United States v. Zubaydah

595 U.S. 195 (2022)

From our private database of 47,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Zubaydah

United States Supreme Court
595 U.S. 195 (2022)

Facts

Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) came to believe that Abu Zubaydah (plaintiff) was an al-Qaeda leader with knowledge of future attacks. Zubaydah claimed that in 2002 and 2003, he was held at a CIA detention site in Poland and subjected to enhanced-interrogation techniques. In 2010, while a detainee at Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, Zubaydah filed a criminal suit in Poland against any Polish nationals involved in his mistreatment at the alleged Polish site. Zubaydah filed a discovery application in a federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which allowed district courts to order the production of evidence for a foreign proceeding. Specifically, Zubaydah sought permission to subpoena two former CIA contractors, James Mitchell and John Jessen, regarding the alleged CIA facility in Poland and Zubaydah’s treatment there. The federal government intervened, moving to dismiss the action on the basis that the requested discovery was protected by the state-secrets privilege. Although much information regarding the CIA’s 2002 and 2003 operations had been declassified and there was pervasive speculation about the CIA’s activity in Poland, the government had never officially confirmed or denied the existence of a Polish facility. The government argued that such official confirmation or denial, which would be inherent in Mitchell and Jessen’s discovery responses, would undermine national security because foreign governments would not enter clandestine relations with the United States unless the United States could be trusted to protect confidentiality. The district court dismissed the discovery request. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that discovery could proceed. The government appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)

Concurrence (Thomas, J.)

Concurrence (Kavanaugh, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Kagan, J.)

Dissent (Gorsuch, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 913,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 913,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 999 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 913,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,300 briefs - keyed to 999 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership