Case: Edgar v. Coats

8:19-cv-00985 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Filed Date: April 2, 2019

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case is about the government’s prepublication review (PPR) regime which exposed intelligence-agency employees and military personnel to possible sanction if they wrote or spoke about their government service without first obtaining the government’s approval. On April 2, 2019, five former employees of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The…

This case is about the government’s prepublication review (PPR) regime which exposed intelligence-agency employees and military personnel to possible sanction if they wrote or spoke about their government service without first obtaining the government’s approval. On April 2, 2019, five former employees of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and Knight First Amendment Institute, sued the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the NSA. The plaintiffs argued that the policy, which granted executive officers sweeping discretion to suppress publications and speech, violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin defendants from continuing to enforce the prepublication review regimes against the plaintiffs or any other person. The case was assigned to Judge George Jarrod Hazel.

In their complaint, plaintiffs recognized that the agencies had a legitimate government interest in protecting bona fide national security secrets but argued that prior restraint was an extreme measure justifiable only in circumstances involving a compelling government interest, where procedural safeguards against censorship would be necessary. They alleged that the PPR regime restrained more far more speech than could be justified by any legitimate government interest. They also argued that the policy should be void for vagueness under the First and Fifth Amendments because it failed to provide former government employees with fair notice of what they must submit for prepublication review and of what they can and cannot publish. This vagueness invited arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the prepublication review, especially for speech criticizing intelligence agencies and their practices.

Discovery continued until April 16, 2020, when Judge Hazel granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Judge Hazel rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had failed to identify any future concrete harm that they were likely to encounter because of the deficiencies they claimed exist in the PPR regimes. He agreed with the plaintiffs that the defendants’ PPR regimes had a chilling effect on protected speech, finding that the plaintiffs had demonstrated that they themselves had been deterred from exercising their First Amendment rights. But Judge Hazel did not agree with the plaintiffs’ theory that they were subject to government licensing schemes that invest executive officers with overly broad discretion, which by itself confers standing; he asserted that the PPR regime as described by the plaintiffs could not be understood as a licensing scheme. Judge Hazel then addressed the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ claims were unripe; the defendants asserted that the plaintiffs were challenging how the PPR regime might operate in the future rather than opposing any current prepublication review decision. However, Judge Hazel rejected the defendants’ argument because the ripeness standard is loosened in First Amendment cases, so the plaintiffs’ claims were ripe for adjudication because they were being subjected to PPR regimes that they reasonably alleged required them to self-censor.

Judge Hazel next turned to address the merits of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims. First, he rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the PPR regime was unconstitutional prior restraint because the Supreme Court has already decided that a prepublication review requirement imposed on a government employee with access to classified information is not an unconstitutional prior restraint. Next, Judge Hazel agreed with the defendants that the PPR regimes were reasonable measures to protect the government’s compelling interest in protecting sensitive information and thereby did not violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Finally, he held that the regimes were not unduly vague under the First and Fifth Amendments because they adequately informed authors of the types of materials they must submit and established the kinds of information that could be redacted. Judge Hazel granted the motion to dismiss. 454 F.Supp.3d 502.

In light of that ruling, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 12, 2020 (No. 20-1568). On June 23, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit, consisting of Judges Paul V. Niemeyer, Barbara Milano Keenan, and William B. Traxler, Jr., affirmed the district court’s ruling granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Their reasoning mirrored the district court; they agreed that although the plaintiffs did have standing and their claims were ripe, their claims were likely to fail on the merits. The circuit court particularly took issue with the fact that the plaintiffs were facially challenging the PPR regimes, that is as they applied generally rather than to the plaintiffs’ specific situations. They asserted that facial challenges like this are typically disfavored. The circuit court applied the test for facial challenges and determined, as the district court had, that the defendants’ PPR regimes were reasonable means of serving the government’s compelling interest in keeping classified or otherwise sensitive information secret, and therefore did not violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. 2 F.4th 298.

The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court on November 29, 2021. That petition is pending as of March 22, 2021, and the case is ongoing.  

Summary Authors

Hafsa Tout (10/24/2019)

Devon Schmidt (2/25/2022)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14855739/parties/edgar-v-coats/


Judge(s)

Hazel, George Jarrod (Maryland)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Abdo, Alex (New York)

Eidelman, Vera (New York)

Gilens, Naomi (New York)

Jaffer, Jameel (New York)

Kaufman, Brett Max (New York)

Krishnan, Ramya (New York)

Rocah, David Robert (Maryland)

Other Attorney(s)

Active

Active

Judge(s)

Hazel, George Jarrod (Maryland)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Abdo, Alex (New York)

Eidelman, Vera (New York)

Gilens, Naomi (New York)

Jaffer, Jameel (New York)

Kaufman, Brett Max (New York)

Krishnan, Ramya (New York)

Rocah, David Robert (Maryland)

Other Attorney(s)

Fickler, Arlene (District of Columbia)

Welsh, Christopher (District of Columbia)

Woodward, Gordon Samuel (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

8:19-cv-00985

Docket [PACER]

May 6, 2019

May 6, 2019

Docket
1

8:19-cv-00985

Complaint

April 2, 2019

April 2, 2019

Complaint
34

8:19-cv-00985

Memorandum for Amicus Curiae Center for Ethics and Rule of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Brief

July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

Internal memorandum
46

8:19-cv-00985

Memorandum Opinion

454 F.Supp.3d 502

April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

Order/Opinion
48

8:19-cv-00985

20-1568

Opinion

Edgar v. Haines

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

2 F.4th 298

June 23, 2021

June 23, 2021

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14855739/edgar-v-coats/

Last updated Aug. 2, 2022, 3:27 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0416-7926763.), filed by Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons)(Rocah, David) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on RECAP

2 Summons

View on RECAP

3 Summons

View on PACER

4 Summons

View on PACER

5 Summons

View on PACER

April 2, 2019

April 2, 2019

RECAP
2

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Brett Max Kaufman (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7926828.) by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman(Rocah, David) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

April 2, 2019

April 2, 2019

RECAP
3

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Vera Eidelman (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7926858.) by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman(Rocah, David) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

April 2, 2019

April 2, 2019

RECAP
4

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Naomi Gilens (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7926866.) by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman(Rocah, David) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

April 2, 2019

April 2, 2019

RECAP
5

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Alex Abdo (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7926872.) by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman(Rocah, David) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

April 2, 2019

April 2, 2019

RECAP
6

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Ramya Krishnan (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7926880.) by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman(Rocah, David) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

April 2, 2019

April 2, 2019

PACER
7

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Jameel Jaffer (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7926890.) by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman(Rocah, David) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

April 2, 2019

April 2, 2019

RECAP
8

MOTION for Other Relief to Omit Home Addresses from Caption by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Rocah, David) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

1 Memorandum in Support

View on RECAP

2 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

April 2, 2019

April 2, 2019

RECAP
9

Summons Issued 21 days as to Daniel Coats, Gina Haspel, Paul M. Nakasone, and Patrick M. Shanahan. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons) (km4s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/02/2019)

1 Summons

View on RECAP

2 Summons

View on RECAP

3 Summons

View on RECAP

April 2, 2019

April 2, 2019

RECAP
10

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 2 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Brett Max Kaufman. Attorney Brett Max Kaufman will receive a separate email with the previously issued CM/ECF login and password. Signed by Clerk on 4/3/2019. (srds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

April 3, 2019

April 3, 2019

PACER
11

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 3 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Vera Eidelman. Directing attorney Vera Eidelman to register online for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-filing-registration. Signed by Clerk on 4/3/2019. (srds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

April 3, 2019

April 3, 2019

PACER
12

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Naomi Gilens. Directing attorney Naomi Gilens to register online for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-filing-registration. Signed by Clerk on 4/3/2019. (srds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

April 3, 2019

April 3, 2019

PACER
13

QC NOTICE: 5 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Mark Fallon, Timothy H. Edgar, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati needs to be modified. See attachment for details and corrective actions needed regarding the signature(s) on the motion. (srds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

April 3, 2019

April 3, 2019

RECAP
14

QC NOTICE: 6 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Mark Fallon, Timothy H. Edgar, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati needs to be modified. See attachment for details and corrective actions needed regarding the signature(s) on the motion. (srds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

April 3, 2019

April 3, 2019

PACER
15

QC NOTICE: 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Mark Fallon, Timothy H. Edgar, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati needs to be modified. See attachment for details and corrective actions needed regarding the signature(s) on the motion. (srds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

April 3, 2019

April 3, 2019

PACER
16

CORRECTED MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Alex Abdo by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman. The fee has already been paid.(Rocah, David) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

April 3, 2019

April 3, 2019

RECAP
17

CORRECTED MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Ramya Krishnan by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman. The fee has already been paid.(Rocah, David) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

April 3, 2019

April 3, 2019

PACER
18

CORRECTED MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Jameel Jaffer by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman. The fee has already been paid.(Rocah, David) (Entered: 04/03/2019)

April 3, 2019

April 3, 2019

PACER
19

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 16 Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Alex Abdo. Attorney Alex Abdo will receive a separate email with the previously issued CM/ECF login and password. Signed by Clerk on 4/9/2019. (srds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2019)

April 9, 2019

April 9, 2019

PACER
20

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 17 Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Ramya Krishnan. Directing attorney Ramya Krishnan to register online for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-filing-registration. Signed by Clerk on 4/9/2019. (srds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2019)

April 9, 2019

April 9, 2019

PACER
21

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 18 Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Jameel Jaffer. Attorney Jameel Jaffer will receive a separate email with the previously issued CM/ECF login and password. Signed by Clerk on 4/9/2019. (srds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/09/2019)

April 9, 2019

April 9, 2019

PACER
22

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon. Daniel Coats served on 4/5/2019, answer due 6/4/2019.(Abdo, Alex) (Entered: 05/06/2019)

May 6, 2019

May 6, 2019

RECAP
23

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon. Gina Haspel served on 4/5/2019, answer due 6/4/2019.(Abdo, Alex) (Entered: 05/06/2019)

May 6, 2019

May 6, 2019

RECAP
24

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon. Patrick M. Shanahan served on 4/5/2019, answer due 6/4/2019.(Abdo, Alex) (Entered: 05/06/2019)

May 6, 2019

May 6, 2019

RECAP
25

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon. Paul M. Nakasone served on 4/5/2019, answer due 6/4/2019.(Abdo, Alex) (Entered: 05/06/2019)

May 6, 2019

May 6, 2019

RECAP
26

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time and to Enter Stipulated Briefing Schedule by Daniel Coats, Gina Haspel, Paul M. Nakasone, Patrick M. Shanahan (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Consent Motion to Extend Time for Initial Response and to Enter Stipulated Briefing Schedule)(White, Neil) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Consent Motion to Extend Time for Initial Respon

View on RECAP

May 31, 2019

May 31, 2019

RECAP
27

NOTICE of Appearance by Serena Orloff on behalf of All Defendants (Orloff, Serena) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

June 3, 2019

June 3, 2019

PACER
28

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 26 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants may file a motion to dismiss on or before June 14, 2019; Plaintiffs' opposition may be filed on or before July 16, 2019; and Defendants may reply on or before August 2, 2019. (Entered: 06/07/2019)

June 7, 2019

June 7, 2019

PACER
29

Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Daniel Coats, Gina Haspel, Paul M. Nakasone, Patrick M. Shanahan (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Orloff, Serena) (Entered: 06/14/2019)

1 Proposed Order

View on RECAP

June 14, 2019

June 14, 2019

RECAP
30

MOTION to Dismiss by Daniel Coats, Gina Haspel, Paul M. Nakasone, Patrick M. Shanahan (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit with Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Order)(Orloff, Serena) (Entered: 06/14/2019)

1 Memorandum in Support

View on RECAP

2 Affidavit with Exhibit A

View on RECAP

3 Proposed Order

View on RECAP

June 14, 2019

June 14, 2019

RECAP
31

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 29 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/17/2019. (jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/17/2019)

June 17, 2019

June 17, 2019

PACER
32

Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman(Rocah, David) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

July 16, 2019

July 16, 2019

RECAP
33

RESPONSE in Opposition re 30 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit with Appendix)(Rocah, David) (Entered: 07/16/2019)

1 Affidavit with Appendix

View on RECAP

July 16, 2019

July 16, 2019

RECAP
34

MOTION for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Woodward, Gordon) (Entered: 07/23/2019)

1 Attachment

View on PACER

July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

PACER
35

Local Rule 103.3 Disclosure Statement by Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (Woodward, Gordon) (Entered: 07/23/2019)

July 23, 2019

July 23, 2019

PACER
36

REPLY to Response to Motion re 30 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Daniel Coats, Gina Haspel, Paul M. Nakasone, Patrick M. Shanahan.(Orloff, Serena) (Entered: 08/02/2019)

Aug. 2, 2019

Aug. 2, 2019

RECAP
37

Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Daniel Coats, Gina Haspel, Paul M. Nakasone, Patrick M. Shanahan (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Orloff, Serena) (Entered: 08/02/2019)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

Aug. 2, 2019

Aug. 2, 2019

PACER
38

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 37 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/5/2019. (jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/05/2019)

Aug. 5, 2019

Aug. 5, 2019

PACER
39

MOTION to Withdraw by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman(Rocah, David) (Entered: 09/04/2019)

Sept. 4, 2019

Sept. 4, 2019

RECAP
40

Request for Hearing/Trial on Pending Motion to Dismiss (Krishnan, Ramya) (Entered: 09/09/2019)

Sept. 9, 2019

Sept. 9, 2019

RECAP
41

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 39 Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 10/15/2019. (jw2s, Chambers) (Entered: 10/15/2019)

Oct. 15, 2019

Oct. 15, 2019

PACER
42

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Meenakshi Krishnan (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-8510289.) by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman(Rocah, David) (Entered: 02/12/2020)

Feb. 12, 2020

Feb. 12, 2020

RECAP
43

QC NOTICE: 42 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed by Mark Fallon, Timothy H. Edgar, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati needs to be modified. See attachment for details and corrective actions needed regarding missing or incomplete information. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/14/2020)

Feb. 14, 2020

Feb. 14, 2020

RECAP
44

CORRECTED MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Meenakshi Krishnan by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman. The fee has already been paid.(Rocah, David) (Entered: 02/20/2020)

Feb. 20, 2020

Feb. 20, 2020

PACER
45

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 44 Corrected Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Meenakshi Krishnan. Directing attorney Meenakshi Krishnan to register online for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-filing-registration. Signed by Clerk on 2/21/2020. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/21/2020)

Feb. 21, 2020

Feb. 21, 2020

PACER
46

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 4/15/2020. (tds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2020)

April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

RECAP
47

ORDER granting 8 Plaintiffs' Motion to Omit Home Addresses from Caption;granting 30 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; granting 32 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 34 The Center for Ethics and Rule of Law's Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae; and directing the Plaintiffs to notify the Court within 14 days of this Order if they intend to submit a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 4/15/2020. (tds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2020)

April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

RECAP
48

ORDER dismissing with prejudice 1 Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; and directing the Clerk to CLOSE this Case. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 5/6/2020. (tds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2020)

May 7, 2020

May 7, 2020

RECAP
49

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 46 Memorandum Opinion, 48 Order Dismissing Case by Anuradha Bhagwati, Timothy H. Edgar, Mark Fallon, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0416-8648074.(Rocah, David) (Entered: 05/12/2020)

May 12, 2020

May 12, 2020

RECAP
50

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 49 Notice of Appeal. IMPORTANT NOTICE: To access forms which you are required to file with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit please go to http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov and click on Forms & Notices.(nu, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/14/2020)

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020

RECAP
51

USCA Case Number 20-1568 for 49 Notice of Appeal filed by Mark Fallon, Timothy H. Edgar, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati. Case Manager - Richard H. Sewell (nus, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/20/2020)

May 20, 2020

May 20, 2020

PACER
52

ORDER of USCA granting Motion to withdraw counsel as to 49 Notice of Appeal filed by Mark Fallon, Timothy H. Edgar, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati (nus, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

Sept. 4, 2020

Sept. 4, 2020

PACER
53

JUDGMENT of USCA affirming the judgment of the district court as to 49 Notice of Appeal filed by Mark Fallon, Timothy H. Edgar, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Judgment, # 2 Published Opinion)(mg3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/23/2021)

1 Notice of Judgment

View on PACER

2 Published Opinion

View on RECAP

June 23, 2021

June 23, 2021

PACER
54

MANDATE of USCA issued as to 49 Notice of Appeal filed by Mark Fallon, Timothy H. Edgar, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman and Anuradha Bhagwati (nus, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2021)

Aug. 16, 2021

Aug. 16, 2021

PACER
55

ORDER of USCA filed granting motion to withdraw counsel as to 49 Notice of Appeal filed by Mark Fallon, Timothy H. Edgar, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati (jj2, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

Sept. 16, 2021

Sept. 16, 2021

PACER
56

SUPREME COURT REMARK--petition for writ of certiorari filed as to 49 Notice of Appeal filed by Mark Fallon, Timothy H. Edgar, Melvin A. Goodman, Richard H. Immerman, Anuradha Bhagwati (bs4, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/30/2021)

Nov. 30, 2021

Nov. 30, 2021

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Maryland

Case Type(s):

Speech and Religious Freedom

National Security

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 2, 2019

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Former employees of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Defense

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU National (all projects)

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Director of National Intelligence, Federal

Director of the National Security Agency, Federal

Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal

Secretary of Defense, Federal

Director of National Intelligence, Federal

Director of the CIA, Federal

Acting Secretary of Defense, Federal

Director of the NSA, Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Freedom of speech/association

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Confidentiality