MENU

Terrorism

Courthouse Steps: Ziglar v. Abbasi

International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum Friday, January 27, 02:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call

Ziglar v. Abbasi is the result of over a decade of remands and appeals. The case was originally filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of incarcerated Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens who were targeted after 9/11 by law enforcement as “terrorism suspects.” The defendants in the case, high level officials in the Bush administration, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller, and low level detention officials, filed a motion to dismiss which was rejected by the in the District Court.

In 2009, the Supreme Court decided in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that government officials were not liable for discriminatory actions of their subordinates without evidence they directly ordered the actions. Meanwhile, five of the petitioners in Ziglar settled with the government, and the case was remanded to the District Court and amended. In 2010, the District Court granted a new motion of dismissal, but only for the high level officials. This dismissal was reversed by the Second Circuit and then the government petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

Professor Jamil Jaffer will join us to discuss the oral argument of this case, which was held on January 18.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor of Law and Director, Homeland and National Security Law Program, George Mason University School of Law and former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Ashcroft v. Abbasi: 9/11 Detainee Case

Short video featuring Jamil Jaffer
Jamil N. Jaffer January 15, 2017

Can federal officials be held liable personally for enforcing the “hold until clear” policy following the attacks on 9/11?   Jamil Jaffer, Director of the Homeland and National Security Law Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School, explains the dispute in the upcoming Supreme Court Case Ashcroft v. Abbasi.   Questions before the Court include whether a group of individuals who were arrested immediately after 9/11 have standing to bring a Bivens claim for violation of their constitutional rights, whether the federal officials enforcing the policy are entitled to qualified immunity, and whether the officials acted based on racial discrimination or a concern for national security.  The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on January 18th.

Metadata, Surveillance, and Intelligence Collection in the Trump Administration - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Michael Chertoff January 05, 2017

President-elect Trump has made counterterrorism a focal point of his administration. The disciplined use of metadata, surveillance, intelligence collection, and information sharing is vital to counterterrorism efforts. Drawing on his former experience as a prosecutor, judge, and the second United States Secretary of Homeland Security, the Hon. Michael Chertoff offered guidance on how these tools can be used most effectively to protect against security challenges such as crowd-sourced terrorism and hostile nation states.

Featuring:

  • Hon. Michael Chertoff, Senior Of Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP and Executive Chairman and Co-Founder, The Chertoff Group

Justice Scalia’s Jurisprudence and National Security - Event Audio/Video

2016 National Lawyers Convention
Bradford R. Clark, Elizabeth Goitein, Adam Klein, Stephen I. Vladeck, Jerry E. Smith November 23, 2016

This panel will consider Justice Scalia's legacy in national security law, revisiting his opinions in major national security cases, including Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush. It will also discuss the influence Justice Scalia's jurisprudence has exerted on national security law more broadly and his views on the role of the courts reviewing national security policy.

This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC.

International & National Security Law: Justice Scalia’s Jurisprudence and National Security
3:15 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Grand Ballroom 

  • Prof. Bradford R. Clark, William Cranch Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
  • Ms. Elizabeth Goitein, Co-Director, Liberty & National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice
  • Mr. Adam Klein, Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
  • Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
  • Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

$400 Million to Iran: Ransom or Diplomacy?

Short video featuring Jamil N. Jaffer
Jamil N. Jaffer August 25, 2016

Jamil N. Jaffer explains the legal implications of the US State Department's payment of $400 million to Iran in light of US sanctions against the country. Prof. Jaffer also explores further questions: Was the payment "ransom"? Was it legal? 

Mr. Jaffer is an Adjunct Professor and Director of the Homeland and National Security Law Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.