Khan Oral Argument Summary--Not!

Well, at least we learned something about fisheries. Following this morning's lengthy oral argument in Oceana, Inc. v. Locke, the D.C. Circuit had an oh-so-brief brief discussion of Khan v. Obama in open session. Here's how it went down. Chief Judge David Sentelle opens the session by noting  that the first question the court has to decide is whether to close the courtroom immediately or whether any--and how much--of the case can be argued in open session. Shawali Khan's counsel, Leonard C. Goodman responds  that he had prepared some arguments that he thinks are all based on unclassified information. Judge Merrick Garland notes that this case--as Wells explained in this oral argument preview--is not a discussion of legal standards. It is really all about the reliability of specific pieces of evidence. It is really possible to discuss that evidence in a sufficiently generalized way so as not to touch on classified material? Goodman responds that he has prepared arguments based only on the unclassified portions of his briefs, but that he is happy to skip that part and move directly to closed-court argument. Judge Sentelle says that proceeding on the basis of the open portions of the briefs would be too piecemeal, since there are large redactions throughout the briefs. The panel checks in with the government, which does not object to throwing all of us out of the court. So the panel orders out the uncleared plebes, now newly knowledgeable about the allocation of fisheries management resources.