America and the Courts
America and the Courts included: On Monday, May 19, 2008, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia talked about his book, Making Your…
Rahinah Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security
2008-05-10T19:01:14-04:00https://images.c-span.org/Files/c96/204956-m.jpgOral arguments were heard on Case #06-16727 Rahinah Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security, which concerns the constitutionality of the department’s No-Fly List. Present at the argument are Marwa Elzankaly (attorney for Rahinah Ibrahim), Joshua Waldman (attorney for the Department of Homeland Security), and Sharon Mayo (attorney for John Bondanella).
Ibrahim sued a number of federal agencies, the privately-contracted company Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), and, an employee of that organization, Mr. John Bondanella. Ibramhim sought monetary redress of personal injury from all of the defendants and her attorney requested that her name be removed from the list. In defense of the US government attorney Joshua Waldman proposed that Ms. Ibrahim pursed that wrong defendant in this case. In defense of Mr. John Bondanella attorney Sharon Mayo proposed that Bondanella did not order the arrest of Ms. Ibrahim and that he acted under the standard operating procedures of the federal agency TSA. Chief Justice Alex Kozinski presided over this proceeding in the ninth circuit court of appeals.
Ibrahim sued a number of federal agencies, the privately-contracted company Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), and, an employee of that organization, Mr. John Bondanella. Ibramhim sought monetary redress of personal injury from all of the defendants and her attorney requested that her name be removed from the list. In defense of the US government attorney Joshua Waldman proposed that Ms. Ibrahim pursed that wrong defendant in this case. In defense of Mr. John Bondanella attorney Sharon Mayo proposed that Bondanella did not order the arrest of Ms. Ibrahim and that he acted under the standard operating procedures of the federal agency TSA. Chief Justice Alex Kozinski presided over this proceeding in the ninth circuit court of appeals.
Oral arguments were heard on Case #06-16727 Rahinah Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security, which concerns the constitutionality of the… read more
Oral arguments were heard on Case #06-16727 Rahinah Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security, which concerns the constitutionality of the department’s No-Fly List. Present at the argument are Marwa Elzankaly (attorney for Rahinah Ibrahim), Joshua Waldman (attorney for the Department of Homeland Security), and Sharon Mayo (attorney for John Bondanella).
Ibrahim sued a number of federal agencies, the privately-contracted company Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), and, an employee of that organization, Mr. John Bondanella. Ibramhim sought monetary redress of personal injury from all of the defendants and her attorney requested that her name be removed from the list. In defense of the US government attorney Joshua Waldman proposed that Ms. Ibrahim pursed that wrong defendant in this case. In defense of Mr. John Bondanella attorney Sharon Mayo proposed that Bondanella did not order the arrest of Ms. Ibrahim and that he acted under the standard operating procedures of the federal agency TSA. Chief Justice Alex Kozinski presided over this proceeding in the ninth circuit court of appeals. close
People in this video
- Marwa Elzankaly Attorney
- Alex Kozinski Chief Judge U.S. Court of Appeals->Ninth Circuit
- Joshua Waldman Attorney Department of Homeland Security
Hosting Organization
Series
Purchase a Download
Rahinah Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security
-
MP3 audio - Standard
- Price:
- $0.99
Related Video
-
-
America and the Courts
America and the Courts included: On Tuesday, July 8, 2008, journalists who cover the U.S. Supreme Court, discussed the major…
-
Canyon County, Idaho v. Sygenta Seeds Oral Argument
The Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Canyon County, Idaho v. Sygenta Seeds. Canyon County,…
-
America and the Courts
America and the Courts included: On Tuesday, April 21, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of…