Fed Judge Upholds Decisions versus CAIR & Others

Recall that the 5th Circuit ruled that Judge Solis must unseal his earlier ruling in the collateral matter arising out of HLF criminal trial in which CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT sought to have Judge Solis rule that the USG’s listing them as UCCs and/or JVs publicly violated their 5th Am rights. But, in so doing, he ruled that he would not strike them from the list, and he apparently proceeded to go through the evidence connecting them to Hamas, IAP, etc. (I say “apparently” because we could only infer this from the 5th Circuit ruling.) Then, Judge Solis put his ruling under seal and the trial brief, but not before, of course, it was public knowledge. A pyrrhic victiry for the Hamas boys and girls, to be sure.

CAIR and ISNA decided to let well enough alone, but not NAIT. NAIT appealed to the 5th Circuit and wanted the appeals court to reiterate that its 5th Amendment rights were violated, wanted Solis’s earlier ruling unsealed and reiterated its request to have NAIT’s name expunged from the UCC/JV list. The 5th Circuit refused to expunge NAIT or otherwise strike the list altogether.

What the 5th Circuit did do was chastise Judge Solis a bit by saying that his characterization of the evidence relative to the justification by the gov’t putting these three groups on the list was irrelevant dicta and not necessary to have concluded that the movants’ 5th Amendment rights had been violated.

So, Friday Solis’s July 1, 2009 opinion was unsealed. Trust me when I say that this is how you lose when you “win” an appeal. CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT lose big time with this opinion now unsealed.

We can now fill in a few gaps…

After going thru standing issues (the court accepted CAIR amicus brief as a motion along with ISNA and NAIT’s motion) and indeed ruled that their 5th Am rights had been violated.

But then, beginning at page 14, Judge Solis defends his decision not to expunge their names from the list by delivering a devastating evidentiary analysis essentially ruling that there was a preponderance of evidence to establish UCC status (keep in mind it was this discussion the 5th Cir did not approve of but did not “vacate” the opinion as requested by NAIT). It is really good stuff.