"To litigate any aspect of this case would require the disclosure of highly sensitive national security information concerning alleged military and intelligence actions overseas," government lawyers argued in papers filed early Saturday morning.
The government cites, in part, the "states secret" argument to dismiss the case, saying that if the suit were to go forward it would provide a "treasure trove of vital information" that would enable terrorist organizations to "alter their plans and conceal their planning."
The government believes Awlaki is a member of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a group that gained prominence for its connection to the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in Detroit on Christmas Day.
U.S. counterterrorism and homeland security officials say intelligence information indicates that Awlaki recently has taken an operational role in the group. The government has said that Awlaki is a "specially designated global terrorist."
Awlaki's father, Nasser al-Awlaki, believes the government has authorized the killing of his son and has filed the suit.
The elder Awlaki, represented by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, seeks a declaration from the court that the Constitution and international law prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings outside of armed conflict except as a last resort to protect against imminent threats of death.
"The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights," the lawsuit claims. "Outside the context of armed conflict, the intentional use of lethal force without prior judicial process is an abridgement of this right except in the narrowest and most extraordinary circumstances."
The government also argues that Nasser al Awlaki has no right to bring the suit on behalf of his son, because the younger Awlaki does not lack "access to the courts."
Since 9/11, the notion that the government could target a U.S. citizen off the traditional battlefield has troubled human rights groups.
"The United States' assertion of an ever-expanding but ill-defined license to commit targeted killings against individuals around the globe, without accountability, does grave damage to the international legal frameworks designed to protect the right to life," said Philip Alston, a New York University professor who is the author of a report on targeted killings that was submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council, in a statement he issued in June.
The Obama administration's call for the dismissal of the lawsuit is sure to infuriate those who hoped the current White House would make a clean break from some of the legal arguments made by the Bush administration during the war on terror.
"The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy," the ACLU and CCR said in a joint statement. "In matters of life and death, no executive should have a blank check."