United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
JIHAD DHIAB, DETAINEE, GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION AND SHAKER AAMER, AS NEXT FRIEND OF JIHAD DHIAB, APPELLEES
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., APPELLANTS, HEARST CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
Argued: May 8, 2015.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (No. 1:05-cv-01457).
Catherine H. Dorsey, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Vincent H. Cohen, Jr., Acting U.S. Attorney, and Matthew M. Collette, Attorney.
David A. Schulz argued the cause for appellees Hearst Corporation, Inc., et al. With him on the brief was Matthew L. Schafer.
Jon B. Eisenberg argued the cause for appellee Dhiab. With him on the brief were Lisa R. Jaskol, Cori Crider, Alka Pradhan, and Eric L. Lewis.
Ryan M. Keats was on the brief for amici curiae Constitutional Law Professors in support of appellees.
Rachel Levinson-Waldman was on the brief for amici curiae Brennan Center for Justice and Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of intervenors-appellees.
Hina Shamsi and Arthur B. Spitzer were on the brief for amici curiae American Civil Liberties Union and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in support of intervenors-appellees.
Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, and MILLETT and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: Abu Wa'el (Jihad) Dhiab was a detainee at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba until December 2014. During the course of his habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, Dhiab went on a hunger strike. Subsequently, he filed a motion asking the court to enjoin the government from forcibly extracting him from his cell and force-feeding him. In determining whether to grant the motion, the court examined 32 classified videotapes of Dhiab's forcible cell extractions and force-feedings.
In June 2014, several news media organizations intervened in Dhiab's habeas proceedings for the purpose of filing a motion to unseal and release the videotapes. Currently before us is the government's appeal from the district court's decision, effectuated in two orders, granting the media organizations' motion with certain modifications. We cannot reach the merits of this appeal, however, because it is premature. The district court's decision did not terminate the action, and it does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order. We therefore lack jurisdiction to ...