Court Denies EPIC's Rehearing Request, Awards Fees

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Denies EPIC's Rehearing Request, Awards Fees

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday September 13, 2011 @07:18AM from the good-thing-I'm-on-the-no-fly-list dept.

OverTheGeicoE writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center posted a news release about the DC Circuit Court awarding them attorneys fees yesterday. They are to receive $21,482 in attorneys fees for an open government lawsuit against DHS that ultimately released documents about DHS's airport body scanner program. EPIC used these released documents in EPIC v. DHS, another lawsuit that attempts to end the use of airport body scanners. At the end of an e-mailed version of this news release (EPIC Alert 18.18, not yet posted on the Web), EPIC states that 'EPIC requested an en banc review of the court's decision not to suspend, but, on September 12, 2011, the court declined the request.' Is this the end of EPIC v. DHS, or does this simply open the door for an appeal to the Supreme Court?" The complete ruling (PDF) is available.

30 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So what we need is... by nman64 · 2011-09-13 07:19 · Score: 5, Funny

...an EPIC WIN in the Supreme Court!
SMBC sums it up well. by Kenja · 2011-09-13 07:23 · Score: 1

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2366#comic

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
1. Re:SMBC sums it up well. by Nadaka · 2011-09-13 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  ...That is the second time I have seen that linked today, on another forum on a 9/11 remembrance thread...
  But I don't really see how it applies to this topic.
2. Re:SMBC sums it up well. by MozeeToby · 2011-09-13 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  10 years and 2 days ago, you walked through a metal detector, showed your boarding pass and got on the plane. Five years ago, you walked through a metal detector, electronics get checked for explosives, showed your boarding pass and ID and got on a plane.
  Today, you go through a metal detector, an X-Ray machine, take off your shoes, get hand checked so thoroughly that sexual abuse victims have panic attacks at the thought of going through security, show an ID, boarding pass, get checked against at least 3 government DBs, get on the plane and hope that you don't have a case of diarrhea on the plane (lest they scramble F16s for your "unusually long bathroom break").
  And you don't see the point that the comic is using satire to communicate?
3. Re:SMBC sums it up well. by Nadaka · 2011-09-13 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  That last line was added after that comment sat idle for 15 minutes, somewhat lost track of what I was posting.
No real surprise by dkleinsc · 2011-09-13 07:41 · Score: 3

Nowadays, whenever somebody sues the government, particularly those agencies that deal with military or law enforcement, for breaking its own laws, the executive branch just says "National security requires we can't reveal the information that would allow us to defend this case" and the judiciary is happy to throw out the suit. This response seems to be true even if the information in question was previously on the front page of major newspaper, and the only reason the executive is claiming the "state secrets" privilege is because it's plainly guilty.
It's not the fault of all federal judges, because all this kind of thing requires is 5 SCOTUS judges willing to go along with it.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
1. Re:No real surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  ...because all this kind of thing requires is 5 SCOTUS judges willing to go along with it.
  Which, oddly enough, we happen to have right now.
2. Re:No real surprise by Saxophonist · 2011-09-13 08:34 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe, but that has nothing to do with this case.
  SCOTUS has already decided that the reason for which the trial court upheld the denial of EPIC's FOIA request is no longer valid. Unfortunately, the ruling did not come in time to help EPIC, whose attorneys apparently knew about the case before the Supreme Court but did not appeal EPIC's case in the allowed time for appeal.
  See the linked decision.
3. Re:No real surprise by residieu · 2011-09-13 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  They should word it "We can't defend this case without endangering National Security", which can be true even if they can't defend the case at all.
4. Re:No real surprise by ProfBooty · 2011-09-14 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolvesâ
  Edward R. Murrow (1909-1965).
  
  --
  Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Let me be the first to say by LuxMaker · 2011-09-13 07:42 · Score: 1

EPIC Fail!

--
I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. by Dr.Bob,DC · 2011-09-13 07:45 · Score: 0

The article is about the lawsuits concerning the DHS scanners.
I am simply hoping to inform those who think for themselves, not those who believe everything The Government and Big Pharma tell them.

--
Chiropractic Saves Lives!
Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 07:47 · Score: 0

Let me guess - these "micro-subluxations" are sooo small that only your licensed chiropractor can see them? What do I win?
My Cynicism runs High by fortfive · 2011-09-13 07:47 · Score: 1

And I highly doubt the Supremes will rule differently, if they agree to hear it at all.
1. Re:My Cynicism runs High by v1 · 2011-09-13 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  would be a nice opportunity to set a SCOTUS precedent though....
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
2. Re:My Cynicism runs High by sjames · 2011-09-13 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  So you believe they'll second that emotion?
3. Re:My Cynicism runs High by SeaFox · 2011-09-13 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  The idea these scanners may be put to pasture as the invasive, dangerous machines they are is what keeps me hangin' on.
Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 07:52 · Score: 0

Chiropractor
I stopped reading right there.
Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. by Thud457 · 2011-09-13 07:52 · Score: 2

Dammit Dr. Bob, while you're screwing around over here, there's actual people in distress that need your expertise over in this thread!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
No, no doors were opened in this ruling. by Saxophonist · 2011-09-13 07:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Read the opinion linked from the summary. The basis of the ruling denying the motion for reconsideration was that it was untimely and filed after the deadline for appeal. EPIC had options to delay the ruling in their case pending the outcome of Milner v. Department of the Navy in the Supreme Court, and apparently, the attorneys for EPIC knew about that case. So, the underlying reason that EPIC lost initially was overturned by the Supreme Court, but because EPIC did not appeal within sixty days, they have no further relief. The relevant appellate court would dismiss the appeal as untimely, so it would never get to a petition for certiorari.
1. Re:No, no doors were opened in this ruling. by element-o.p. · 2011-09-13 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Please excuse what may be a silly question (IANAL, nor do I play one on /.), but what would that mean for an appeal to a higher court (SCOTUS, I believe, but I could easily be mistaken)?
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
2. Re:No, no doors were opened in this ruling. by Saxophonist · 2011-09-13 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that EPIC would have to appeal (to the relevant Court of Appeals -- I'm not sure what that is officially called for the D.C. Circuit) and lose before they could make a petition for certiorari, which is a petition to persuade the Supreme Court to hear their case. EPIC can't even appeal because they missed the deadline for doing so. That means they don't get to appeal to the Supreme Court either.
3. Re:No, no doors were opened in this ruling. by OverTheGeicoE · 2011-09-13 08:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The opinion linked in the summary is not for the case seeking to suspend airport body scanners. The opinion linked here is for a case where EPIC tried to force DHS to release additional documents about body scanners. It does not address the suspension lawsuit at all. All we know about the suspension suit is that, according to information in an e-mail from EPIC, the request for a rehearing was denied.
4. Re:No, no doors were opened in this ruling. by compro01 · 2011-09-13 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  to the relevant Court of Appeals -- I'm not sure what that is officially called for the D.C. Circuit
  It's the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
DC Circuit by rjs0015 · 2011-09-13 07:55 · Score: 1

DC Circuit Court Ha.
Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. by HAKdragon · 2011-09-13 08:26 · Score: 1

So, I guess I shouldn't have an X-Ray done either, huh?
...yeah, yeah, I know. Don't feed the trolls.

--
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. by MightyMartian · 2011-09-13 08:47 · Score: 0

You're a lying quack who should be sitting in a prison sell for defrauding your witless "patients".

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Avoid the DHS scanners, forget courts. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-14 01:02 · Score: 0

You know he's joking, right? Like the Pizza Analogy Guy.