t:edactions is consistent with this Court's treatment of sim ilarly sensitive and unack.Jlo\vled ged in Co rmatio n in its opinio n and the OLC-DOD Memorandum. (CA 70, 128-29, I I I I I L T '/ L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ 2ll Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page36 of 70 js; '------411 -1 8 & .II\ 927, 944 ~--- 1 ____ L ,------- l Finally, the governmen t redacted fi·orn L__ --~ Part Ill o I' the February 2010 Au laqi Memorandum! [ I I j ---------- As the district cou rt conc luded, and as \.ve explain in greater detail below (at Point I.I3 , infi·a), thi s discussion remains exempt from disclosure under Exemptions 1 and ~ [---- -- ~~~- --_ (CA 463 -65 ). This info rmati on is also protected by Exemption 5 as privileged informat ion, as it would reveal both attorney-client communications and predecisional , delibt;rativc matcrial [L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -------. _ - --- j (CA224, - 231; see SPA 114 (t;ecognizing that "the law extends the [attorney-client] privilege to legal advice given by a lawyer to his client")); Brimon v. Dep 'r r~fState, 636 1'. 2d 600, 604 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (reasoning that legal advice "tits exactly within the deliberative process rationale for Exemption 5"). -l _ y~ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page37 of 70 B. -___ 1Thc_!?istrict Court Correctly U >held the Withholding in Full of~ - ---- _ _ _____J II L ---- ------- Disclosure of any portion of the memoranda would reveal classified and statutorily protected information about intelligence sources and methods! I I L The memoranda are therefore protected under Exemrtions I a nd 3, in conj unction with the Nati.ona l Security Act. (CA 295 -96) . The memornnda are also protected from discl osure under Exemption 5, as they provided confidential and predecisionallegal advice regardingr----- - - L___ [ ~ (CA 223-27, 230-33; see SPA 114). ys; c____ _ _ __ 30 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page38 of 70 ------ -== - --~;:::=:===-===--- ySI L _ _ _ __ _ _ 31 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page39 of 70 ~--- - 'ySI L _ _ '} ·'- - - l~ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page40 of 70 ySIL__ _ _ r I I L - ---=ys-; - - D Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page41 of 70 I L rs;r - --=- - - - - - - T~ r.:JI -- --- - ___ j ,.---- - - - -34 }~ -_ ~ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page42 of 70 --- - - -- 1 - ~ ~· C. (U) The District Court Properly Upheld the Withholding in Full of the Remaining OLC Legal Memoranda [-_ -=---=---=- __ __--l determined that the[-_- - - The district court also correctly JotC legal memoranda, L-~ - -- ___I Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page43 of 70 js; L_ ---~=-] arc exempt fl·om di sclosure in full under Exemptions I, 3, and/or 5. (CA 456, 468-73). There has been no loss of protection for those memorandar-- ---------- ;s;r - 36 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page44 of 70 L_ - - - - - ,---- ySI{_ - - --- 3-7 - ___ j Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page45 of 70 /s; '--------- - I-- - - - - 1 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~-- JSI L____ ~ - _j~ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page46 of 70 JSII J memoranda arc al so exempt in their entirety under Exemption 5 as artorney-clicnt and deliberative process privileged documents, because they provide confidenti al, predecisional legal advrce to Executive Rranch decisionmakers[ I - - Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page47 of 70 ;t'st~.__ _ _ _ _ _ _~ Court's previous decis.ions, which, as the district court noted, protectedD ~--------------------------~ (CA 70, 456). 2. (U) Tbe March 2002 Memorandum Providing Legal Advice Concerning the Assassination Ban in Executive Order 12,333 (U) The district court also propedy sustained the withholding in full under Exemption 5 of the March 2002 OLC Memorandum, which provided legal advice regarding the assassination ban in .Executive Order 12,333. (CA 468-70). Although, as the district court noted, the DOJ White Paper and the publicly released version of the OLC-DOD Memorandum assert without eJaboration that nn operation against a U.S. citizen. ·~would 11ot violate the assassination ban in Executive Order 12333" because "a lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination," those cursol'y statements do not waive the protections applicable to the very different and far more extensive legal analysis in. the March 2002 Memorandum. (CA 470). (U) The district court identified fundamental differences betwee11 the 'March 2002 Memorandum and the legal analysis in the DOJ White Paper and the publicly-released OLC-DOD Memorandum-differences that are analyzed in detail in the district court's decision, although they are described in only general tenns here so as not to disclose the very privileged information that has been withheld. (CA 469-70). Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page48 of 70 (U) Although the March 2002 memorandum discu sses a concept tha t appc<1rs in the DOJ White Paper and the two Aulaqi memora nd a, the relevant ana lysis in the March 2002 Memorandum "does not correspond lo any legal nna l ys i ~ (or, for that matter !actual analysis )" in the DOJ White Pa per or the Aulaqi memora nda . (CA 470). The March 2002 Memorandum also discusses other issu es th at are not ana lyzed in the DOJ White Paper or th e Aulaqi memoranda. (CA 4 70). In aclcli tion, th e March 2002 Memorandum ad dresses legal analysis in an earlier class i li ed and pri vileged OLC opinion, r~tercnccs to which thi s Court redacted rrom the OLC-DO D Memorandum . (Ct\ 470; .1:ee also CA. 130-31 & JA 927). (U) In sum, the legal analysis in the March :?..002 Memorandum is far broader in scope than the re fe rences to Executive Order I 2,333 in the DO.J Whi te Paper and the t\ulaqi OLC op inions and is substantially different fro m any publicly disclosed lega l analysis that this COLnt relied on to find waiver. 8 eca use the-re is no "match" between the ana lysis in the March 200 2 Merilorandum an d the previously di sclosed lega l analysis, the district court correctl y he ld th at there has been no waiver of th e protections of Exem ption 5.9 (U) ., f utthcrmore, LJlthough the di stri ct court did not address thi s iss ue, the March 2002 .mcmorandum is also protected under Exemption 5 because it provides legal advice to a sen ior Pres idential advisor rega rding a potential Prcside ntinl dec isi on, and hence is subject to the presidential com munications privilege. (CA 234-35). See !l mnesty lnt'l U,~~~1, 728 F. Supp . 2d a l 522. r§;r -- 41 . Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page49 of 70 - l ~l ~--- JSI L_ _ _ - - - -~ ,------- - /u/ L____- - 42 - Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page50 of 70 .rs~r ---= D. (U) Plaintiffs' Remaining Contentions Lack Merit I. (lJ) This Court Addressed the Status of Factual Material in the OLC-DOD Memorandum and llcld That lt Was Properly Classified and Not Waived (U) The ACLU argues that the district court erred in interpreting this Court's decisions as holding that the government had waived protection only for legal analysis in the OLC-DOD 'Memorandum, not factual material. (ACLU Br. 22, SPA 188, 199-200). But this Cour·t explicitly and repeatedly stated in its earlier decision that, with the exception of two discrete facts, it found waiver only as to "the portions of the OLC-DOD Memoran dum that explain legal reason ing.'' (SPA 124 (emphasis added); see also SPA 113 (tinding waiver only "[w]ith respect to the documen t's legal analysis")). The Court rul ed that the remaining portions of the docum en t, including the underlying t~lCtS, remain "pro p~rl y classi1ied," and that " no waiver of any operational details in th[e] document has occurred ." (SPA ll3). (U ) Furthermo re, the Court r:edactcd Part! of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, consisting of privileged t'actua l intormation provided to OLC by its Executive Branc h cli<.:nts, agreeing with the government that that in formation remained cxe mptfromdisclosure. (SPA 145-46 ;seealsoSPA 119,188, 199). In its decision on rehearing, th e Court noted th at the redactions to the OLCMemorandum were made "to maintain the secrecy of those portions of the [document] that appeared to wan·ant permanenl secrecy for reasons :;et forth by the ,---------- )!Sic___ _ _ 43 -- Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page51 of 70 Jsl c_____ _ Government in submissions to the Court filed ex parte and in camera ." (JA 925 (emphas is added)). The· district court properly app li ed th is Court's rulings to the ten additional OLC memoranda, holding in rcl e v~mt part that there had been no waiver or official disclosure of factua l information in those documents. (U) While th e ACLU speculates that there must be factual information within the OLC-000 Memorandum, and the other responsive OLC memoranda, that overl aps with information in the public domain, this Court has already co nc luded that there is no reaso nab ly segregable non-exempt in formation in the OLC- DOD Memorandum beyond that already produced. (SPA 123 (noting that FO IA requires production of ''reasonably segregable purtion[sj" of responsive records), I 30 (noti ng that Court had redacted " the ent ire section of the OLC-DOD Memorandum that includes any mention of intelligence gathering activities" in recognition ofthe possibi lity th at "in some circumstances legal analysis [can] be so intertwined with facts entitled to protection that disclosure of the analysis would di sclose such facts")) . Furthermore, the facts that the Court redacted fro m the OLC-DOD Memo randum, whic h were provided in confi dence by OLC's clients and reflect OLC' s se lection of facts relevant"to its prcdccisional lega l advice, remai n pri vileged . (JA 909-1 0); see In re Cnty. ofErie, 473 F.3d at 418; Nat '/ Security Archive v. CIA , 752 F.3cl460, 464 (D.C. Cir. 20 14). yS!c_____ _ 44 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page52 of 70 JlS'~-( U) To the extent the ACLU urges this Court to re visit its earlier rulings with regard to !~1c tu a lmatcrial in the OLC-DOD Memorandum (/\CLU Br. 22-25), this Coutt should decline the invitation . Th e ACLU makes the same argument no w that it previously made to this Court, asserting that t~tctualmaterial contained in the OLC-DOD Memorandum, including "the factual basi s for the killing of Anwar alrAulaqil," must be disclosed because it had already been of1~cially acknow ledged by the government. (Compare JA 23.8 , Dkt. No . 104, Tr., Oct. I, 2013 , at 42-43, with ACLU Br. 24 & n.l I, 44 & n.41 ). ( U) This Court has aln.:ady rejected that argument, ruli ng that, with two limited exceptions, the factual information in the OLC-000 Memorandum remains properly classified and privileged. (S PA 113, 123-26, 130-31 ). Given this Court' s extensive and exhaustive consideration of these matters in the prior appea l, there arc no "cogent and compelling reasons'' for the Court to depart from its prior rulings . .Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95,99-100 (2d Cir. 2009). 2. (U) The District Court Applied the Correct Standard for Official Di sclos ure (U) The plaintiffs are also mi staken in arguing (ACLU Br. 13-22; NYT Br. 28-29) that the di strict court applied an improperly strict legal test to co nclud e that prior ofncial disclosures did not waive protection for the w ithheld documents and information at issue here. The ACLU quotes ;tfshor v. Deportment ofStote, 702 ,------- -- -- yS! c____ 45 -' -1 - 1~ Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page53 of 70 r .2 J 1125 (D.C . Cir. 1983 ), for the proposition that information cannot be withheld unless there is a " material difference" between it and the inCornwtion previously disclosed. (U) The di strict court here carefully exam in ed the withheld information, however, and explained how it is materially different from information that the governm ent has previously disclosed . Furthermore, Afshar specifically notes that there must be a showing that the agency's previous di sclosure ''a ppears to duplicate" the material sought, i.e., that the disclosure is "as specific as" and "matches" the with held inCormation. Afshar, 702 F.Jd at I 130; accord Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. Cl!l , 334 F.3 d 55, 60 (D.C. Cir. 2003 ). That is the same sta ndard app lied in Wilson v. CiA, 586 F.3d 171 (2d Ci r. 2009), which ''remains the law ofthis Circuit" (SPA 132 n.20), and in other decisions of the D.C. Circuit and other courts of appeals. See, e.g., ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422, 426-27 (D.C. Cir. 2013); Moore v. CiA , 666 F.3d 1330, 1333-34 (D.C. Ci r. 201 1); ACLU v. DOD, 628 F.3d 6 12, 620-2 l (D.C. Cir. 20 l l ); Pickard v DO.J, 653 F.3cl 782, 786-87 (9th Cir. 20 l l ). (U) While this Court previously observed that the "matching" aspect of Wils on does not " requ ire absolute identity," SPA 132, at a minimum, the two pieces or information must he fundamental ly the same. Thus, in find ing ofticial disclosure, thi s Court ohserved lhal the DOJ White Paper "virtually parallels" the legal JSI '----------:--46 -l r Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page54 of 70 analysis of the OLC-DOD Memorandum. (SPA 120 (noting "the su bs tantial overlap in the legal analyses in the two docum ents")). Without a fundamental "overlap" or "parallel" betv,:ee n the two pieces of in forma tion, it cannot be sa id th at the oflicial disclosure of the first piece of in form ation in fact off"icially disclosed the seco nd . The distri ct courl correctly found that this standard is not met with regard to any withheld info rmation in the ten OLC memoran da at issue here. 10 3. (U) Legal Analysis Can Be Withheld Under Exemptions t and 3 When Its Disclosure Would Reveal Classified and Statutorily Protected Information (U) Pl ai nti ffs' ren ewe d argument th at legal una lys is c.annol be protected under Exe mptions 1 or 3 (NYT 8r. 17-23 , 26 -28; ACLU Br. 25-26) is also mi staken . (U ) Executive Order 13 ,526 provides for informati on to be classi fie cl if its un authori zed di sclosu re "could reasonably be expected to cause idcn ti fiable or describabl e damage to the national security" and the information " pertains to" 10 (U) For purposes of preserving its argument fo r potential further rev iew, th e government respectfully notes its disagreement with thi s Court' s prior ruling th at the government has otTicially disclosed and w.aived pri vi lege for certain legal analys is contained in th e OLC-DOD Memorandum. As set forth in th e government's briefs in th e earlier appeal, the public disclosures an<.l statements relied on by the plaintiffs did nul meet the standard fo r offi cial disc losure or wa iver of applicabl e privi leges. We further note that th e Court' s release ofthc OLC-DOD Memorandum and its order compel! ing disclosure by the govern ment of add itiona I information would not themselves constitute an independent o fficial disc losure or wa iver by the government that wou ld strip protection !'rom otherwise exe mpt inform ation and material. ,---ySI!t _ _ 47 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page55 of 70 specified categories. Exec. Order 13 ,526, § 1.4, 75 f- ed. Reg. at 709 . There is no exc lusion for legal analysis. This Court previously observed that "in some circumstm1ces the very fact that legal analysis was given concerning a planned operation would risk disclosure of the likelihood of that operation." (SPA 130). The Court further " recognize[d] that in so me circumstances legal analysis could he so intertwined with racts entitled to protection that disclosure of the analysis would disclose such facts." (SPA I 30). The Court also agreed with the distric t court's conclusion that the OLC-000 Memorandum- which conveyed OLC's legal advice and analysis to the Attorney General- "was properly cla:sified." (SPA I I 3 ); see also, e.g, New York Times Co. v. DOJ, 872 F. Supp. 2d 309. 3 I 2-13 , 317- 18 (S .D.N .Y. 20 12) (upholding withholding of classified legal analysis under I~ xemption I); l'vfohley v. DO.J, 870 F. Supp. 2d 61, 66-68 (D. D.C. 20 12) (same). The plaintiffs' contrary argument is wrong. (U ) Similarly, intonm1tion that pertains to inte lligence sources and methods mny also be protected from disclosure under the National Security Act, and thus can be withheld under Exemption 3. (CA 388); see Militwy Audit Prqjec t v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 736 n.39 (D.C. Cir. 1981 ). While the district court in its carl i<:r ucci sion observed that legal analysis itsclf" is not an ' intelligence source or method"' (SPA 45), it nlso noted that "legal analysis in a particular document" may be "inextricably intertwined with intormation that is statutorily exempt rrom fS! '---------~ ... 4!l Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page56 of 70 'VSI '------ - - disclosure, including informat ion about intelligence sources and methods." (SPA 46, cited in SPA I 00). Thi s Cou rt shou ld reject pluintiffs' un founded contention that legal analysis is categorically excluded from pro tec tion under Exemptions I or ., .l. 4. (U) The OLC Memoranda Do Not Constitute Agency vVorldng Law (U) Plaintiffs also argue that legal analysis in the OLC memoranda ca nnot be \Vithheld Lmc!er Exemption 5 because it constitutes "working law" under Brennan Center and similar cases. Their position, which is large ly a repeat of argu ments rejected in the prior appea l, is mistaken. (U) First. it is unnecessary for this Court even to consider the "working la w" issue as to the vast majority of the withheld materia l because, putting to the si de the question whether legal ana lysis in the withheld OLC memoranda could constitute work ing law that would not be protected under Exemption 5, the government nonetheless wo uld be justified in with holding the same documents and inl'orm;:ltion on alternate grounds, as explained above . The government invoked not on ly Exemption 5 over the withheld documents and informat ion, but also Exe mption s I and 3. The district cou1i uphe ld withholding on the ground th at, inf er alio, disclosure would reveal classified in fo rm atio n. (CA 455-57, 463 -65, 468-70, 472-73). Plaintiffs do not argue that their "working law" arguments would Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page57 of 70 r-------- JlSI'---_ - - JJ)W justify disregarding the protections afforded to classitied and statu torily pro tected inl'o rm atio n. 11 (U) Furthermore, plai ntiffs are wrong to argue that <1n OLC opinion constitutes "worki ng law" th at loses the protectio ns of Exemp tion 5. This Court held in Brennan Center that '"wo rkin g law' analysis is an im ated by the aftirmat ive pro vis ions of FOIA," 697 F.3d at 200, wh ich require disclosure of "those polici es or rules, and the interpretations thereof, that either create or determin e the extent of the subs tantive ri ghts and li abil ities of a person." Af\'har, 702 F.2d at 1141 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Examples given by th is Court in Brennon Center include Department of Energy interpretations of reg ula tions gi ven preccdenti al effect withi n the agency, and IRS doc uments setting out the agency's ''final legal iJos ilion co ncern ing th e Internal Reve nue Code, tax exemptio ns, and proper procedures." 697 F.Jd at 200-0 I. (U) Thi s Court recognized in Brennan Cf!n /er that OLC opinions are of an enti rely different character. In Brennc.m Center, OLC prov ided advice to two agencies abo ut "the co nstitution al and legal propriety" of implementing a federal 11 (U) Onl y two docu ments at issue in th is appeal contain di screte portions th at, al though privileged, are not also classified and statutori ly protected . The first-the February 2010 Aulnqi Memorandum-contains privi leged portio ns tha t are simi lar to portions ofthe OLC-DOD Memorand um that thi s Court redacted from the public ly-rel eased version . (CA 229, 160-6 1; SP/\ 165-66) . The second is a document that has no connccti.on to the publ ic statemen ts that plainli ffs rely on in argui ng ''working law.'' (CA 315-329). ySI ._______ _ _ _-_-=-____, ~~ 50 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page58 of 70 - }pW statute, but "[n lo one at the OLC made the decision" that. the statute would not be implemented. 697 F.Jd at 202-03. This Court emphasized that, as an OLC official explained in a declaration in that case, "OLC' s legal advice and analysis info rm s the deci sionmaking of Executive Branch officials on matters of policy, but OLCs lega l advice is not itself dispositive as to any policy adopted." ld. at 203 (quoting declaration of Paul Colborn. OLC Special Counsel). (U) It was precisely on this bas is that the Court conc lud ed in Brennan Center that the OLC advice was not working law. 697 F.3d at 203. The D.C. Circuit has reache d the same conclusion, noting that OLC provides legal advice to an agency that may define "the legal parameters of what the FBI is permitted to do," but that "OLC [does] not have the authority to establ ish the .'working law ' or the FBI" and its adv ice ''is not the law of the agency unless the agency ado pts it.'' Electronic Frontier F'cmndation v. DOJ, 739 F. 3d l, 8-10 (D.C. Cir. 2014 ). (U) The same principles control here. OLC provided legal advice that '' inform[~d] the decisionmaking of Executive Branch officials on matters ofpolicy, but OLC's legal advice fwas] not itselfd[spositive as to any policy adopted ." 697 F.3d at 203. Plaintiffs rely heavily on John Brennan ' s general statement al his confirmation hearing that "Office of Legal Counsel advice establishes the legal boundaries within which we can operate ," ACLU Br. 32-33, but that statement does not transl'orm confidential legal advice into "working law." As in Electronic ySI '---- 51- Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page59 of 70 -yS;r F'rontier Foundation. the Executive Branch was "free to declin e" to undertake the act ions ''deemed legally permissible in the OLC Opinion." 739 F.Jd at 10. (U) Under plainti ffs ' proposed approach, any OLC legal advic e to an agency abo ut a contemplated course of action would lose Exemption 5 protection if the agency decides to und ertake that action. That dramati c expansion of "working law" is contrary to bindi ng precedent, and should be rejected. Privil eged, predecisional lega l advice from OLC to Exec utive Branch decisionmakers is fun damentall y and whol ly different from the ''wo rking law" required to be di sclosed under FOIA. 5. (U) The District Court Properly Performed a Scgrcgability Analysis of Each Responsive Memorandum (U) hnally , plaintiffs wrongly contend that the di strict court failed to consider whether the documents contain any reasonabl y segregable, non-e xe mpt material. In ract, th e distric t court ordered the governme nt to prov ide an ex parte filing specifically address ing each memorandum wi thheld in full, and each redaction in rh e memorandum withheld in part. (JA 93 1-32). The district co urt then conducted a painstaking examination of each of the responsi ve memoranda, in many insta nces reviewing, individual secti ons or even lines of the documents to determine wheth er uny additional portion could be disc losed. (CA 454-7 4). Although il may not be 1 , -~ ~ ySI L______ 52 --- Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page60 of 70 appa rent to plninti ffs beca use of the classitied nature of much of th e analysis, the di strict court carefu lly evaluated wheth er it could segrega te protected information. (U) Pl ai ntiffs insist that legal analysis in OLC memoranda must necessarily be segregablc (ACLU Br. 26-28; YT Br. 24-25), but as this Court recognized , there arc circumstances in which the mere existence of legal advice would revea l class ified and stat utoril y protected information, and other circumstances in which legal analysis is "so intertwined with facts entitled to protection" that it cannot be scgreg8 ted. (SPA I 30). The di strict court properly concluded that the nine memornnda withheld in ful l contain no reasonably segregab le non-exempt information , and the government has released all reason ably segregable portions of the Febnw1y 20 I 0 Aulaqi Memorandum. II. (U) The Dist rict Court Properly Filed the Public Opinion Prepared by the Government, Which Redacts Classified and Privileged Information (U) The plain.liffs erroneously assert that the di strict coun violated the First Amen dm ent by filing the redacted version of its opinion provided by the government afte r classification rev i~w, which identifies and removes class ified and privileged info rm at ion from the public opinion. "As a general rule," Lhcre is no constiLutio nal right "to traditionally nonpublic governm ent infonnation." McGehee v. Casey, 718 F.2d 113 7, 1147 (D.C. Cir. 1983 ); see also Houchins v. KQED, inc:. , 438 U.S. 1, 15 ( 1978) (plurality op. ) (no first Amendment or due J$1 L_________ 53 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page61 of 70 process ·'right of access to government information''); id. at 16 (Stewart, J., conc urrin g). This rule necessarily applies \Vith respect to classified and pri.vilcgcd informat ion. to which lit igants have never had a right of public acces ~ . To the extent the district court expressed disagreement wi th one portion of the government's redactions, we explain below why the information in ques tion is classi lied. A. (U) Plaintiffs Have No First Amendment Right of Access to Classified or Privileged Information in a Judicial Opinion (U) Relying on Press-Enterprise Co. v. Sueerior Court, 478 U.S . 1 (I yg6), and its progeny, the plaintiffs invoke the First Amendm ent right of public access to judicial docuirlents to challenge the redactions in the district court's opinion and the process used to identify those redact ions. (NYT Br. 41-45; ACLU Br. 35). But those cases hold only that the judiciary must, before seali ng certain unclassitied judicial proceedings or records, make specific tindings demonstrating the need to deny public access. Here, the Executive Branch has already determined that disclosure. of the redacted classilied information co uld reasonably be ex pected to harm national security. The Executive Branch also identified a limited amount of privi legcd informatio n, the redaction o[ wbich th '~ district court approved . (U) Where classified information is at stake, the gene ral rule is that its protection "must be committed to the broad discretion of the agency respo nsible, and this must include broad discretion to determine who. may have access to it." ~ 'ySI 54 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page62 of 70 ySI L------ _______ __Jl ~ Department ofthe Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 51.8, 529 (1988). The Executive Branch's "a uthority to classify and control access to information bearing on nat ional security" stems t]·om the President's c.onstitu tiona l role as the head of the Executive Branch and as Commander-in-Chief. !d. at 527 . (U) The deference that courts give to the Exec utive regarding access to classified information is not only rooted in the constit utio nal rol e of the Presid ent , it also rests on practical concern s. "Recognizin g the relative competencies of the execu ti ve and judiciary," th is Court has ca ution ed that it is " bad law and bad policy to second-guess the predictive judgments made by the gove rnm ent's intelligence agenc ies regarding whether di sclos ure of the !classified] in!ormation *** would pose a threat to nationa l security." ACLU v. f) QJ, 681 F.3cl at 70-7 1 (c itation and interna l quotation marks om itted); see also McGeh ee , 7 18 F.2d at I 149 ("judiciary lacks the requisite expertise" to "second-guess" agency classification dec isions). (U) This Court has not decided whether a district co u1t has any power to review security classifications made regard ing judic ial documents. See Un ited ,)'totes v. A ref, 533 F.3d 72, 82 (2d Cir. 2008) (reserving the question). To the exte nt any limited review is available in this context, howev er---an issue the Court need not decide in thi s case-such review wou ld properly account for , an d give the utmost deference to, the national security judgments of' the Executive Branch. See ACLU v. DOJ, 681 F.3d at 69-70 (recognizing that classified in to nnnt io n remains )IS!,____ _ __ 55 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page63 of 70 protected if the Government provides a " logical or plausible" ex plan ation that its dis<.;losure reasonably could be expected to damage nntio nal security). (U) Even assuming arguendo that Press-Enterprise applies in this very different context, furthermore, the f-irst Amendment right of access attaches only where ( 1) there is a histo ry of public access to the particular judicial proceeding, and (2) public access plays a significant positive role in its ll.mctioning. 478 U.S. at 8-9. A court must examine not only the type an d st Lu classified information in judicia l records. On th e co nlrary. classified in!'ormation is regularly prov ided to courts in a non-pub! ic manner. See, e.g.. !1 CLU v. IJOJ, 681 F Jd aL 70; Wilson, 586 F.3d at 176 n.4. Courts also regularl y incorporate and discuss classified information in portions of their opinions that arc withheld from public view. See, C'.g., Obaydullah v. Obama, 688 F.3d 784, 786 n. * (D.C. Cir. 20 12); In reSealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 720 n.3 (For. Intel. Surv. Ct. Rev. 2002) . Indeed , classif-ied JISI c _ _ _ __ _ _c--- 56 _ _ _1~1' Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page64 of 70 fS! L___ inf'onnationwas discussed in this Court's prior opinion, and redacted from the versi on publicly filed. (See SPA 124). l (U) Similarly, courts have recognized that the interest in protecting the conticlentiality of privileged information is "precisel y the kind of countervailing concern" that can "overrid[c] the general preference tor public access to judicial records." Siedle V. Putnam lnvs. , 147 r.3d 7, II (1st Cir. 199R); see also Divers(/led Gmup. Inc. v. Daugerdas, 217 F.R.D. 152, 160-161 (S.D.N .Y. 2003) (collecting cases). Indeed, at the government's requ est in the prior appeal, this Court redacted privileged information from the ve rsion of the OLC-DOD Memorandum appended to its decision, on the ground that it was pri vi leged and thu s protected by FO IAExemption 5. (Co.mpure Ci\ 160-61 >vith SPA 165-66; see a!soCA 13l,J!\927). (U) It would be particularly odd to lind a First Amendment right of access to classi tied and privileged information in a FOil\ action, given Congress' judgment that a district court may review doc uments and in form ation in camera and ex porte to determine whether they huve been properly withheld as 5 U.S.C . cla.ssil~ed or privileged . s 552(a)(4)(l3); see also ;JCLU v. DOJ, 681 F.3d at 70 (undertaking such re viev.'). The government should not lose the abi lity to protect classified and privi leged information simply because the district court has, for the sake of facilita tin g judicial review) incorporated such information from its e;rparle review 57 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page65 of 70 ,------- j~ 'JISI '--- - into its explanntion of why docum ents are exempt from disclosure. See In rc Grand Jw y Subpoena, 493 F.3d 15 2, !54 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (" [T]here is no First Amendment right to grand jury proceedings, nor do First Amendment protections ex tend to anc illary material s dealing with grand jury matters, such as Judge Tatcl 's concurring opinion." (internal quotation marks omitted)). (U) The plaintiffs have also not shown that pub lic access to classifi ed or privileged information "plays a significant positi ve ro le in the functioning of the particular process in question." United Stare:s v. Erie County, 763 F.3d 235, 239 (2d Cir. 20 14) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has . r repeatedly emphasized the government's ·'compelling interest in protecting both the secrecy of information important to our nationa l security and the appearance or con fidenti ali ty .so essential to the effective operation or our foreign intcll igence service." Snepp v. U.S., 444 U.S. 507, 509 n.3 ( 1980); see also Egan, 484 U.S. at 527; Haig v. !I gee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 ( 1981 ). And, ns noted, courts have recogn ized the strong public interest in protecting the confidentiality of privil eged com munications. Granting the public access to classi ficd and privileged info rmation discu ssed in judicial opinions would frustrate that interest. 12 " (U) Even if this Court were to fi nd a "qualifi ed First /\menclment ri ght of public access" lo classified or privi leged informati on in a judicial opinion, the appropriate disposition wo uld not be to order specifi c disclosures. "[ E]ven when a right of access attaches, i.t is not absolute." Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S. at 9. Here, the \2,()1/Crnll1C11t' S rednctiOJ1 or 0J1l I infonnatiO ll detCfJl1inecl to be class i11.ed or ~~ -- ys; _ ss - Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page66 of 70 - ] ptF (U) T he Redact ed M a teria l Td cnti ticd by the Dis trict C ourt Was Pr·ope rl y C la ssifi ed B. (U) The district court was mistaken to sugf;est in its October 31,2014 order that redac ted information at page 9 of its opinion would not "tend to reveal any class i ried information." (SPA 176). ! Th e redacted portions or the district ------- court's opinion address thej r--- -- - J' L__ -- - - ·-··-··· ------------ ----- pri vileged already satisfies Press-Enterprise's requirement that closure be "essential to preserve higher values'' and "narrowly tailored to serve that interest." !d. at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). Should thi s Court disagree, however, it should give the district court the opportunity to consider the government's submissions in this regard and to engage in any "additional fa<.:t-'find ing" necessary. Erie County, 763 F.3d at 243 , laking into nccount the defe rence to be afJordcd to the Executive Branch's predictive juclgnient as to the harm that could res ult from disclosure ·o f class ified information . See !ICLU v. DOJ, 68 1 F.Jd at 70-7 1. J81 '------- 59 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page67 of 70 )lSI'-------- L _______________ __ -~A 464-68). Because the di scussion in the redacted paragraphs at page 9 of the district court's opini on lends to di sc lose that class it1ed inform arion , these paragraphs arc also properly classi fied. (U) The Uni ted States explained th e reasons for these redacti ons in a classi fied, ex parte submission to the district court. (CA 476-77). The distri ct courL's basi s for question ing the redacti ons was that it disagreed with the gove rn ment's assessment that th ese paragraph s "wo ul d tend to reveul any classiti ed inform at ion. " (SPA 176). But thi s is precisely the type of matter on which a court should accord substanti al deferen ce to the views of Lhc Executive Branch. See AC/,U v. DOJ, 68 I F. 3d at 70-7 I; £/-Masri v. United Swtes , 479 f7.3d yS/1'----==~--~---=60 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page68 of 70 rs; L_____ 296, 305 (4th Cir. 2007). This Court sho uld maintain the dispu ted red actions to the di strict court's opinion . (U) CONCLUSION The district court's order dated Septe mbe r 30, 2014 , should be <1ftirmed , and th e redacted portions of that On.kr should remain under seal. Respectfull y submitted, BENJAM IN C. M IZER Acting !lssistant Attorney General MATrHEW M . COLLETTE SHARON SW INGLE PREET BHARARA United States Attorney SARAH S. NORMAND THOMAS PULl-IAM Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Di vision, Room 7250 U.S . Department of Justice 950 Pennsylva ni a Ave., .W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Assistant Unired States Attome)' Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street New York, NY I0007 (21 2) 637-2709 (202) 353 -2689 APRJL 2015 'fS! L-.__ _ __ 61 Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page69 of 70 (U) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (U) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(C), the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Rule 32(a)(7)(B) because it contains J 3,733 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Rule 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). The brief complies with the typeface requirements of Rule 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Rule 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in Times New Roman, 14-point font. . (U) Is/ Sharon Swingle (U) Counsel for Defendants-Appellees 1SI' - - - - - - - - .- =]rtF Case 14-4432, Document 89, 04/02/2015, 1476096, Page70 of 70 JlSl . (U) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (U) I hereby certify that the foregoing Brief for Defendants-Appellees was filed and served on April 2, 2015. The classified version of the brief was filed with the Court by being delivered to the Court Security Officer on this date. The public, redac.ted version of the brief was filed with the Court and served on opposing counsel through the CM/ECF system . . /s/ Sharon Swingle Counsel for Defendants-Appellees ~/ '---