ZAIDAN v. TRUMP, 412 F.Supp.3d 52

Background

Plaintiff Bilal Abdul Kareem, a U.S. journalist in Syria, alleges he was repeatedly subject to or nearly hit by U.S. aerial strikes and believes he is on a U.S. “Kill List.”
Kareem sued federal officials and agencies (CIA, DOD, DHS, DOJ, DNI) in their official capacities alleging constitutional violations, including deprivation of due process and targeted killing.
The Court previously dismissed some claims but permitted three to proceed; after discovery requests, defendants invoked the state secrets privilege and moved to dismiss.
Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats submitted public and in camera declarations asserting that disclosure of whether Kareem is or was targeted, the targeting process, and related intelligence would harm national security by revealing sources/methods and enabling evasion.
Kareem argued his interest in life and due process, proposed protective procedures (e.g., CIPA-like handling), noted prior public disclosures about the Kill List, and emphasized the prospective nature of the case.
The Court found the privilege properly invoked, concluded the requested information is privileged and indispensable to both Kareem’s prima facie case and the government’s defenses, and dismissed the complaint under the state secrets doctrine.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government satisfied procedural requirements to invoke state secrets privilege	Kareem contended government should not shield highly consequential constitutional facts	Government submitted formal, personal declarations from agency heads asserting privilege	Held: Government met Reynolds procedural requirements; invocation procedurally valid
Whether the requested information qualifies as privileged state secrets	Kareem argued the right to due process and the gravity of the claim mean privilege should not apply	Government argued disclosure of whether Kareem was targeted, the basis for any targeting, and methods would reveal sensitive sources/methods and risk national security	Held: Information is privileged; disclosure poses a reasonable danger to national security
Whether constitutional interests or procedural accommodations (e.g., CIPA) overcome the privilege	Kareem urged that due process and analogies to criminal/CIPA protections require disclosure or alternative handling	Government argued civil context makes state secrets absolute once properly asserted and accommodations cannot overcome risk	Held: Privilege remains absolute in this civil context; CIPA-style procedures cannot overcome it here
Whether the case can proceed without privileged information or must be dismissed	Kareem claimed he can proceed via public facts and alternative evidence	Government argued the privileged facts are necessary for Kareem to prove standing/merits and for defendants to defend; litigation would risk disclosure	Held: Dismissal required because privileged information is essential to plaintiff’s prima facie case and to defendants’ defenses; further litigation would risk disclosure

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) (establishes procedural and substantive framework for state secrets privilege)
Halkin v. Helms, 598 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (courts must accord deference to executive privilege assertions)
Halkin v. Helms, 690 F.2d 977 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (limits of privilege and inquiry standard; privilege can bar constitutional claims)
Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 614 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal required when litigation cannot proceed without risking disclosure of state secrets)
Ellsberg v. Mitchell, 709 F.2d 51 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (necessity affects court’s probe but cannot override state secrets when military secrets are at stake)
In re United States, 872 F.2d 472 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (privilege not to be lightly invoked; courts must scrutinize executive assertions)
Al-Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Bush, 507 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2007) (disclosure of surveillance/targeting facts can compromise sources and methods)
Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1875) (bar on judicial inquiry into certain secret wartime matters)
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) (standing requires concrete injury or imminent threat)
Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Int’l, Ltd., 776 F.2d 1236 (4th Cir. 1985) (dismissal appropriate where proceeding would threaten disclosure of privileged matters)