## Facts

- The government prosecuted Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain based on an FBI sting involving a cooperating witness.
- The jury found defendants conspired to conceal the source of money the cooperator represented as proceeds from the sale of a surface-to-air missile intended for terrorists to use against a target in New York City.
- The government alleged defendants agreed to help conceal the source of $50,000 purportedly tied to a sale to Jaish-e-Mohammed, a designated foreign terrorist organization.
- Before trial, the government sought protective orders under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) to restrict disclosure of certain classified information during discovery; the district court granted the requests in part.
- After press reporting suggested warrantless surveillance, Aref moved to discover and suppress any derived evidence or to dismiss the indictment; the district court denied the motion.
- Because the government’s submissions and the court’s ruling on the surveillance issue contained classified information, they were filed under seal.
- The New York Civil Liberties Union moved to intervene to challenge the sealing and to obtain access to sealed materials; the district court denied intervention and access.
- A jury convicted both defendants of conspiracy and attempt to commit money laundering and conspiracy and attempt to provide material support to a designated terrorist organization.

## Issues

1. What standard governs a criminal defendant’s entitlement to classified information in discovery under CIPA.
2. Whether third-party intervention is permissible in a federal criminal case to assert a public right of access, and what standard of review applies to denial of intervention.
3. Whether sealing classified CIPA and surveillance-related filings in their entirety violated rights of public access.

## Decision

- Affirmed defendants’ convictions and affirmed the challenged pretrial rulings addressed in the published opinion.
- Held that classified information is discoverable only if it is “relevant and helpful to the defense of the accused,” and concluded the district court correctly applied that standard after in camera, ex parte review.
- Held that limited-purpose intervention in criminal cases to assert access rights may be permitted, but denial of intervention is reviewed for abuse of discretion; no abuse occurred here.
- Upheld the sealing of filings containing classified information, while urging district courts to avoid sealing entire documents unless necessary to serve a compelling interest such as national security.

## Legal Principles

- CIPA is procedural and does not itself create substantive discovery rights; discovery obligations arise from the Constitution, statutes, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- When classified information is at issue, disclosure is required only if the information is “relevant and helpful” to the defense, not merely potentially useful.
- CIPA authorizes ex parte, in camera submissions and judicial review of classified materials; such procedures are permissible if the court conducts independent review and ensures withholding does not deny material that is “relevant and helpful.”
- Third parties may seek limited intervention in criminal cases to litigate access to judicial records; denial of intervention is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Public access interests may yield to a compelling governmental interest in protecting national security; sealing should be narrowly tailored, using partial disclosure or redactions where feasible.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions and approved CIPA-based limits on disclosure after adopting the “relevant and helpful” standard for classified discovery, recognized discretionary third-party intervention to press access claims, and upheld sealing of classified filings while cautioning against unnecessary blanket sealing.


United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008)