Researchers on Nov. 13 urged the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to order the release of withheld documents related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The Mary Ferrell Foundation is seeking to overturn a lower court’s dismissal of their case, which aims to compel the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to disclose the remaining assassination records.
Attorney William Simpich, representing the foundation and researchers Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar, argued that the JFK Records Act mandates the swift release of all assassination-related documents.
“This remedial statute was designed to get these documents out to the public as quickly as possible,” Simpich stated during a hearing in San Francisco on Nov. 13.
He contended that the president’s authority to withhold records under Section 5(g)(2)(D) of the act—which allows postponement of disclosure if it would cause harm to military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations—should not be interpreted in isolation.
“And Section 6 ... says you’ve got to comply with the limitations of the statute,” Simpich argued.
The government maintained that the president’s determination that releasing certain records would harm national security is sufficient grounds for withholding them.
Judges questioned Simpich on how the court could override the presidential determination regarding national security concerns.
“Is it your view that we can say that ... he’s wrong to think that there would be such harm from the release of the records?” one judge asked.
Simpich clarified that they were not disputing the president’s assessment but were seeking specificity in the reasons for withholding each record.
“All we’re asking is that he or she state what it is,” he said. He said the lack of detailed justification undermines the act’s intent to promote transparency.
Simpich noted that many records previously deemed sensitive have since been released without adverse effects.
“Many of these records that were said to be national security have now been released, and it’s generally about ... foreign relations with Mexico,” he said.
When a judge remarked, “Foreign relations with Mexico are important,” Simpich acknowledged, “Everything’s important. What I’m saying is the question is whether most of these things are often embarrassing, not national security.”
Representing the government, attorney Peter Starcher asserted that the district court acted appropriately in denying the preliminary injunction.
“The court here did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for preliminary injunctive relief ... before this court today,” Starcher said.
The foundation also challenged the use of “transparency plans” by NARA and the National Declassification Center (NDC), arguing that such plans bypass the archivist’s role and the act’s requirements.
Simpich expressed concern that decisions relegated to the NDC, which works closely with intelligence agencies, could lead to undue influence.
“Instead of having the archivist making these recommendations, it’s happening with the NDC where the regulators can easily be swayed by the regulated when working with them on a daily basis,” he said.
The court did not issue an immediate decision and took the case under submission.
Named after a noted JFK assassination researcher, the Mary Ferrell Foundation continues to advocate for full disclosure of all assassination-related records.
Both President-elect Donald Trump, when he was president, and President Joe Biden have invoked executive authority to postpone the release of certain JFK assassination records, citing national security concerns.
These postponements have delayed the full disclosure mandated by the JFK Records Act, which had set 2017 as the deadline for releasing all assassination-related documents unless the president certified a need for continued postponement.
