Hacker News Reader

Comment by gumby | Hacker News Reader

Yes you are subject to laws you cannot legally know about. Check out Gilmore v. Gonzales: the case was dismissed as the law was classified so could not be discussed in court!

View on HN

Do you have a source for this claim? I'm only finding sources saying the case was dismissed by the supreme without comment[1], and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did rule on it (in favor of Gonzales)[2].

[1] https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Suprem...

[2] https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Man-who...

https://papersplease.org/gilmore/

What I described was the court ruling; its appeal was denied by the US Supreme Court.

Right, but you said it "was dismissed as the law was classified so could not be discussed in court", but I'm finding nothing that confirms that as true.

Check out the court's order: https://papersplease.org/gilmore/_dl/GilmoreDismissal.pdf (at the time it was Gilmore v. Ashcroft). The important part is buried: "As a corollary, without having been provided a copy of this unpublished statute or regulation, if it exists, the Court is unable to conduct any meaningful inquiry as to the merits of plaintiff's vaguenesa srgument". I was in court for the hearing; the government declined to provide any law or regulation requiring showing of ID yet asserted that showing of ID was required; the judge said (in the section I quoted) that as she couldn't see any law she couldn't make a judgement.

Most of the order is dismissal of the other claims on jurisdictional grounds and the appellate court (which by statute is primary, not appellate in this case) declined to take the case. As it is primary, this seems strange to me.

Thank you for the link. It sounds like they are talking about a TSA regulation, and not necessarily a law, though. Still very interesting, however, and I appreciate you following up.

Executive branch regulations (though not executive orders) are considered law (called “administrative law”), have the force of law, and are litigated in the courts same as law passed by Congress (unless Congress specifies otherwise, as with the ones the district court said it did not have jurisdiction over).

I was in the courtroom when the case was argued and it was clear the judge was looking for a good reason to throw it out rather than issue a ruling.

What is the point of such unenforceable law?

The law is enforceable, so you are subject to it while you don't know that it even exists.

The various no-fly and watch lists are like that too -- consider Rahinah Ibrahim who was accidentally placed on the no fly list in a Brazil-like incident. The government tried to bar her from fighting it or even explaining what happened.

Really writing or enforcing secret laws should be a capital offense with no defense allowed and proof of involvement and even absolve murder. There is no such thing as "too harsh" against such mad tyranny and usurpation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com