Court Orders Memo Release Justifying Drone Strike on U.S. Citizen

Court Orders Memo Release Justifying Drone Strike on U.S. Citizen
Published: 21 Apr, 2014
2 min read

On Monday, April 21, a federal appeals court ordered the release of key parts of a memorandum detailing the justification behind targeted drone strikes against people linked to terrorism, including U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. The 3-judge panel from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed to reverse a lower court's decision by ordering the DOJ to release this information.

Since U.S. officials have already released statements on the 2011 drone strike against al-Awlaki and other strikes, the court ruled that the government has forfeited its right to keep certain portions of the memo classified.

“Whatever protection the legal analysis might once have had,” Judge Jon O. Newman wrote, “has been lost by virtue of public statements of public officials at the highest levels and official disclosure of the D.O.J. White Paper.”The "White Paper" was released in February 2013 and offered a very general explanation from the Obama administration on why targeted drone strikes are constitutional and within the administration's authority to carry out.

The court said it is no longer logical or even plausible for the government to argue that disclosing legal analysis regarding drone strikes is a threat to future military operations, intelligence gathering, or efforts overseas after it has already disclosed similar information.

The plaintiffs, including the New York Times, two of its reporters, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed suit after the government denied Freedom of Information Act requests to release the documents. A January 2011 decision by Manhattan federal judge Colleen McMahon questioned the legality of drone strikes, but said the administration was not in violation of the U.S. Constitution by keeping the memo classified.

The Appeals Court ruling on Monday overturned this decision in a case that is essentially about the public's right to know what its government is up to versus executive power to decide what documents need to be kept secret for the sake of national security. The court did not order the full release of the memo, and redacted portions about intelligence gathering.

It is unclear, at this point, how the government will respond.

Photo Credit: ABC News

You Might Also Like

New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
Using verified California voter file data, IVP surveyed high-propensity voters from February 13 through 20. The poll tested first-choice ballot preferences alongside issue intensity on affordability and the cost of living, immigration enforcement, more choice reform, and more....
23 Feb, 2026
-
10 min read
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
Polls consistently show that nearly all Americans across the political spectrum agree that there is too much money in politics – whether from foreign sources, corporations, or so-called “dark money” groups. ...
23 Feb, 2026
-
13 min read
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
The overlap between committee assignments and stock ownership is not automatically illegal. Because the current legal framework permits this proximity as long as disclosure rules are followed, lawmakers are not operating under a system that forces change....
20 Feb, 2026
-
4 min read