Jihad Dhiab v. Barack Obama
415 U.S. App. D.C. 314
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Abu Wa’el (Jihad) Dhiab, a Guantanamo detainee, went on a hunger strike; he sought a district-court injunction barring forcible cell extractions and force-feeding.
- The district court reviewed 32 classified videotapes of Dhiab’s forcible extractions and force-feedings in camera.
- Several media organizations intervened and moved to unseal and release the videotapes.
- The district court granted the intervenors’ motion subject to redaction: the tapes would remain sealed until counsel completed agreed redactions and the court approved a Joint Proposal for public release.
- The government appealed the interlocutory orders and alternatively sought a writ of mandamus to block disclosure; the government had not yet performed redactions or submitted the Joint Proposal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court has appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s interlocutory unseal orders | Dhiab/Intervenors: district court rightly ordered conditional unsealing; appeal is premature | Gov’t: orders are effectively final because disclosure would be unreviewable later and would cause irreparable harm | The court lacks §1291 jurisdiction; orders are interlocutory and not final |
| Whether the collateral-order doctrine makes the orders immediately appealable | Intervenors: not applicable; orders are not unreviewable now | Gov’t: collateral-order exception applies because release would be irreversible (“cat out of the bag”) | Court rejects collateral-order claim; orders are not effectively unreviewable now |
| Whether litigation burdens (time/cost of redactions) justify immediate review | Intervenors: burdens do not justify carving out exception to final-judgment rule | Gov’t: enormous redaction burden compels immediate review to avoid irreparable harm | Court holds litigation burdens insufficient to meet collateral-order standards |
| Whether mandamus should issue to prevent release | Intervenors: mandamus unnecessary; ordinary appeals adequate | Gov’t: mandamus warranted because appeal would be futile and harm unavoidable | Court denies mandamus — alternative remedies (stay, later appeal) are adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (defines final decision and collateral-order limits)
- Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (describing finality under §1291)
- Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (finality as terminating the action)
- Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (limits on interlocutory appeals)
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367 (standards for mandamus)
- Al Odah v. United States, 559 F.3d 539 (D.C. Cir.) (contrast where disclosure rendered review futile)
- In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247 (D.C. Cir.) (disclosure "cat out of the bag" concept)