Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2012
Abstract
Congress has, in the last few years, toyed with the idea of attempting to rein in the executive’s increasing reliance on the state secrets privilege as a means of escaping the possibility of accountability. The Author examines one high-profile case, that of Binyam Mohamed and other plaintiffs claiming that they had been subject to extraordinary rendition, torture, and prolonged detention. The Mohamed litigation offers evidence of a disturbing trend of U.S. courts retreating to formalistic reasoning to extend unwarranted deference to the executive branch in security-related contexts. In this essay the Author limits her analysis to the recent jurisprudence surrounding the state secrets privilege, placing the formalist decision-making of the Mohamed court in juxtaposition with other nations’ jurisprudence.
Recommended Citation
38 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1629 (2012)
Included in
Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Evidence Commons, National Security Law Commons
