Federal appeals court orders Obama to release names of those seeking presidential pardons

A federal court of appeals ruled that President Barack Obama could not withhold on privacy grounds the names of those seeking clemency. -db

Wired
October 29, 2010
By David Kravets

Ruling in a privacy flap, a federal appeals court says the Obama administration must divulge the names of convicts seeking pardons or commutations of sentences.

The Obama administration urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rule otherwise. The government said publicizing the applicants’ names would violate their privacy.

Thursday’s ruling (.pdf) upholds a lower court decision in a case brought by former Washington Post reporter George Lardner Jr., who is writing a book on clemency, and sought the information under the Freedom of Information Act. A three-judge panel agreed with a lower court that ruled disclosure “shines a light” on “who is and who is not granted clemency by the president” (.pdf).

While the government releases the names of those granted clemency, Politico’s Josh Gerstein notes that President Barack Obama has not approved any clemency requests, “having denied 605 commutation applications and 71 pardon requests earlier this month.”

The court of appeals wrote that it rejected the Obama administration’s contention that releasing the names of unsuccessful clemency applicants would “create a stigma that could undermine the public interest in their rehabilitation.”

The appeals court added that the Justice Department had not asserted the information was protected by the executive-communications privilege. The appeals court also found that the government informs applicants that employers and neighbors may be contacted during clemency evaluations.

Copyright 2010 Condé Nast Digital     FAC Content Use Policy

One Comment

  • “Prop. 200”, “House Bill 2013″ and “SB1070″

    0 = Arizona
    3 = USA/ Our Constitution/ We the People of the United States

    We are a country that is ruled by the Constitution (with all Amendments), and the Declaration of Independence, not by the majority of the day. When the uneducated do not know the principles in these documents, therein lays the problem in losing, so no one should be surprised when the dullards lose in court after being smartly challenged.

    Last month of October 2010, our Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote or the 2004, “Prop. 200”. In the month of July 2010, our U.S. Federal courts have found the so called State of Arizona hate filled legislation namely “House Bill 2013″ and “SB1070″ Un-constitution (So much for the intellect of Jan Brewer, “Did you read the bills you signed?”). But we all know that they will go crying to the Supreme Court of the United States, please, please, please go. We will fight you in Arizona, any other state, and yes in Washington DC. We will not tire, we will not be silent and we will persevere, I promise you.
    In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme of clans; the Baggers, Birthers and Blowhards (people who love to push their beliefs and hate on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win in November. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

    I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of these laws, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO! You were all wrong then and you are wrong now!

    I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.

    Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.

Comments are closed.