I wondered the same thing. With secret courts and secret hearings, who knows who is fighting or not for our rights?

Fighting unconstitutional laws in the phony secret "court" set up by the same laws is not really fighting, is it? It's sort of accepting the terms.

Take the battle to the real courts and ask them to decide on the matter.

Exactly how do you get standing to sue the government for something they are not doing with something that does not exist?

Unfortunately, those are real courts, their functions and jurisdictions have been established by the Congress.

If congress can redefine courts into what is basically an administrative panel, then the entire separation of powers can be short-circuited.

It's not a court just because congress says so.

> The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Congress certainly does have the 'say so' -- at least with 'inferior Courts'. That still leaves the Supreme Court though as final arbiter.

That's the crux of the matter. The root cause is that half of Americans are okay with such courts.

I'd like to agree with you. I believe there is a category of societal actions that constitutes a court of justice within the framework of a civil society; secrecy doesn't fall into that category.