Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft

Last updated

Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft
US-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-Seal.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Full case nameDETROIT FREE PRESS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John ASHCROFT, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
DecidedAugust 26, 2002
Citation(s)Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, No. 02-1437 (6th Cir. Apr. 19, 2002)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Damon Keith, Martha Craig Daughtrey, James G. Carr
Case opinions
Affirmed 3-0 that the blanket use of the Creppy Directive was unconstitutional.

Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft was a case that was heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in August 2002. The plaintiffs, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, Michigan Representative John Conyers, and Rabih Haddad argued that it was a violation of the First Amendment for the defendants, Attorney General Ashcroft, Chief Immigration Judge Creppy, and Immigration Judge Elizabeth Hacker, to apply a blanket ruling of the Creppy Directive in order to keep immigration hearings closed to the press and the public. [1] The case affirmed 3-0 that the blanket application of the Creppy Directive to all immigration hearings was unconstitutional.

Contents

Background

During the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the US launched an effort to counter terrorist activity, including one to limit those that could attend the deportation hearings of foreign aliens. Under the lead of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy directed all immigration judges to close to the public and the press all immigration hearings that were thought to be of "special interest" to the September 11 investigation. [2] Special interest cases were defined as "those where the alien is suspected of having connections to, or information about, terrorist organizations that are plotting against the United States." [2] These cases were intended to be handled "in secret, closed off from the public" [1] to uphold a "compelling government interest" of national security. Officials closed the cases to any public or press and removed them from the court's docket, eliminating public records of the case. This rule of closed deportation hearings became known as the "Creppy Directive." [2]

Rabih Haddad

On December 14, 2001, Rabih Haddad, a Lebanese national, was arrested after his temporary visa had expired. He was operating an Islamic charity that was suspected to be channeling funds to a terrorist organization. In light of the recent September 11 attacks and the Creppy Directive, the Government labeled his case as special interest. Haddad was then denied bail and detained, and his case was closed from public and the press. Believing this closure to be a violation to First Amendment rights to speech and press, The Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, Metro Times, Haddad, and Michigan Representative John Conyers filed a suit against John Ashcroft, Michael Creppy, and Immigration Judge Elizabeth Hacker (the Government) claiming that the Creppy Directive was unconstitutional. [1]

Opinion of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

Haddad, the newspapers' plaintiffs, and Rep. Conyer filed complaints and asserted claims under the following provisions: [1]

  1. the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.;
  2. the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 8 C.F.R. §§3.27 & 240.10; and
  3. the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

In response, the Government cited several cases to prove precedent that Congress had broad authority over immigration hearings.

The Sixth Court of Appeals acknowledged that both cases gave Congress broad authority over immigration, but said they were not analogous to this case. The Chinese Exclusion Case held that the Constitution still limited Congress’ power. The Kleindienst case was one of exclusion, and the question of the Creppy Directive does not affect the outcome of deportation hearings, just how they are conducted. The 5th Amendment states that all “persons” are entitled the right of due process of law. This is true for aliens already in the US. Aliens attempting to enter the US are not considered “persons” within the meaning of the 5th Amendment. The Sixth Court found that since Haddad had already established residence in the US, he was entitled to the 5th Amendment's guarantee of due process. In the court's opinion of Kwock Jan Fat v. White, it “warned of the danger of secret hearings, given the government’s extraordinary power.” Thus, the court said that immigration proceedings should remain to check the government's power. [1]

Application of the Richmond Newspapers Test

The Richmond Newspaper Test determines whether the press and public have a 1st Amendment right to access criminal hearings. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that deportation hearings may also use this same test. [3] It must answer two questions:

  1. Have the hearings been traditionally open to the public?
  2. Does public access to the hearing play a positive role in the process?

The court found that hearings have been traditionally open to the public and that public access does play a positive role in the process. In the court's dicta for Kwock Jan Fat v. White, it warned of the dangers of secret hearings, because they give the government extraordinary power. The court found that the Creppy Directive was unconstitutional because it took away the freedom of the press, which the courts said, serves as a check to judicial power. [1]

Ruling

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed 3-0 that the blanket use of the Creppy Directive was unconstitutional. It further held that in order to prevent the disclosure of information in immigration hearings, it must have a “compelling government interest, and [be] narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” [1] It found that the Haddad trial did have a compelling government interest of national security but was not narrowly tailored since the government could apply the special interest label to virtually any immigration hearing it wanted. Therefore, the court ruled that it could not apply the Creppy Directive and label this case a special interest one in order to close it to the public and press. [1]

Differences of North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Ashcroft

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Ashcroft, a similar case to Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, in October 2002 but decided in favor of Ashcroft and the immigration courts instead of the Plaintiff. North Jersey Media Group feared that as a result of the Creppy Directive, it would be closed from “possibly hundreds” of immigration hearings. Unlike Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, the court found that the right to open hearings did not pass both parts of the Richmond Newspapers Test because there was not sufficient history of openness in immigration hearings and that allowing openness to the public and the press presented too many negative ramifications to the hearings. [2]

Related Research Articles

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). The practical result of this was to prevent a number of works from entering the public domain in 1998 and following years, as would have occurred under the Copyright Act of 1976. Materials which the plaintiffs had worked with and were ready to republish were now unavailable due to copyright restrictions.

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court modifying its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". It is now referred to as the three-prong standard or the Miller test.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Damon Keith</span> American judge (1922–2019)

Damon Jerome Keith was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Keith died in office at age 96.

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002), followed by 542 U.S. 656 (2004), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

The term aggravated felony was used in the United States immigration law to refer to a broad category of criminal offenses that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings. Anyone convicted of an aggravated felony and removed from the United States "must remain outside of the United States for twenty consecutive years from the deportation date before he or she is eligible to re-enter the United States." The supreme court ruled 5-4 in Sessions v. Dimaya that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague limiting the term.

Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, also known as Sami Al-Hussayen, is a teacher at a technical college in Riyadh. As a Ph.D. graduate student in computer science at the University of Idaho in the United States, he was arrested and charged in 2003 by the United States with running websites as a webmaster that were linked to organizations that support terrorism. Al-Hussayen is one of the few people at the time to have been charged under a provision that has been described as "overly broad and vague." He was also charged with immigration violations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Smith Act</span> United States federal statute

The Alien Registration Act, popularly known as the Smith Act, 76th United States Congress, 3d session, ch. 439, 54 Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 is a United States federal statute that was enacted on June 28, 1940. It set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence, and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the federal government.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.

United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case that determined the constitutionality of deporting aliens who might give testimony in criminal alien smuggling prosecutions. Because deporting alien witnesses might take away a testimony that would be both “material and favorable” to the defendant, it gives rise to a potential motion from the defense to dismiss the indictment under the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

There have long been ideological restrictions on naturalization in United States law. Nativism and anti-anarchism at the turn of the 20th century, the red scare in the 1920s, and further fears against communism in the 1950s each shaped United States nationality law. Though ideological exclusions on entry were largely eliminated in 1990, ideological bars arising from each of these time periods and prior still exist in American naturalization law. This long history has resulted in a naturalization statute that requires naturalization applicants to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States" and forbids them from adhering to several more specific ideological principles such as totalitarianism, communism, and anarchism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Renunciation Act of 1944</span>

The Renunciation Act of 1944 was an act of the 78th Congress regarding the renunciation of United States citizenship. Prior to the law's passage, it was not possible to lose U.S. citizenship while in U.S. territory except by conviction for treason; the Renunciation Act allowed people physically present in the U.S. to renounce citizenship when the country was in a state of war by making an application to the Attorney General. The intention of the 1944 Act was to encourage Japanese American internees to renounce citizenship so that they could be deported to Japan.

Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903), popularly known as the Japanese Immigrant Case, is a Supreme Court of the United States case about the federal government's power to exclude and deport certain classes of alien immigrants under the Immigration Act of 1891. The Supreme Court held that the courts may not interfere with a pending deportation unless the administrative hearing was unfair. However, deportation procedures are subject to constitutional scrutiny, under the Due Process Clause.

Consular nonreviewability refers to the doctrine in immigration law in the United States where the visa decisions made by United States consular officers cannot be appealed in the United States judicial system. It is closely related to the plenary power doctrine that immunizes from judicial review the substantive immigration decisions of the United States Congress and the executive branch of the United States government.

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1893, was a case challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency, and allowed for the arrest and deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws. The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates. The Supreme Court decision was in favor of the United States government, upholding the Geary Act and denying the writs of habeas corpus.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

Rabih Haddad was the Executive Director of the Global Anti-Aggression Campaign (GAAC). He also co-founded the Global Relief Foundation (GRF), an Illinois-based charity.

Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of some provisions of the Immigration Act of 1891. The case was decided against the litigant and in favor of the government, upholding the law. The case is one of two major cases that involved challenges to the Immigration Act of 1891 by Japanese immigrants, the other case being Yamataya v. Fisher.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13768</span> Executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump

Executive Order 13768 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 25, 2017. The order stated that "sanctuary jurisdictions" including sanctuary cities that refused to comply with immigration enforcement measures would not be "eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes" by the U.S. Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.

United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a federal law that criminalizes encouraging or inducing illegal immigration is unconstitutionally overbroad, violating the First Amendment right to free speech.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 "Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft". FindLaw. Archived from the original on August 6, 2011. Retrieved November 29, 2011.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Hooper, Amy E. (January 14, 2004). "Investigating Terrorism: The Role of the First Amendment". Duke University School of Law. Retrieved November 29, 2011.
  3. ↑ Chu, Howard W. "Is Richmond Newspapers in Peril After 9/11?" (PDF). Retrieved November 29, 2011.

Additional references

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.