Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T17:18:05.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The State Secrets Privilege: Concealing Executive Abuse and Illegalities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2016

Louis Fisher
Louis Fisher*
Affiliation:
Washington, D.C.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 28 , Special Issue 3: Governing the Security State , July 2016 , pp. 470 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © Donald Critchlow and Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Brief for the United States, United States v. Reynolds, No. 21, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term, 1952, 10–11.

2. Ibid., 24.

3. Jabara v. Kelley, 75 F.R.D. 475, 483 (D. Mich. 1977).

4. In re U.S., 872 F.2d 472, 474–75 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

5. Edmonds v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 323 F. Supp. 2d 65, 70 (D.D.C. 2004).

6. Ibid., citing United States v. Burr, 25 Fed. Cas. 30, 31 (C.C.D. Va. 1807) (No. 14,692d).

7. United States v. Burr, 25 Fed. Cas. 30, 37 (C.C.D. Va. 1807) (No. 14,692d).

8. Ibid., 65.

9. Ibid., 69.

10. United States v. Burr, 25 Fed. Cas. 201 (C.C.D. Va. 1807) (No. 14,694).

11. Ibid., 201. For further details on Burr’s access to executive branch documents, see Louis Fisher, In the Name of National Security: Unchecked Presidential Power in the Reynolds Case (Lawrence, Kans., 2006), 212–20. The extent to which Jefferson tried (unsuccessfully) to find Burr guilty is covered here: Fisher, Louis, “Jefferson and the Burr Conspiracy: Executive Power against the Law,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 45 (2015): 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 6–7 n. 11.

13. Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 107 (1875).

14. Ibid., 106.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid., 107.

17. Fisher, In the Name of National Security, 223–27.

18. Ibid., 1–2.

19. 60 Stat. 843, sec. 403(1) (1946).

20. Ibid., 843–44, sec. 410(a).

21. John Henry Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, 3rd ed. (Boston, 1940), 8: § 2212a (emphasis in original).

22. Ibid., § 2370.

23. Ibid., § 2379.

24. Fisher, In the Name of National Security, 31–35.

25. Transcript of Record, Supreme Court of the United States, October Term 1952, No. 21, United States v. Reynolds, 8.

26. Ibid.,12.

27. Ibid., 9.

28. Ibid., 14.

29. Ibid.

30. Fisher, In the Name of National Security, 36.

31. Ibid., 36, 44–48.

32. Ibid., 36.

33. Brauner v. United States, 10 F.R.D. 468, 472 (D. Pa. 1950).

34. Ibid., 471.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. Fisher, In the Name of National Security, 51.

38. Ibid., 51–56.

39. Affidavit of the Judge Advocate General, United States Air Force, Reynolds v. United States, Civil Action No. 10142, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 7 August 1950, signed by Maj. Gen. Reginald C. Harmon.

40. Claim of Privilege by the Secretary of the Air Force, Reynolds v. United States, Civil Action No. 10142 (E.D. Pa. 1950), 2. It was filed with the court on 10 October 1950. Although not filed until October, the government brought it to the 9 August hearing.

41. Fisher, In the Name of National Security, 1–2.

42. Proceedings for 9 August 1950, 6.

43. Ibid., 9.

44. Idid., 10.

45. Amended Order, 21 September 1950, Brauner and Palya v. United States, Civil Action No. 9793, and Reynolds v. United States, Civil Action No. 10142 (E.D. Pa. 1950), 2.

46. Fisher, In the Name of National Security, 56–57.

47. Brief for the United States, Reynolds v. United States, No. 10483 (3d Cir. 1951), 6.

48. Fisher, Louis, The Law of the Executive Branch: Presidential Power (New York, 2014), 5, 73–74, 261–65, 315.Google Scholar

49. Reynolds v. United States, 192 F.2d 987, 992 (3d Cir. 1951).

50. Ibid., 994.

51. Ibid., 995.

52. Ibid.

53. Ibid., 996–97.

54. Ibid., 997.

55. Brief for the United States, United States v. Reynolds, No. 21, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term, 1952, 11.

56. Fisher, In the Name of National Secrecy,166–69.

57. Brief for the United States, United States v. Reynolds, No. 21, U.S. Supreme Court, October Term, 1952, 45.

58. For access to the accident report, see pages 10a–68a of http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/reynoldspetapp.pdf.

59. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 8 (1953).

60. Ibid., 9.

61. Ibid., 9–10.

62. Schwarz, Frederick A. O. Jr., Democracy in the Dark: The Seduction of Government Secrecy (New York, 2015), 208.Google Scholar

63. Rudenstine, David, “The Irony of a Faustian Bargain: A Reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s 1953 United States v. Reynolds Decision,” Cardozo Law Review 34 (2013): 1283, 1289.Google Scholar

64. Ibid., 1370.

65. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 12 (1953).

66. For the reluctance of the three Justices to write a full and professional dissent, see Fisher, In the Name of National Security, 105 n. 59. For further analysis of the manner in which the Court decided Reynolds, see 106–15.

67. Ibid., 166–68, 192–93.

68. The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 1, 10 (1827).

69. Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford Co., 322 U.S. 238, 244 (1944).

70. Ibid., 246.

71. Petition for a Writ of Error “Coram Nobis” to Remedy Fraud upon This Court, In re Patricia J. Herring, No. 02M76, i.

72. In re Herring, 539 U.S. 940 (2003).

73. Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Herring v. United States, Civil Action No. 03-5500 (LDD) (E.D. Pa. 2004), 18 n. 6.

74. Memorandum and Order, Herring v. United States, Civil Action No. 03-CV-5500-LDD (E.D. Pa.), 10 September 2004, 21.

75. Ibid., 8, citing Halperin v. NSC, 452 F. Supp. 47 (D.D.C 1978). For further details on the district court decision, see Fisher, In the Name of National Security, 188–200.

76. Herring v. United States, 424 F.3d 384, 386 (3d Cir. 2005).

77. For details on the Third Circuit decision, see Fisher, In the Name of National Security, 200–211.

78. Herring v. United States, 547 U.S. 1123 (2006).

79. Fisher, Louis, “Extraordinary Rendition: The Price of Secrecy,” American University Law Review 57 (2008): 1405;Google Scholar Fisher, The Law of the Executive Branch, 409–13.

80. El-Masri v. Tenet, 437 F. Supp. 2d 530, 539 (E.D. Va. 2006).

81. Ibid., 536.

82. Ibid., citing Ellsberg v. Mitchell, 709 F.2d 51, 58 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

83. Ibid., 536–37, citing United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953) (emphasis added by district court).

84. Ibid., 536, 537.

85. Ibid., 539.

86. El-Masri v. United States, 479 F.3d 296, 304 (4th Cir. 2007).

87. Nicholas Kulish, “Court Finds Rights Violation in C.I.A. Rendition Case,” New York Times, 14 December 2012, A13.

88. U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Syria, 2002, 1, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18289.htm.

89. For details on Arar’s prison treatment, see Louis Fisher, The Constitution and 9/11: Recurrent Threats to America’s Freedoms (Lawrence, Kans., 2008), 346–49.

90. U.S. Department of Justice, Memorandum in Support of the United States’ Assertion of State Secrets Privilege, Arar v. Ashcroft, C.A. No. 04-CV-249-DG-VVP (E.D.N.Y. 2005), 2–3.

91. Arar v. Ashcroft, 414 F. Supp. 2d 250 (E.D.N.Y. 2006).

92. Ibid., 281.

93. Prime Minister releases letter of apology to Maher Arar and his family and announces completion of mediation process; http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1510.

94. Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 614 F.3d 1070, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010), citing Al-Haramain, 507 F.3d 1190, 1202 (9th Cir. 2007).

95. 614 F.3d at 1082.

96. Ibid., 1081–82.

97. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-national-security-5-21-09, 9.

98. http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/state-secret-privileges.pdf, 2.

99. Ibid., 4.

100. Fisher, Louis, “Government Errors Are Shrouded in Secrecy,” National Law Journal 10 (March 2014): 30.Google Scholar

101. Charlie Savage, “Clashing Rulings Weigh Security and Liberties,” New York Times, 25 June 2014, A15.

102. Jared P. Cole, “The No Fly List: Procedural Due Process and Hurdles to Litigation,” Congressional Research Service, Report R53730, 18 September 2014, 17–18.

103. Matt Apuzzo, “Holder Says Private Suit Risks State Secrets,” New York Times, 15 September 2014, A13.