Library of Congress Wrongly Fires Former Gitmo Lawyer
ACLU Says Congressional Research Service Violated First Amendment When It Fired Col. Morris Davis
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today sent a letter to the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on behalf of Col. Morris Davis, the former chief prosecutor for the Guantánamo military commissions, who was terminated from his job at CRS because of opinion pieces he wrote about the Guantánamo military commissions system that ran in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post on November 11, 2009. The ACLU's letter argues that CRS violated the First Amendment when it fired Davis for speaking as a private citizen about matters having nothing to do with his job there, and that CRS must reinstate Davis to his position in order to avoid litigation.
"The First Amendment protects Col. Davis's right to speak and write as a private citizen about issues on which he has personal knowledge," said Aden Fine, staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group. "Col. Davis didn't give up his right to express his opinions and first-hand knowledge about a matter of such public importance when he left the military commissions system and went to work at CRS."
In October 2007, Davis resigned from his position in the military commissions because of his belief that the system was fundamentally flawed. He became a vocal critic of the commissions, writing articles, giving speeches and testifying before Congress. In December 2008, Davis began working as the Assistant Director of the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division at CRS, a department within the Library of Congress that provides experts to assist members of Congress and committee staff in the legislative process. Davis's work at CRS is not related to, and his division has no responsibilities for, anything having to do with the military commissions.
"CRS does very important work and I'm proud of what I contribute to that," said Davis. "But my service there does not preclude me from speaking about matters of great public importance about which I have personal expertise that is extremely valuable to the ongoing debate over how to prosecute terrorism suspects."
On November 11, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece written by Davis expressing views abut the military commissions similar to those he had expressed publicly prior to working at CRS. The Washington Post also published a letter to the editor that day written by Davis on the same subject. Both pieces were written by Davis in his personal capacity, made clear that he was writing as a private individual and former chief prosecutor of the military commissions and made no mention of CRS. He wrote the pieces on his home computer during non-work hours.
Immediately after the op-ed and the letter were published, Davis received a threatening email from his supervisor regarding the pieces and questioning Davis's ability to continue serving as Assistant Director, despite previous positive feedback about his work from the same supervisor. In meetings that followed, Davis's supervisor informed him that as a result of the pieces his employment would be terminated.
According to the ACLU's letter, the "decision to terminate Col. Davis for writing the op-ed and letter to the editor is a clear violation of Col. Davis's First Amendment and due process rights. The Supreme Court has long made clear that public employees such as Col. Davis are protected by the First Amendment when they engage in speech about matters of public concern…There can be no dispute that the subject matter of Col. Davis's speech – the military commissions and the prosecution of suspected terrorists – is a matter of immense public concern. These issues are the subject of a nationwide, highly contentious, and very public debate that has been dominating the news and our government's attention."
"The public has a great interest in hearing from Col. Davis about Guantánamo and the military commissions because of his unique expertise as the former chief prosecutor there," said Fine. "There is no reason his employment at CRS should prevent the public from hearing those views."
The full text of the ACLU's letter is available online at: www.aclu.org/free-speech/letter-library-congress-asking-reinstatement-colonel-morris-davis
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.