Binyam Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A lawsuit against a private contractor for its alleged role in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program was dismissed at the pleading stage after the government invoked the state secrets doctrine, arguing that litigation would inevitably risk disclosing classified information.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that the state secrets evidentiary privilege under Reynolds can justify dismissal at the pleading stage if litigation would create an unacceptable risk of disclosing state secrets, even before specific evidence is requested in discovery.
Binyam Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Five foreign nationals sued Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a private U.S. corporation, under the Alien Tort Statute. They alleged that Jeppesen provided flight planning and logistical support services for the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program, which resulted in their clandestine abduction and transfer to foreign countries where they were detained and tortured. Before Jeppesen filed an answer, the U.S. government intervened and moved to dismiss the complaint, invoking the state secrets doctrine. The Director of the CIA submitted public and classified declarations asserting that the litigation was inextricably linked to classified intelligence activities. The government argued that confirming or denying the allegations, or allowing Jeppesen to mount a defense, would inevitably lead to the disclosure of information that could cause grave damage to national security. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the very subject matter of the case was a state secret. The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed the dismissal.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can the state secrets doctrine, as an evidentiary privilege, justify the dismissal of a civil action at the pleading stage before an answer is filed or discovery is conducted?
Yes. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that even under the Reynolds Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can the state secrets doctrine, as an evidentiary privilege, justify the dismissal of a civil action at the pleading stage before an answer is filed or discovery is conducted?
Conclusion
The decision confirms that the *Reynolds* privilege is not merely a rule Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull
Legal Rule
The state secrets doctrine encompasses two applications: (1) the *Totten* bar, a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mol
Legal Analysis
The court distinguished between the absolute *Totten* bar, which it declined to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore m
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit against a