Order severing Interior Web connections in error, court rules

A judge's order to sever the Interior Department's Internet connection was in error, according to an appeals court, because the judge failed to hold an evidentiary hearing before issuing it.

Federal District Court Judge Royce Lamberth first ordered the agency offline in December 2001 claiming Interior's computer systems were not secure. A court-hired computer expert found that the agency's system was not protected by a security system and was easy to penetrate.

Last week the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously that Lamberth, who is presiding over the largest class-action lawsuit against the federal government, had the authority to work out an "equitable remedy" in the case, "because the underlying lawsuit is both an Indian case and a trust case in which the trustees have egregiously breached their fiduciary duties."

But in ordering Interior offline, Lamberth disregarded the agency's information technology security certifications, the appeals court ruled.

The argument over Web connections stems from Cobell v. Norton, an eight-year lawsuit between Native American groups and Interior. Groups pay Interior to use Indian lands for oil, gas and mineral extraction, as well as other activities, and Interior then distributes money to Native Americans through trust accounts. The court-directed computer expert showed that checks from the Indian trust fund could be sent to a bogus account with his personal address.

Interior spokesman Dan DuBray said department officials were pleased that the appeals court had overturned Lamberth's decision to cut the Internet connection. He said the department has made significant technology upgrades for the protection of sensitive information.

"We are also greatly encouraged by this ruling, which allows the department to continue to utilize Internet-based tools to conduct departmental business," DuBray said. "The Department of the Interior takes seriously its responsibility to safeguard its IT systems and networks to protect individual Indian trust data."

Lawyers for Cobell dismissed the appeals court's action as "procedural."

"The implications of this decision go far beyond IT security," said Cobell's lawyer, Keith Harper. "The court of appeals has wholly affirmed the right of the district court to exercise its discretion -- not just in securing IT data, but also in other aspects of the case."