Contents    Prev    Next    Last

XI.  Conclusion

For all of the reasons outlined above, this court is constrained to grant to Plaintiffs the Partial Summary Judgment requested, and holds that the TSP violates the APA; the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory law. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the final claim of data-mining is granted, because litigation

of that claim would require violation of Defendants’ state secrets privilege.

⁵⁶See generally Youngstown, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

⁵⁷See generally U.S. v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)

⁵⁸See generally Hamdi, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)

42

The Permanent Injunction of the TSP requested by Plaintiffs is granted inasmuch as each of

the factors required to be met to sustain such an injunction have undisputedly been met.⁵⁹  The irreparable injury necessary to warrant injunctive relief is clear, as the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs are violated by the TSP.  See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965).  The irreparable injury conversely sustained by Defendants under this injunction may be rectified by compliance with our Constitution and/or statutory law, as amended if necessary.  Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter.  It is the upholding of our Constitution.

As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967):

Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.  Id. at 264.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 17, 2006                                               s/Anna Diggs Taylor                            

         Detroit, Michigan                                             ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

⁵⁹It is well-settled that a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. 126 S.Ct. 1837, 1839 (2006).  Further, “ a  party is entitled to a permanent injunction if it can establish that it suffered a constitutional violation and will suffer “continuing irreparable injury” for which there is

no adequate remedy at law.”  Women's Medical Professional Corp. v. Baird, 438 F.3d 595, 602 (6^th Cir. 2006).

43

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Memorandum Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 17, 2006.

s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams

Case   Manager

44

	Contents    Prev    Next    Last