No-fly list trial: Court awards fees on government attorneys’ bad faith

Yeah, there is no way that counts as perjury. The question asks for a legal conclusion, not a fact, and for good reasons we make it very hard for anyone to call perjury in strained conclusions. In a real case, you wouldn’t just have to admit “oops an agent screwed up.” You’d have to give some sort of contextual information about the process the agent was supposed to be following, and how he deviated. There is a colorable argument that this could result in some disclosure of importance to national security. Just because it’s a stupid argument and the judge didn’t buy it doesn’t mean it’s perjury.

The government got the correct sanction here, a finding of “bad faith” and attorneys’ fees, which is what courts do when parties push thin legal arguments further than they should.

This, right here, is why it is very important to keep unilateral powers away from government by any means necessary. The idea that government, made of people, is going to operate in good faith and not cover-your-ass mode is a joke.

I've had to deal with numerous similar situations. My saving grace is that I make decent money so I can afford to penalize them.

This is bad, and there should be more serious repercussions against government agents who lie under oath in the course of a cover-up.

This though pales in comparison to what’s happening in the Concord Manangement trial (Mueller v Internet Trolls) with secret evidence presented to the judge ex parte.

>you let government's hide embarrassments

And political malfeasance as Nixon showed us. Ultimately to his own downfall. Fortunately.

You are somewhat close but a little confused on the meaning of en banc. From my brief scan of the link, the trial judge was Judge Alsup of the Northern District of California (San Francisco) which awarded fees. Judge Aslup reduced the fees. The case was appealed to the 9th circuit to a three judge panel on at least the fees issue (presumably other issues as well). The three judge panel (normal appellate practice) sided with Judge Alsup.

At that point, the only option legally to appeal the appellate court is to ask for an en banc hearing with all (or eleven judges pointed out below) the appellate court judges in the 9th circuit or go to the supreme court (which is unlikely for the issue). en banc is not necessarily a case or issue of extreme importance but another appeal mechanism and also a way for the appellate court to clarify a rule of law or reverse course on a rule of law. en banc happens often in the appellate courts.

Edit: I scanned the en banc opinion - it was purely about fees calculation stating "We reheard this appeal en banc to clarify the standards applicable to awards of attorneys’ fees under the EAJA."

> In case anyone else is confused, the term "en banc" refers to a case which is heard before all the judges on the bench for that court, rather than just one.

Rather than just three, no? When I argued pro se in front of the 2nd circuit (which was a great time, btw - I highly recommend it), it was in front of three judges.

I would call it a mixture of pride and moral hazard. People are generally far less likely to pursue "scorched earth litigation" when they must personally bear the costs and risks of their actions. Given that this is the government, they are playing this cruel game with other people's money. Whatever happens, the public loses.

Dr. Ibrahim is still barred from entry to the U.S. "for reasons that remain secret, as noted in the latest 9th Circuit opinion". These "secret" reasons might answer your question and be the real reason Holder signed off on that affidavit (i.e., it was _not_ perjury).

U.S. officials abuse their country's lack of transparency to evade scrutiny, and innocent people suffer because of it.

My belief is that behavior like this is no more than an attempt at a cover up and ultimately protecting each other. Much like some police officers will perjure themselves to protect another officer.

The government believes the law, with its checks and balances, is not strong enough to prevent attacks. The law prefers letting 9 guilty people walk free if that prevents one innocent person from being unfairly punished. You can’t allow 9 hijackers to attack just to avoid not allowing one person to fly.

As the government is limited by the law they use tricks to go around it, in this case by using a secret list with secret rules and contents. You’re not allowed to know the list exists so you can’t contest if you are on it by mistake. There can be no precedent that allows people to remove themselves from the list.

All the above. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Small government supporters argue that without the power to be held (i.e. small government) that you can worry less about corruption, because it's easier to see.

We don't see defeats because they don't have the money for a voice that will carry. They happen every day. Those people just have to deal with being wronged, quietly. This is how imperfect people become true criminals.

There's a pretty wide range of interpretations in the US about what neighbor means in that sentence, so there's a good chance the people defending this case think it's not wrong to bear false witness against foreigners.

Probably the sheer amount of time and effort legal campaign has consumed. No government agency has infinite money and staff.

This was one of the issues raised, and resolved in Dr. Ibrahim's favor, in the second of the three appeals to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in this case.

The court found that she had sufficient connection to the US (including having lived in the US for years, and having children who were born in the US and are US citizens) to give her legal "standing" to raise these issues.

However, non-US citizens outside the US generally don;t have any right to challenge denials of US visas in US courts, which is why she remains barred from the US with no way to challenge that. (It's possible that one of her children could raise that issue in a US court, but they are afraid that if they they return to the US, the US might put them too on the no-fly list again, trapping them in the US.)

Not a dumb question at all. Courts have been reluctant to back that precedent/law in recent years. Filings get around it by naming individuals rather than the US government.

In this case, it was entered as DR. RAHINAH IBRAHIM, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TERRORIST SCREENING CENTER; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY,* in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General; CHARLES H. KABLE IV, in his official capacity as Director of the Terrorist Screening Center; JAY S. TABB, JR., in his official capacity as Executive Assistant Director of the FBI’s National Security Branch; NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER; RUSSELL “RUSS” TRAVERS, in his official capacity as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center; DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MICHAEL R. POMPEO, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

For the most part, any legal resident of the us enjoys the same rights as citizens.

No matter how little money you give a government, it will always rather use that money for unreasonable things if you elect a government that has unreasonable priorities.

In fact, the opposite argument almost makes more sense: "I like paying high taxes, so that, after the government has wasted money on the unreasonable things it wants, it will still have so much money that it will have to spend it on reasonable things as well."

The government would make self-protecting cases higher priority than issues that affect citizens