A 2-1 partisan ruling by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that the Justice Department could refuse to release names of the more than 700 people arrested for immigration violations in connection with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The court accepted the government’s contention that the release of the names would help Al Qaeda determine how the nation’s antiterrorism campaign was being conducted. This ruling ties in with another string of rulings that uphold the administration’s power to respond as they choose to the terrorist attacks.

The two concurring judges were Republican appointments, while the dissenting judge was a Democrat appointment. The majority opinion stated the judiciary always gives deference to executive branch officials in the field of national security, while the dissenting opinion shows concern for the government’s overreaching approach to the antiterrorism campaign.

This decision came only weeks after a report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General highlighted all of the “significant problems” in the ways authorities arrested and treated hundreds of illegal immigrants as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. The report asserted that the vast majority of detainees had no connection with the terrorists.  However, Judge Sentelle, who wrote the majority opinion, said that declarations by government officials establish “that many of the detainees have links to terrorism.”

Also, Attorney General John Ashcroft argued that while he was obliged by the Constitution to disclose the names of anyone arrested and charged with a criminal act, he did not have to do so in the case of those charged with immigration violations. In addition, he argued that to release the names would violate the privacy of those arrested on immigration charges.

Steven Shapiro, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the plaintiffs, hoped that the released report showed adequate problems and abuse by government officials to allow a decision for the plaintiffs. “Our whole reason for seeking this is because we believe that secrecy invites abuse and we now know that from the report that abuses did take place,” said Shapiro.

Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies, the lead plaintiff, said the case will be appealed, either to the full District of Columbia Circuit or to the Supreme Court.