10 of 28 DOCUMENTS

DETROIT FREE PRESS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 02-1437

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

303 F.3d 681; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17646; 2002 FED App. 0291P (6th Cir.); 30
Media L. Rep. 2313

August 6, 2002, Argued

August 26, 2002, Decided
August 26, 2002, Filed

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] As Corrected Michigan, Lee Gelernt, AMERICAN CIVIL

September 20, 2002. Rehearing En Bane Denied January
22, 2003, Reported at: 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 1278.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at
Detroit. Nos. 02-70339; 02-70340; 02-70605. Nancy G.
Edmunds, District Judge.
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 195 F. Supp. 2d 937
(E.D. Mich. 2002).
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
LexisNexis (TM) HEADNOTES - Core Concepts:
LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, New York, New
York, Jonathan Rowe, SOBLE & ROWE, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, Leonard M. Niehoff, BUTZEL LONG, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, Michael J. Steinberg, Kary L. Moss,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FUND OF
MICHIGAN, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees.
JUDGES: Before: KEITH and DAUGHTREY, Circuit
Judges; CARR, District Judge. *
* The Honorable James G. Carr, United States District
Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by
designation. [**2]
OPINIONBY: DAMON J. KEITH

COUNSEL: ARGUED: Gregory G. Katsas, UNITED OPINION: [***2]

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL
DIVISION, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.
Herschel P. Fink, HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ
& COHN LLP, Detroit, Michigan, Lee Gelerat,
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, New York, New York, for Appellees.
ON BRIEF: Gregory G. Katsas, Eric D. Miller, Sharon
Swingle, Robert M. Loeb, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants.
Herschel P. Fink, Brian D. Wassom, HONIGMAN
MILLER SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP, Detroit,
[*682] DAMON J. KEITH, Circuit Judge. The
primary issue on appeal in this case is whether the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution confers a
public right of access to deportation hearings. If it does,
then the Government must make a showing to overcome
that right.
No one will ever forget the egregious, deplorable,
and despicable terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
These were cowardly acts. In response, our government
launched an extensive investigation into the attacks,
future threats, conspiracies, and attempts to come. As
part of this effort, [***3] immigration laws are
prosecuted with increased vigor. The issue before us
today involves these efforts.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals Page 1 of28

FindLaw | Legal Professionals | Students | Business | Public | News E-mail@Ju!

Daily Journal Stb *•••;

FindLaw
Laws - Cases, Codes & Regs
LEGAL WORKS 200
April 15-16, 2004 - Hyatt Regency San Francisco

Cases & Codes | Forms | Legal Subjects | Federal | State | Library | Boards Law Firm FirmSit

Lawyer Search City or ZIP Select a State Select a Practice Area • [_

FindLaw: Laws: Cases and Codes: 6TH CIRCUIT COURT

Opinions
6th Circuit Court
Email a Link to This Case
http://laws.fmdlaw.com/6th/02a0291p.html

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2002 FED App. 0291P (6th Cir.)

File Name: 02a0291p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS O C&

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Detroit Free Press, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, No. 02-1437

v.

John Ashcroft, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

Nos. 02-70339; 02-70340; 02-70605-

Nancy G. Edmunds, District Judge.

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/02a0291p.html 3/19/2004
 -f R O V S D

FindLaw
WWW.FINDLAW.COM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DETROIT FREE PRESS, ET AL,

Case No. 02-70339
Plaintiffs, (Consolidated with 02-70340)

v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

JOHNASHCROFT, ETAL,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [2-1]

AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED [10-1]1

In the wake of the horrific events of September 11, 2001, the United States

Government launched an extensive, broad-based investigation into the terrorist attacks

and other potential threats to United States citizens and interests. As part of that

investigation, the Government has identified, questioned, and instituted removal

1The parties have filed numerous pleadings in these matters. For ease, the pleadings
relevant to this Order will be referenced as follows: (1) Haddad's motion for preliminary
injunctive relief ("Haddad's Motion); (2) Detroit Free Press Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive
relief ("Free Press' Motion"); (3) Detroit News Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive and declarative
relief ("Detroit News' Motion"); (4) Government's response to the Detroit Free Press
Plaintiffs' and Detroit News Plaintiffs' motions and motion to dismiss complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ("Government's 12(b)(6) Motion as to the
Newspaper Plaintiffs"); (5) Detroit News Plaintiffs' response to Government's 12(b)(1)
motion and reply to Government's response and 12(b)(6) motion ("Detroit News' Reply");
(6) Detroit Free Press Plaintiffs' reply to Government's response and 12(b)(6) motion and
response to Government's 12(b)(1) motion ("Free Press' Reply"); (7) Government's reply
brief in support of 12(b)(6) motion in reply to Free Press' and Detroit News' replies
("Government's SurReply").