Summary: And we’re back, with much to discuss in the wacky world of national security law. Join Professors Steve Vladeck and Bobby Chesney as they wrestle with:<br> <br> * A *huge* ruling by Judge Pohl in the Military Commission 9/11 prosecution, barring the government from using at trial statements made by the defendants at GTMO to FBI “clean team” interrogators (in what amounts to a CIPA-style sanction in response to government restrictions on defense access to CIA personnel)<br> * The government in the Tanvir case (alleging that the plaintiffs were put on the no-fly list by the FBI as punishment for refusing to become informants) has decided to go for en banc review on the RFRA damages question<br> * Criminalizing the provision of information about explosives with intent that it be used for a “federal crime of violence”–United States v. Marlonn Hicks as a case study both in First Amendment and vagueness concerns<br> * Notes on other recent DOJ national security cases (Iranian spies and an IS fighter who made it to the US)<br> * President Trump, Signing Statements, and the NDAA: How does Trump compare to his recent predecessors?<br> * John Brennan and Security Clearance Revocations: Are their constitutional limits that can be litigated?<br> <br> And for your weekly frivolity? Tips for all the 1Ls starting at law schools this fall!<br>
