![]() Haddad was then denied bail and detained, and his case was closed from public and the press. In light of the recent September 11 attacks and the Creppy Directive, the Government labeled his case as special interest. He was operating an Islamic charity that was suspected to be channeling funds to a terrorist organization. On December 14, 2001, Rabih Haddad, a Lebanese national, was arrested after his temporary visa had expired. ![]() This rule of closed deportation hearings became known as the "Creppy Directive." Rabih Haddad Officials closed the cases to any public or press and removed them from the court's docket, eliminating public records of the case. Special interest cases were defined as "those where the alien is suspected of having connections to, or information about, terrorist organizations that are plotting against the United States." These cases were intended to be handled "in secret, closed off from the public" to uphold a "compelling government interest" of national security. Under the lead of Attorney General John Ashcroft, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy directed all immigration judges to close to the public and the press all immigration hearings that were thought to be of "special interest" to the September 11 investigation. The case affirmed 3-0 that the blanket application of the Creppy Directive to all immigration hearings was unconstitutional.ĭuring the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the US launched an effort to counter terrorist activity, including one to limit those that could attend the deportation hearings of foreign aliens. The plaintiffs, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, Michigan Representative John Conyers, and Rabih Haddad argued that it was a violation of the First Amendment for the defendants, Attorney General Ashcroft, Chief Immigration Judge Creppy, and Immigration Judge Elizabeth Hacker, to apply a blanket ruling of the Creppy Directive in order to keep immigration hearings closed to the press and the public. Ashcroft was a case that was heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in August 2002. ![]() 19, 2002)Īffirmed 3-0 that the blanket use of the Creppy Directive was unconstitutional.ĭamon Keith, Martha Craig Daughtrey, James G. John ASHCROFT, et al., Defendants-Appellants.ĭetroit Free Press v. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitĭETROIT FREE PRESS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Please introduce links to this page from related articles try the Find link tool for suggestions. This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |