## Facts

- Jihad (Wa’el) Dhiab, a Syrian national detained at Guantánamo Bay, participated in a hunger strike during his detention.
- Guantánamo personnel conducted forcible cell extractions and enteral force-feeding; the government recorded these procedures on video.
- The government classified the videos as “SECRET,” asserting disclosure could harm national security.
- In habeas-related litigation, Dhiab’s security-cleared counsel received the videos, which were filed under seal as part of the district court record.
- Sixteen media organizations intervened and moved to unseal the videos, asserting a qualified First Amendment right of access to judicial records.
- The district court granted intervention and ordered public release of redacted versions of the videos.
- The government appealed the unsealing order; the media intervenors cross-appealed, arguing the redactions were overly broad.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment provides a right of public access to properly classified national-security information filed under seal in connection with habeas proceedings.
2. Whether the Press-Enterprise “experience and logic” framework applies to classified video evidence submitted in a habeas/conditions dispute.
3. If any qualified right of access applies, whether national-security harms justify continued sealing and render disputes over redactions moot.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s unsealing order and held the videos must remain sealed.
- The court held the press and public have no First Amendment right of access to properly classified national-security information merely because it was filed in court.
- The court concluded the Press-Enterprise access doctrine did not require unsealing of these classified videos.
- Alternatively, assuming a qualified access right existed, the court held the government’s national-security showing overcame it.
- The media intervenors’ cross-appeal challenging the scope of redactions was dismissed as moot.

## Legal Principles

- Properly classified national-security information does not become subject to a First Amendment public-access right solely by being included in a judicial record.
- The Press-Enterprise “experience and logic” inquiry does not establish a tradition-based access right to classified materials controlled by classification law and executive authority.
- Even where an access right is assumed arguendo, the government may defeat access by showing a substantial risk of national-security harm; courts give significant weight to supported executive-branch national-security assessments.
- When a court determines materials must remain sealed in full, disputes about the extent of proposed redactions are moot.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that the First Amendment does not compel public access to properly classified Guantánamo force-feeding videos filed under seal in habeas-related litigation and, in any event, national-security risks justified continued sealing, mooting challenges to the district court’s redactions.


Dhiab v. Trump, 852 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2017)