Pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 4 3 (c)(2), Leon E. Panet t a, t he * pr es ent D i r ect or of t he C ent r al I nt el l i gence A gency , and D enni s C
. B l ai r , t he pr es entD i r ect or o f N a tio n a l In tellig e n c e , are a u to m a tica llysu b stitu ted a s d e f e n d a n ts h e re in f

o r th e ir resp ec ti v e p red ec esso rs, M icha el V
. H ay d en an d J. M icha el M cC o n n ell
. T h e C lerk o f C o u rt i s di r ect ed t o amend t he ca pt i on t o r ead a s s how n above. T h e H o n o rab le Jo h n F
. K ee n an o f th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r t h e S o u thern ** D is tr ic t o f

N e w Y o rk , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 1 07-4244 -cv W i l s o nv . C IA UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F ORTH E S EC ON D C IR C U IT
A ugus tT er m , 2008 ( A r gued: J anuary8, 2009 D eci ded: N ovember 12, 2009) D ocketN o. 07- 4244- cv
V AL ER I E P L AME W I L SO N , S I MON & S CHUSTER I NC ., P la in tif fs-Ap p e lla n ts ,

— v . — T HE C E N T RA L I NTE L L I GEN C E A GENCY ; L EON E. P AN ETTA , i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas D i r ect orof t he C ent r al I nt el l i gence A gency ; and D ENNI S C. B LA IR , in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ity as D i r ect orof N at i onal I nt el l i gence , * D ef endant s -Appel l ees .
B efor e: K ATZ MANN and R AG GI , C i r cui tJudges , and K EEN AN , D is t r i ct Judge
. **2 ___________________ A ppeal fr om an aw ar d of s um m ar yjud g m en ti n favorof def endant s ent er ed i n t he U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r th e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f N e w Y o rk (B a rb a ra S . J o n e s , Judge ). Pl ai nt i ffs V al er i e Pl ame W i l s on, a form erempl oy ee of t he C ent r al I nt el l i gence A gency , and S im o n & S c h u ste r In c ., th e p u b lish e r o f h e r m e m o ir, su b m it th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in

c o n c lu d in g , as a m a tter o f la w , tha t th e C IA d id n o t v io late th e F irst A m e n d m e n t w h e n it

r efus ed t o al l ow M s . W i l s on t o publ i s h i nfor m at i on r egar di ng herpos s i bl e pr e- 2002 s er vi ce
w i t h the A gen cy . P l ai nti ffs asser tt hat theyhav e a ri gh tt o p ub l i sh such inform at i on becau se ( 1) t he C I A “off

i ci al l ydi s cl os ed” M s . W i l s on’ s pr e- 2002 dat es of s er vi ce; and ( 2) t hos e dat es
a r e , i n a n ye v e n t , n o w i n t h e p u b l i c d o ma i n . Th e r e c o r d c a n n o ts u p p o r tp l a i n t i f f s ’ o f f i ci al di s cl os ur e as s er t i on as i tw as M s . W i l s on, and not t he A gency , t hatper m i t t ed t he i nfor m at i on
a t issu e to b e r e v e a le d to th e p u b lic. F u rth e r, p lain tiff s’ p u b lic-d o m a in a rg u m e n t f a ils beca us e publ i c di s cl os ur e does not depr i ve i nfor m at i on of cl as s i fi ed s t atus , and t he A gency h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d g o o d r e a s o n f o ra d h e r i n g t o i t s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n d e c i s i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y, beca us e anyi nfor m at i on co n ce r ni ng M s . W i l s on’ s pos s i bl e pr e- 2002 A gencyaff i l i at i on
r emai ns p rop er l ycl as s i fi ed, and bec aus e M s . W i l s on i s obl i gat ed bya s ecr ecyagr eement

w i t h t he C I A nott o di s cl os e cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on, t he di s t r i ctcour tcor r ect l yrul ed t hat p la in tif f s c a n n o t d e m o n s tr a te a F ir s t A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n in th is c a s e . A F F I R MED .3

Ju d g e K a tzm a n n c o n c u rs in th e ju d g m e n t o f th e C o u rt a n d f

iles a se p a ra te
concurr i ng opi ni on.

D AV I D B. S MAL L MAN , S m a l l m a n & H a n s L L P , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f or P la in tif fs-Ap p e lla n ts . B ENJ AMIN H. T ORRANC E , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( B et h E
. G ol dm an, A s s is ta n t U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y , on the br i ef ), f orM i chae l J
. G ar ci a, Uni t e d St a t e s At t o r n e y f o r t h e So u t h e r n Di s t r i c t o f New Yo r k, N ew Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f

orD ef endant s -Appel l ees . R
. B ruce R i ch and J onat han B l oom , W ei l , G ot s hal & M anges L L P, N ew Y or k, N e w Y o rk , f

orA m i ci C ur i ae A s s o c ia tio n o f A m e ri c a n P u b lis h e rs , In c ., A m er i can Booksel lers Foundat i on forFr ee Expr es s i on, A m er i can Soci ety o f N ew sp ap er E d it o rs, A ssoc i at i on of A l t er nat i ve N ew s w eekl i es , A s s oci at i on of A m er i can U ni ver s i t yPr es s es , Fr eedom t o R ead Foundat i on, M agaz i ne Publ i s her s A s s oci at i on, Publ i c C i t i zen, I n c . , P u b l i s h e r s M a r k e t i n g As s o c i a t i o n , Ra d i o - T e l e v i s i o n Ne ws D i rect ors A ssoci at i on , R epo rt ers C om m i t t ee fo r F reedom of the P res s, a n d S o c ie ty o f P ro f

e s s i o n a l J o u rn a lis ts , i n sup po rt of Plai nti

f fsAp p e lla n ts .

R EEN A R AG GI , C i r cui t

Judge : Pl ai nt iffs V aler i e Pl ame W i l s on, a form erempl oy ee of t he C ent r al I nt el l i gence A g en cy (“C IA ” or th e “A g en cy ”), an d S im o n & S ch u ster Inc
. , the p u b li sh er o f h er m em o ir , Fai r G ame: M yL i fe a s a Spy , M yB et r ay al byt he W hi t e H ous e ( 2007) ( “Fai rG ame”) , s ued t he C I A , t he C I A D i r ect or , and t he D i rec tor o f N ati onal I nt el l i gence i n t he U ni t ed St at es D is tr ic t C o u rt f

o r t h e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f N e w Y o rk (B a rb a ra S . J o n e s , Judge ) undert heA l l r efe r ence s i n thi s opi ni on t o M s . W i l s on’ s pos s i bl e pr e- 2002 A gencyaff i l i at i on 1 ar e hypot het i cal and s houl d notbe under s t ood t o confi r m ordenyany inf o rm ati o n on t hat s u b je c t. 4 D ecl ar at or yJ udgm entA ct , 28 U
. S. C
. §§ 2201- 2202, a n d th e A d m in istra tiv e P ro c e d u re A c t, 5 U .S .C . § 7 0 1 e t se q ., f o r a lleg e d v io latio n s o f th e F irst A m e n d m e n t. T o v in d ica te th e ir

as s er t ed cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , pl ai nt i ffs s o u g h ta n o r d e rp r e c l u d i n g d e f e n d a n t s f r om enfor ci ng a dec i s i on byt he C I A ’ s Publ i cati o n R evi ew B oar d forbi ddi ng publ i cat i on of anypas s ages i n M s . Wi l s o n ’ s me mo i rr e l a t i n g t o h e rp o s s i b l e p r e - 2 0 0 2 s e r v i c e wi t h t h e Ag e n c y . On 1

cr os s - m ot i ons fors um m ar yj udgm ent , t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded t hatpl ai nt i ffs coul d not demonst r at e a Fi r s tA m endment vi ol at i on and ent er ed j udgm enti n favorof def endant s . See W ils o n v . M c C o n n e ll, 5 0 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 4 5 (S .D .N .Y . 2 0 0 7 ). Pl ai nt i ffs appea l , ar gui ng t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t er r ed w hen i t det er m i ned, as a mat t er of l aw , t hatbeca us e anyfac t s r el at i ng t o M s . W il s on’ s pos s i bl e pr e- 2002 s er vi ce w i t h t he C IA re m a in e d p ro p e rlyc las sif ied , th e A g e n c y c o u ld , c o n sis ten t w ith th e F irst A m e n d m e n t, forbi d her fr om di s cl os i ng s uch i nfor m at i on under t he t er m s of a s ecr ecyagr eementt hatw as a condi t i on of her A gencyempl oy m ent
. Pl ai nt i ffs as s er tt hatt w o r eas ons m andat e a di ffe r ent concl us i on: (1) t he C I A i t s el f “of fi ci al l ydi s cl os ed” the dat es of M s . W i l s on’ s pr e- 2002 A gencys er vi ce i n a l et t er s ent t o her on Februar y 10, 2006; and ( 2) M s . W i l s on’ s pr e- 2002 d a tes o f se rv ice a re , in a n ye v e n t, no w a m a tter o f su c h w id e sp re a d p u b lic k n o w led g e a s to

r enderunr eas o n ab l e t he A gency ’ s i ns i s t ence on m ai nt ai ni ng t he i nfor m at i on as cl as s i fi ed.O urconcurr i ng col l eague , J udge K at zmann, agr ees w i t h us “t hatM s . W i l s on’ s pr e- 2 2002 dat es of s er vi ce, i f any , w er e or i gi nal l y pr oper l y cl as s i fi ed by t he C I A , have ne verbeen o f f icia llyd e c las sif

ied , an d w e re n e v e r of

f icia lly d isc lo se d b yth e C IA .” P o st a t [ 1]
. H e “al so agr ee[ s ] t hatt hi s C our thas no pow ert o fr ee M s . W i l s on fr om t he s ecr ecyagr eementt hats he sig n e d u p o n c o m m e n c e m e n t o f h e r em p lo y m e n t w ith th e C IA .” Id
. N e v e rth e les s, h e f a u lts th e C IA ’s “ lit ig a tio n p o stu re ” in th is c a se f o r “ b lin k [ in g th e ] re a lity. . . o f th e u n iq u e f

a c ts o f th is c a s e a n d th e p o lic ie s b e h in d th e d o c tr in e s a t is s u e h e re .” Id
. O urs kept i ci s m aboutt he w i s dom of a pa r t y ’s lit i gat i on s t r at egycannot , of cour s e, p ro m p t an yd if

f e re n t d e c isio n th a n th a t r e q u ire d b ylaw . In a n ye v e n t, as w e e x p lain in th is o p in io n , the f

a c tu a l b a c k g ro u n d to th is c a se h a rd ly c a sts p lain tiff s’ a rg u m e n t in a f

a v o ra b le 5 T he r ecor d does nots uppor tpl ai nt i ffs ’ offi ci al di s cl os ur e cl ai m as i tw as M s . W i l s on, and n o t the A g en cy , t hatper m i t t ed t he i nfor m at i on ati s s ue t o be r evea l ed t o t he publ i c. A l t ho ug h the C IA m ay hav e been neg l i gen t i n com m un i cat i ng personn el i nfo rm at i on t o M s. W i l s on w i t houtpr opercl as s i fi cat i on, t he i nfor m at i on onl ybeca m e publ i c w hen M s . W i l s on – k no w i ng t hat the C IA w as i nsi st i ng on m ai ntai ning t he se c re c y o f h e r s ervi ce dates –

never t hel es s aut hor i zed a m ember of C o ngr es s t o publ i s h t he C I A comm uni cat i on i n t he C o n g re ss io n a l R e c o rd . S e e in f ra a t [ 29- 37]
. W e al s o concl ude t hatevi dence of publ i c di s cl os ur e does not depr i ve i nfor m at i on of cl as s i fi ed s t atus and that the A gencyhas demonst r at ed a r eas onabl e bas i s form ai nt ai ni ng i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t M s . W i l s o n ’ s p r e - 2 0 0 2 A g e n c y s e r v i c e a s c l a s s i f i e d
. A c c o r d i n g l y, becau se t he inform at i on ati ssue on thi s appea l rem ai ns prope rl ycl assi fi ed, and becau se M s. W i l son is ob l i gated byt he co nd i t i on s of he r em ploym ent w i t h the C IA n o t to di scl ose
c l a s s i f i e d i n f o r m a t i o n , p l a i n t i f

f s ’ F i r s tA m e n d m e n tc l a i m f a i l s a s a m a t t e ro f

l a w . We t herefore affi rm t he aw ard of sum m aryj ud gm ent ent ered i n fav or of d efen dan t s. 2l i gh t
. W hil e t he C IA ’s neg l i gen ce app ears t o h ave ca used class i fi ed inform at i on abo ut M s.

W i l son’s s ervi ce dates t o b e dis cl osed outs i de t he A gen cy , t hat dis cl osure w as onlyt o M s. W i l s on, a per s on aut hor i zed t o r ece i ve i t
. I tw as M s . W i l s on her s el f w ho pr ocee ded, w i t hout aut hor i zat i on, t o appr ove publ i c di s cl os ur e of the cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i o n . For t he r eas ons stat ed h ere in, w e h o ld tha t a fo rm er C IA ag en t can n o t use h er o w n u n au tho ri ze d d iscl o su re of cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on t o ch all en g e t he A gency ’ s abi l i t yt o m ai nt ai n t he i nfor m at i on as c las sif ied . S e e in f

ra a t [ 44]
. Fur t her , t hough M s . W i l s on’ s unaut h o ri ze d ac ti o n m ayhave reduced t he p oli cyreas on s for m ai ntai ning t he ch al l eng ed clas si fi cat i on of her ser vice dat es, the A g en cy ’s classified su b m issi o n d em o n str a te s th at, in the co n text o f M s. W il so n ’s m emoi r , s uffi ci ent r eas ons for cont i nued cl as s i fi cat i on per s i s t t o pr ecl ude a j udi ci al r ever s al o f A g e n c yju d g m e n t. S e e in f ra a t [ 46- 47]
. 6 I . Fac t ual Backg r ound T hi s i s no r out i ne empl oy er - empl oy ee di s put e. R at her , i ti nvol ves hi ghl ypubl i ci zed act i on s byal l t hree branche s of t he fe deral go vernm ent. A l t ho ug h w e here revi ew on l yt ho se f a c ts n e c e ss a ryto o u r re so lu tio n o f th e iss u e s ra ise d o n th is a p p e a l, th a t d isc u ss io n is

n e c e s s a ri ly le n g th y . A
. T he I ni t i al Publ i c D i s cl os ur e of V al er i e W i l s on’ s C I A E m pl oy m ent D uri ng his 20 03 S t at e of t he U nion add res s, P res i den tG eorge W
. B ush tol d C on gress th a t “[ t]h e B ritish G o v e rn m e n t h a s le a rn e d th a t [ Ira q ’s d icta to r] S a d d a m H u ss e in re c e n tly

s oughts i gni fi ca n t quant i t i es of ur ani um fr om A fr i ca. ” A ddr es s B efor e a J oi ntSes s i on of C ongr es s on t he St at e of the U ni on, 1 P UB . P APERS 8 2 , 8 8 (Ja n . 2 8 , 2 0 0 3 ). A p u b lic d e b a te
ens u e d r e g a r d i n g t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h i s a s s e r t i o n . Se e g e n e r a l l y W i l s o n v . Li b b y , 535 F. 3d 697, 701- 02 ( D
. C
. C i r . 2008) ( des cr i bi ng debat e) , cer t
. deni ed 77 U
. S. L
. W
. 3506 ( J une 22, 2009) ; I n r e G r and J ur ySubpoena, J udi t h M i l l er , 438 F. 3d 1141, 1143 ( D
. C
. C i r . 2006)7

( s ame)
. O n J ul y6, 2003, T he N ew Y or k T i m es publ i s hed an op- ed pi ece w r i t t en bypl ai nt i ff V al er i e Pl ame W i l s on’ s hus band, J os eph C
. W i l s on I V , a for m er for ei gn s er vi ce offi cerw ho had r epr es ent ed t he U ni t ed St at es i n var i ous capa ci t i es , i ncl udi ng deput ychi ef of m i s s i on at th e U .S . E m b a ss yin Ira q f ro m 1 9 8 8 to 1 9 9 1 a n d U .S . am b a ss a d o r to G a b o n f ro m 1 9 9 2 to 1995. See J OS EP H W I L SO N , T HE P O LI T ICS OF T RUTH : I NS I DE THE L I ES TH AT P UT THE W HI TE H OU SE ON T R I ALAN D B ETRAY ED M Y W IFE ’ S C IA I DEN TI TY 518 ( 2004)
. I n hi s op- ed pi ece , M r . W i l s on di s cl os ed t hat , i n 2002, t he C I A had sent hi m t o A fr i ca t o as s es s t he ac cur acyof i nt el l i gence i ndi cat i ng t hatN i gerhad s ol d ur ani um y el l ow cake t o I r aq i n t he l at e 1990s
. See J o s e p h C. Wi l s o n I V, Wh a tI Di d n ’ tF i n d i n Af r i c a , N. Y. T I MES , Ju ly6 , 2 0 0 3 , § 4 , at 9. M r. W i l s on s t at ed t hat , bas ed on hi s i nves t i gat i on, he det er m i ned t hat “i tw as hi ghl ydoubt ful t hat anys uch t r ans act i on had eve rt aken pl ace , ” and that he had s o i nfor m ed t he C I A i n M ar ch 2002, ni ne mont hs befor e Pr es i dent B us h’ s 2003 St at e of t he U ni on addr es s . I d. M r . W i l s on
su g g e ste d th a t if th e B u sh A d m in istra tio n ig n o re d h is re p o rt “ b e c a u se it d id n o t f it ce rta in pr econc ept i ons aboutI r aq, t hen a l egi t i m at e ar gum ent can be m ade thatw e w entt o w arunder fal s e pr et ens es . ” I d. E i ghtday s l at er , s yndi cat ed col um ni s t R ober tN ovak comm ent ed on M r . W i l s on’ s oped pi ece and, i n doi ng s o, r evea l ed M s . W i l s on’ s empl oy m en t w ith t he C I A : “[J os eph] W i l s on neverw or ked fort he C I A , buthi s w i fe, V al er i e Pl ame, i s an age ncyoper at i ve on
w eapons of m as s des t ruct i on. T w o s eni or admi ni s t r at i on offi ci al s t ol d m e t hatW i l s on’ s w i fe

s ugges t ed s endi ng hi m t o N i gert o i nves t i gat e” the i nt el l i gence r egar di ng Iraq ’s at t empt ed“A ft erN ovak’ s col um n w as publ i s hed, var i ous m edi a ac count s r epor t ed t hatot her 3 rep o rt ers h ad b ee n told b yg o v ern m en t o ff ici als t h at W il so n ’s w ife w o rke d at t h e C IA m o n it o ri n g w ea p o n s o f m ass d estruc ti o n , an d that sh e w a s in v o lved in h er h u sb an d ’s s el ect i on fort he mi s s i on t o N i ger . ” I n r e G r and J ur y Subpoena, J udi t h M i l l er , 438 F. 3d at 1 1 4 3 ( c i t i n g , i n t e ra l i a , M i k e A l l e n & D a n a P r i e s t , B u s h A d m i n i s t r a t i o n I s F o c u s o f I n q u i r y; C IA A g e n t’ s Id e n tity W a s L e a k e d to M e d ia , W ASH . P OST , Sept
. 28, 2003, atA 1 ( r epor t i ng t hat“t w o t op W hi t e H ous e offi ci al s cal l ed at l eas t s i x W as hi ngt on j our nal i s t s and di s cl os ed th e id e n tity a n d o c c u p a tio n o f W ils o n ’s w if

e ” ))
. 8 u ra n iu m p u rc h a s e s . R o b e rt D . N o v a k , M is s io n to N ig e r, W ASH . P OST , J ul y14, 2 003, at A 21. 3 B
. T h e C IA ’s O f f icia l A c k n o w led g m e n t o f M s. W ilso n ’s P o st-2 0 0 2 S e rv ice w ith t he A gency A tt he t i m e of t he N ovak di s cl os ur e, M s . W i l s on w as i n fac ta “c over tC I A empl oy ee f o r w h o m th e C IA w a s ta k in g a f f irm a tiv e m e a su re s to c o n c e a l h e r in tellig e n c e re latio n sh ip t o t he U ni t ed St at es . ” U ncl as s i fi ed Sum m ar yof V al er i e W i l s on’ s C I A E m pl oy m ent & C over H i s t or yat1, U ni t ed St at es v. L i bby , C r . N o. 05- 394 ( D
. D
. C
. M ay 25, 2007)
. A s pl ai nt i ffs

a c k n o w led g e , M s. W ilso n ’s “ e m p lo y m e n t af f ili a tio n w ith th e C I A ” w a s th e n “ h ig h ly cl as s i fi ed. ” A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at6. T h e re v e latio n o f

M s. W ilso n ’s C IA e m p lo y m e n t c a u se d a p u b lic o u tcr y , lea d in g to t he appoi nt m entof a s peci al pr os ecut ort o i nves t i gat e w het heranygover nm entempl oy ees had vi ol at ed fe der al l aw bydi s cl os i ng t he i d en t i t yof a c over tagentw i t houtaut hor i zat i on. See 50 U
. S. C
. § 421. A s a cons equenc e, t he A gency“r ol l ed bac k” M s . W i l s on’ s “cove r ” – i
. e. , offi ci al l y di s cl os ed her s t atus as a C I A empl oy ee – i n t hr ee s t ages . See D ecl ar at i on of C I A D eput yD i r ect o r S teph en R
. K appes at4 ( J ul y18, 2007) ( “U ncl as s i fi ed K appesA s d isc u ss e d in f ra a t [ 46- 47] , M r . K appes has al s o s ubm i t t ed a c l as s i fi ed dec l ar at i on, 4 w hi ch w as r evi ew ed i n camer a and e x par t e by bot h t he di s t r i ctcour tand t hi s cour tw i t hout a n yo b jec tio n b yp lain tiff

s o r th e ir c o u n se l. See gene r al l yU ni t ed St at es v. L ibb y , 495 F. Supp. 2d 49, 51 ( D
. D
. C
. 2007) 5 (re p o rtin g M r. L ib b y ’s c o n v ic ti o n a n d P re sid e n t B u sh ’s c o m m u tatio n o f h is th irty -m o n th p ri so n sen tenc e). S ect i on 3. 1(b) pr ov i des: 6 I n s om e exc ept i onal cas es . . . t he nee d t o pr ot ect[cl as s i fi ed] i nfor m at i on m ay b e o u tw e ig h e d b y t h e p u b lic in ter e st in d isc lo su re o f th e in f o rm a tio n , an d in t hes e ca s es t he i nfor m at i on s houl d be dec l as s i fi ed. W hen s uch ques t i ons ar i s e, t heys hal l be r efe r r ed t o t he a g en cy h ea d ort he s eni oragenc yoffi ci al
. T hat off i ci al w i l l deter m i ne, as an exerci se o f dis cret i on , w hethert he p ub l i c i nter est i n di s cl os ur e out w ei ghs t he damage t o t he nat i onal s ecur i t yt hatm i ght re a s o n a b ly b e e x p e c te d f ro m d is c lo s u re .

9 D ecl ar at i on”)
. Fi r s t , i n D ece m ber2003, “as a r es ul t of t he [N ovak col um n] and s ubs equent 4

m ed ia rep o rt ing o f M s. W il so n ’s relat ions h ip w ith the C IA , ” the A g en cy“li fted M s. W il so n ’s

cover eff ect i ve 14 D ece m ber 2003. ” I d. ( emphasi s added)
. Second, i n Februar y2004, t he A gency“r ol l ed b ac k [M s . W i l s on’ s ] covereff ect i ve 14 J ul y2003, t he dat e of the [N ovak di s cl os ur e]
. ” I d. ( emphasi s added)
. T hi r d, i n O ct ober2005, t o fac i l i t at e t he pr os ecut i on of I
. L ew i s L i bby , t he V i ce Pr es i dent ’ s C hi ef of St aff , forper j ur yand obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce, 5 “t he C I A , exer ci sing i t s di s cr et i on unders ect i on 3. 1( b) ” of Execut i ve O r der13, 292, “det er m i ned t hat t he publ i c i nt er es t i n t he di s cl os ur e of M s . W i l s on’ s empl oy m entand cove r
s t atus ” fort he per i od begi nni ng J anuary 1, 2002 – i
. e. , t he y earof herhus band’ s t r i p t o N i ger – “out w ei ghed t he damage t o nat i onal s ecur i t yt hatm i ghtr eas onabl yb e expe ct ed fr om di s cl os ur e” of

t hati nfor m at i on, and “l i ft ed and r ol l ed bac k M s . W i lson’ s cover ” as of t hat dat e. Id. T hus , t he C I A offi ci al l ydi s cl os ed t hat , as of J anuary1, 2002, M s . W i l s on w as

6E x ec . O rde r 13 , 2 9 2 , § 3
. 1 (b), 68 F ed
. R eg . 1 5 , 3 1 5 , 1 5 , 3 2 0 (M ar. 23 , 2 0 0 3 ). 10 w or ki ng fort he C I A i n i t s C ount erpr ol i fer at i on D i vi s i on, w her e s he s erve d as chi ef of t he

u n itresp o n sible fo r w ea p o n s p roli fe rati o n issue s related to Iraq
. S ee U n classified S u m m ary of V al er i e W i l s on’ s C I A E m pl oy m entand C overH i s t or yat1, U ni t ed St at es v. L i bby , C r . N o. 0 5 -39 4 (D
. D
. C
. M ay2 5 , 2 0 0 7 ). B efore t his cou rt , t he A gen cyem ph at i cal l ym a int ai ns t he li m i t ed n at ure of these off i ci al dis cl osures: t hey “do [] no t m ean t hat t he C IA ackn ow l edg es any other peri od of [ M s. W i l son’s] em ploym ent, i f any , no r do[] [t hey ] decl assi fyt he n at ure and detai l s of M s. W i l s on’ s cover , t he cove rm et hods empl oy ed byt he C I A t o pr ot ectM s . W i l s on orot her

cover tC I A empl oy ees , or t he fact , natur e and det ai l s of M s . W i l s on’ s cl as s i fi ed i nt el l i gence act i vi t i es as a C I A empl oy ee at any t i m e dur i ng her empl oy m ent
. ” U ncl assified K appes D ecl ar at i on at5. C
. M s . W i l s on’ s R et i r ement D i s cus s i ons w i t h R epr es ent at i ve Insl ee a nd t he C I A ’ s Februar y10, 2006 L et t er Per cei vi ng t hat di s cl os ur e of her cover t s t atus w i t h t he C I A s i gni fi cant l y r es t r i ct ed her el i gi bi l i t yforfutur e A gency as s i gnm ent s and pr om ot i ons , V al er i e W i l s on deci ded t o r et i r e. B e f o re se rv in g f

o rm a l n o tice o f

re tir em en t, M s. W ilso n a n d h e r h u sb a n d h a d d isc u ss io n s w ith R e p re se n tativ e Ja yIn sle e (D -W a sh .), t o e x p lo re th e p o s s ib il ityo f a p riv a te b ill th a t w o u ld per m i tM s . W i l s on t o r ece i ve ful l r et i r ement benef i t s des pi t e t he fa ctt hats he had notr eac hed t he r equi s i t e age . O n N ovember 3, 2005, R ep. I ns l ee’ s C hi ef of St aff , B r i an B onl ender , s ent M r . W i l s on a dr aftof s uch l egi s l at i on, w hi ch pr opos ed t o r efe r ence h is w i fe’ s y ear s ofIn t he di st ri ctcou rt , plai nti ffs asser t ed thatR ep. “Insl ee’s off i ce con fi rm ed thatM s. 7 W i l s on i n fac thad 20 y ear s of s er vi ce, ” w i t houti ndi cat i ng w hen and how t hi s cl as s i fi ed fa ct w as confi r m ed. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ R ul e 56. 1 St at ement at8. 11 A g e n c yse rv ice , inf

o rm a tio n th a t w a s c lassi fi ed: “I n Janu ary2 0 0 6 , V a ler ie P lam e W ilso n w ill have be en empl oy ed by t he C ent r al I nt el l i gence A gency for 20 y ear s and w i l l be 42 y ear s of

a g e .” E -m a il f

ro m B . B o n len d e r to J. W ilso n , atta c h m e n t at 2 (N o v . 3 , 2 0 0 5 ). T h e d ra f t b ill fur t hers t at ed: “V al er i e Pl ame W i l s on s houl d be abl e t o r ece i ve r et i r ement benef i t s fr om t he C ent r al Intel l i gence A gencyaft erhavi ng been e m pl oy ed for20 y ear s w i t houtm eet i ng t he

m inim u m ag e req u ir em en t. ” Id. T h e reco rd also rev ea ls that, in resp o n d ing to R ep . Inslee ’s 7 offi ce the fol l ow i ng w eek, M s . W i l s on her s el f di d nothes i t at e t o di s cus s t he cl as s i fi ed fa ct of hery ear s of A gencys er vi ce: “I r es i gn on 2j an06 w i t h X X y ear s of s er vi ce. ” E
- m ai l fr om V . W ils o n to B . B o n le n d e r ( N o v . 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( re d a c tio n in c o p yf ile d w ith d is tr ic t c o u rt ). I n t hi s s ame e- m ai l , M s . W i l s on advi s ed M r . B onl endert hats he w ant ed t o have a “fi nal deci s i on” fr om t he A gencyr egar di ng herr et i r ement benef i t s “PR I O R t o s ubm i t t i ng anyl egi s l at i on” i n or d ert o demonst r at e t hat“al l ot heravenue s of r ecour s e have been at t empt ed, et c. ” I d. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. T w o w eeks l at er , M s . W i l s on r epor t ed t hats he “pr et t ym uch [had] fi nal w or d fr om t he agency ” t hat s he w oul d not be el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve her

re tir e m e n t b e n e f

its e a rl y , b u t th a t “ th e a g e n c yw ill g iv e m e a n ‘o f f ic ia l’ m e m o to th a t e f

f e c t.” E -m a il f ro m V . W ils o n to B . B o n le n d e r ( N o v . 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 ). V a ler ie W ilso n f

o rm a llyre sig n e d f

ro m th e C IA e f

f e c tiv e Ja n u a ry 9 , 2 0 0 6 . O n e m o n th l at er , on Februar y10, 2006, K ar en F. T um ol o, t hen C hi ef of the C IA ’s R et i r ement andT he appl i cabl e r egul at i ons do notper m i tt he t r ans m i s s i on of cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on 7 v ia first -class m ail
. S ee 3 2 C
. F
. R
. § 2 0 0 1
. 4 5 (c). 12 I ns ur ance Ser vi ces D i vi s i on, s ent M s . W i l s on a l et t err egar di ng herr et i r ement benef i t s ( t he

“ F e b ru a ry1 0 L e tter” o r “ L e tter” ). T h e L e tter w a s w ritten o n C IA lette rh e a d , se n t v ia firstclass m ail , an d co n tai n ed n o classifica ti o n m ark ing s. Itset fo rt h the d ates o f M s. W il so n ’s

7

s er vi ce w i t h t he C I A and expl ai ned t hat , bys t atut e, W i l s on w as noty et el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve her d e f e rr e d a n n u ity. Shor t l yt her ea ft er , M s . W i l s on r epor t ed t o R ep. I ns l ee’ s C hi ef of St aff t hats he had

r ece i ved “a n offi ci al l et t er ” fr om t he A gencyr egar ding herr et i r ement benef i t s , and s he

o f f e r e d “ t o f

a x [ h i m] t h e a c tu a l l e t t e r , i f i two u l d b e h e l p f

u l
. ” E- ma i l f

r o m V. W i l s o n t o B. B onl ender( Feb. 26, 2006). T h e re cor d does noti ndi cat e pr eci s el yw hen M s . W i l s on for w ar ded t he Februar y10 L et t ert o R ep. I ns l ee’ s offi ce, but i t i s undi s put ed t hats he di d s o. N o l egi s l at i on per t ai ni ng t o M s . W i l s on’ s r et i r ement benef i t s w as i nt r o d u ced i n 2006, how ever , and pl ai nt i ffs s ur m i s e t hatt hi s w as beca us e of t he unl i kel i hood of ena ct m entbyt he th e n -R e p u b lic a n -c o n tr o lle d C o n g re s s . D
. M s. W il so n ’s S ec rec yA g ree m en t w ith the C IA W hen V al er i e W i l s on j oi ned t he C I A , s he s i gned a s t andar d for m “Secr ecy A gr eement ” i n w hi ch s he agr eed “ never [t o] di s cl os e i n any for m oranym anner ” i nfor m at i on
orm at er i al s obt ai ned i n t he cour s e of he r empl oy m ent w i t h t he C I A ( 1) t hatar e “c l as s i fi ed p u rsu a n t to E x e c u tiv e O rd e r,” o r (2 ) “ w h ich re v e a l in f o r m a tio n , cla ss if

iab le p u rsu a n t to E xecut i ve O r der
. ” C I A For m Secr ecy A g ree m en t ¶ 3. T he form A gr eementpl ace d t he13

b u rde n u p o n M s. W il so n to d eterm ine w h ethe r i n fo rm ati o n o r m aterial s in h er c o n tr o l w ere cl as s i fi ed orcl as s i fi abl e, as w el l as t o as cer t ai n w hom t he C I A had author i zed t o r ece i ve s uch i nfor m at i on orm at er i al s . See i d. ¶ 4. In t he A gr eement , M s . W i l s on al s o pr om i s ed as foll ow s: I he re b y a g re e to su b m it f o r rev iew b y th e [ C IA ] a ll i n f o rm a tio n o r m a ter ials i ncl udi ng w or ks of fi ct i on w hi ch cont ai n anym ent i on of i nt el l i gence dat a or act i vi t i es , orcont ai n dat a w hi ch maybe b ase d upon i nfor m at i on cl as s i fi ed pur s uantt o E xecut i ve O r der , w hi ch I cont empl at e di s cl os i ng publ i cl yorw hi ch I have a ctual l ypr epar ed forpub li c di s cl os ur e, ei t herdur i ng m yempl oy m ent o r o th e r se rv ice w ith th e [ C IA ] o r a t a n y tim e th e re a f ter , p rio r to d isc u ss in g it w ith o r s h o w in g it to a n y o n e w h o is n o t a u th o ri z e d to h a v e a c c e s s to it. I fur t her agr ee t hat I w i l l not t ake any s t eps t ow ar d publ i c di s cl os ur e unt i l I have rec eive d w ri tt en p erm issi o n to d o so fro m the [ C IA ]. Id . ¶ 5 . T h e A g re e m e n t ex p lain e d th a t th e p u rp o se o f th e p re -p u b lica tio n re v iew p ro c e ss “ is t o gi ve t he [CIA ] an o p p o r tuni t yt o det er m i ne w het hert he i nfor m at i on orm at er i al s w hi ch [M s . W i l s on] cont empl at e[d] di s cl os i ng publ i cl ycont ai n any i nfor m at i on w hi ch [s he] ha[d] agr eed nott o di s cl os e. ” I d. ¶ 6. M s . W i l s on i ndi cat ed t hats he under s t ood and ac cept ed t hat the c o n d it ion s an d o b li g ati o n s set fo rt h in th e a g re e m e n t app li ed b o th “d u ri n g [h er] empl oy m ent
. . . and atal l t i m es t her eaf t er . ” I d. ¶ 18. E
. M s . W i l s on’ s Subm i s s i on of H erM emoi rt o t he C I A ’ s Publ i cat i on R evi ew B o ard I n acc or dance w i t h the t er m s of herSecr ecyA gr eement , i n J ul y2006, M s . W i l s on
su b m it ted th e f

ir st five c h ap ters of h er m em o irto the C IA ’s P u b li ca ti o n R ev iew B o ard ( “PR B ”) , t he ent i t y“cha r ged w i t h r eview i ng m at er i al s s ubm i t t ed bycur r entand for m er14

empl oy ees t hat ar e i nt ended f ornonoffi ci al publ i cat i on orpubl i c di s s emi nat i on, t o det er m i ne
w h e th e r th e yc o n tain c las sif ied in f o rm a tio n .” D e c lar a tio n o f P R B C h a irm a n R ich a rd J. P u h l, at1 ( J ul y12, 2007)
. I n Sept ember 2006, M s . W i l s on s ubm i t t ed he r f u ll m an u scr i ptt o t he P RB. A n O c to b e r 2 0 0 6 m e e tin g b e tw e e n M s. W ilso n a n d th e P R B to d isc u ss th e m e m o ir

w a s d e layed d u e to w h a t M s. W ilso n ’s a tto rn e ylate r d e sc rib e d a s “ a n in ter n a l A g e n c yd e b a te
a b o u t th e p ro p rie ty o f ro lli n g b a c k [ M s. W ilso n ’s] c o v e r p rio r to 2 0 0 2 .” L e tter f ro m D a v id Sm al l m an t o G ingerA
. W r i ght , C I A A s s i s t antG ener al C ouns el , at3 ( J an. 9, 2007) ( des cr i bi ng conver s at i on bet w een W i l s on and PR B offi ci al )
. M s . W i l s on as s er t s t hat , w hen

s he fi nal l ym etw i t h PR B s t aff i n N ovember 2006, s he w as t ol d t hat t he st aff t hought“t hat pr ohi bi t i ng M s . W i l s on fr om di s cl os i ng herC I A aff i l i at i on pr i or to 2 0 02 w oul d l ead t o an ‘a b su rd ’ a n d ‘lu d icr o u s’ r e su lt”; n e v e rth e les s, a “ d e c isio n h a d b e e n m a d e b y‘th e S e v e n th Fl oor , ’ i
. e. , s eni orA gency m anage m ent , not t o per m i ther ” t o m ake s uch di s cl os ur es . I d. ; s ee al s o F AI R G AME a t 2 6 7 -7 0
. Sho r t l y a ft e rt h e No v e mb e rme e t i n g , M s . W i l s o n r e c e i v e d a l e t t e rf r o m t h e P RB d i s a p p r o v i n g p u b l i c a t i o n o f h e r man u s c r i p ta s “ c u r r e n t l ywr i t t e n . ” Le t t e rf r o m P RB C hai r m an R
. Puhl t o V
. W i l s on at1 ( N ov. 21, 2006)
. T he PR B expl ai ned t hat t he fi r s t124 p a g e s o f th e m e m o ir w e re p a rticu lar lyp ro b lem a tic b e c a u s e th e “ c o n tex t” in w h ich c e rta in

m at t er s w ere di s cus s ed and the “t i m efr ames a s s oci at ed w i t h t he mat er i al ” w oul d “r evea l15

c la s s if ie d in f o rm a tio n .” Id
. T he P R B offe r ed t o m eet agai n w i t h M s . W i l s on t o di s cus s t he p ro b lem s id e n tifie d a n d th e d e letio n s o r c h a n g e s th a t w o u ld b e re q u ire d to p e rm it p u b li ca ti o n . C o n clud ing that “sig n ifi ca n tl yfe w er a n d less co m p lex c h an g es” w ere n ec essa ry for pag es 125 -243 o f t he m anu scr i pt, t he P R B off ered ni ne p ages of

l i ne-by -l i ne ed i t s. M s . W i l s on r es ponded byr eques t i ng l i ne- by

- l i ne edi t s t o t he fi r s t124 pages of her

m anus cr i pt
. T he PR B decl i ned i n a l et t erdat ed D ece m ber22, 2006, expl ai ni ng t hat“[t ] he fi rst 1 2 4 p ages of y ourm anus cr i ptar e r epl et e w i t h s t at ement s t hatm aybe uncl as s i fi ed

s t andi ng al one, butt heybecome cl as s i fi ed w hen t heyar e l i nked w i th a spec i fi c t i m e, s uch

as an e v e n t i n y o u r p e r s o n a l l i f e , o r a r e i n c l u d e d i n a n o t h e r c o n t e x t t h a t wou l d r evea l cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on. ” Let t erfr om PR B C hai r m an R
. Puhl t o V
. W i l s on, at 1 ( D ec. 22, 2006)
. T he l et t ers uggest ed t hatM s . W i l s on m i ghtaddr es s t hi s pr obl em by “s epar at [i ng]

c e rt a in s ta te m e n ts o r v ig n e tte s f ro m th e t im e f

ra m e s in w h ic h th e yc u rr e n tly a p p e a r,” “r emov[i ng] t he r efe r ence s t o t he t i m es and eve nt s i n y our per s onal l i fe, ” or , w her e no ot her opt i on w as fea s i bl e, “r eca s t [i ng] ” or“fi ct i onal i z[i ng] ” ce r t ai n i nfor m at i on. I d. at1- 2. I n a r es pons i ve l et t erdat ed J anuary 9, 2007, M s . W i l s on’ s couns el as s er t ed t hat“[t ] he dat es of M s . W i l s on ’s f ed eral s er vi ce a nd hergover nm entempl oy m entaff i l i at i on dur i ng
s peci fi c t i m e per i ods w er e di s cl os ed offi ci al l y by t he A gency i n an uncl as s i fi ed l et t ert o her i n F ebruary20 06
. ” Jan. 9, 20 07 L et t er from D
. S m al l m an t o G
. W ri gh t at 2. C ou nsel al so
a ttac h e d to h is le tter a n 1 8
- p a g e c h a rt o f c itatio n s to p u b lic d o m a in so u rc e s p u rp o rtin g toIllu stra tiv e o f th e c ited n e w s s to rie s a n d b o o k s a re th e f o llo w in g : 8

• “[W i l s on] w i l l no l onger be w or ki ng under cover , as s he di d s ucce s s ful l yfor alm o st 20 y ea rs. ” T im o thyM
. P h elps & K u rtR o y ce , C o lum n istB low s C IA A g e n t’ s C o v e r, N EW SD AY , Ju ly2 2 , 2 0 0 3 ;

• “A t22, Pl ame had j oi ned t he C ent r al I nt el l i gence A gencyand t r avel ed t he w or l d on under coverm i s s i ons . ” R i char d L ei by & D ana Pr i es t , T he SpyN ext D o o r: V a le ri e P la m e , Id e a l M o m W a s a ls o th e Id e a l C o v e r, W ASH . P OST , O c t. 8 , 2 0 0 3 ;

• “V al er i e Pl ame w as r ecrui t ed i nt o t he C I A i n 1985, s t r aigh t ou t of P e n n sy lv a n ia S tate U n iv e rsity .” D a v id C o rn , W h a t V a ler ie P lam e R e a llyD id att he C I A , N at i on O nl i ne, Sept
. 6, 2006;

• “ [ W ils o n ] s e rv e d a s tin t o n th e G re e c e d e s k .” Id .;

• “She s pentherear l yy ear s att he C I A i n E ur ope, w her e s he r ece i ved adva nced d e g re e s f ro m th e L o n d o n S c h o o l o f E c o n o m ics a n d th e C o lleg e o f E u ro p e , in B ruges , B el gi um . ” “The E xpos ur e of V al er i e Pl ame” ( C B S N ew s t el evi s i on b roa d ca st O ct. 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 );

• “W hi l e mostunder coveragenc yoffi cer s disgui s e t hei rr eal pr ofes s i on by pr et endi ng t o b e A m er i can e m bas s ydi pl om at s orot herU ni t ed St at es gover nm entem p loy ees, M s . Pl ame pas s ed her s el f off as a pr i vat e ene r gy exper t [w hen oper at i ng over s eas ]
. ” E l i zabe t h B um i l l er , D ebat i ng a Leak: T he Di r e c t o r ; CI A C h i e f

i s Ca u g h t i n M i d d l e i n L e a k I n q u i r y , N. Y. T I MES , O ct
. 5, 2 0 0 3
. 16 des cr i be M s . W i l s on’ s pr e- 2002 aff i l i at i on w i t h t he C I A , i ncl udi ng ar t i cl es di s cus s i ng w hen

s he j oi ned t he A gency , w her e s he had s er ved, and her coverm et hods
. C ouns el s ubm i t t ed 8
t hat , i n t hes e ci r cumst ances , pr event i ng M s . W i l s on fr om t el l i ng herful l s t or yw as

“ n o n se n sic a l” b e c a u se th e n e t ef f e c t o f th e A g e n c ylim itatio n w a s th a t “v irtu a llya n y o n e in t he w or l d can w r i t e about non- s ecr et , publ i cl y know n as pect s of M s . W i l s on’ s l i fe – e xcept fo r he r. ” Id
. at 4 (e m p h asis in o ri g inal).17

F. T he “V al er i e Pl ame W i l s on C om pens at i on A ct ” and Publ i c D i s cl os ur e of t he Februar y10 L et t er A s th e P R B , M s. W ilso n , an d h e r a tto rn e yp u rsu e d n e g o tiatio n s a b o u t th e p e rm iss ib le cont entof herbook, R ep. I ns l ee pr epar ed t o i ntr oduce – i n t he now D emocr at i c- cont r ol l ed C o n g re ss – h is pr e v io u sly d ra f ted p riv a te b ill a u th o riz in g M s. W ilso n ’s e a rlyre c e ip t o f f u ll

r et i r ement benef

i t s . T ow ar d t hi s end, R ep. I ns l ee s oughtM s . W i l s on’ s per m i s s i on t o pl ace i n t he C ongr es s i onal R ecor d a copyof t he C I A ’ s Februar y 10, 2006 L et t er . M s . W i l s on gave herappr oval i n a J anuary12, 2007 l et t er , w hi ch s t at es : “I have no obj ect ion s t o any ot her w i s e perm i s s i bl e i ncl us i on of m yper s onal fin anci al i nfor m at i on as cont ai ned i n [t he Februar y10 L et t er ]
. T he l et t erdoes notcont ai n anydes i gnat ion that i t s ent i r e cont ent s or anypo rt i on set s forth o r r eferences cl assi fi ed inform at i on . T his l et t er w as sent t o m e via fi rs t class m ail
. ” S ee L ett er f rom V
. W il so n to R ep . Inslee at 1 (Ja n . 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 ). O n J anuary16, 2007, R ep. I ns l ee i nt r oduced the “V al er i e Pl ame W i l s on C om pens at i on A ct , ” H
. R
. 501, 11 0 th C o n g . ( 2007)
. I n hi s fl oors t at ement , R ep. I ns l ee
s peci fi cal l yr efe r ence d M s . W i l s on’ s “20 y ear s of fe der al s er vi ce. ” 153 C ong. R ec. E 119 (d a ilye d . Ja n . 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 ) (s tate m e n t o f R e p . In sle e ). H e f

u rth e r sta ted : I a m in tro d u c in g leg isla tio n to a llo w M rs. P lam e W ilso n to qual i fyforherannui t y , as one w ho has served hercount r yfor t wo d e c a d e s , a n d wai v e t h e a g e r e q u i r e me n t f o rc o l l e c t i n g i t
. To bes t demonst r at e t he annui t y for w hi ch M r s . Pl ame W i l s on m ay q u ali fy if t hi s l egi s l at i on w er e t o pas s , I am subm i t t i ng fort he rec o rd a d o cu m en t sen t t o M rs. P lam e W il so n b ythe C IA
. It out l i nes herdefe r r ed annui t y and t es t i fi es t o 20 y ear s of s er vi ce. T he documentbear s no i ndi cat i ons of cl assi fi ed mat er i al as r equi r ed by C I A pr ocedur es , and w as s ent vi a r egul ar post al m ail af ter M r s . Pl ame W i l s on w as no l ongeri n t he empl oyofT he cour t r ecor d does notr efl ectw i t h w hi ch “l egal exper t s ” R ep. I ns l ee c ons ul t ed 9 pr i or t o i nt r oduci ng t he Let t eri nt o t he C ongr es s i onal R ecor d. T he cour tr ecor d l i kew i s e does notr efl ectw het her R ep. I ns l ee cons ul t ed w i t h t he C I A r egar di ng t he s t atus of t he i nfor m at i on co n tai n ed in the L ett er. T he bi l l i t s el f w as r efe r r ed t o t he H ous e C om m i t t ee on I nt el l i gence , butno fur t her 10 act i on w as t aken dur i ng t he 110t h C ongr es s . O n M ar ch 26, 2009, R ep. I ns l ee r ei nt r oduced t he bi l l , w hi ch w as agai n r efe r r ed t o t he H ous e C om m i t t ee on I nt el l i gence . See H
. R
. 1773, 111t h C ong. ( 2009)
. N o fur t heract i on has been t aken on the bi l l t o dat e. 18 the C IA
. L egal exp ert s hav e assur ed m e t hat t his is n o t a c las sif ied d o c u m e n t. 9 Id. R ep . Inslee then p lace d in the rec o rd a m o d estl yred ac ted v ersion o f t h e C IA ’s F eb rua ry 10 L et t er , w hi ch s t at ed, i nt eral i a, “[o] ur r ecor ds s how t hat s i nce J anuary 1, 1987, y ou have acqui r ed 6 y ear s , 1 m ont h and 29 day s of over s eas s er vi ce. Fol l ow i ng i s a l i s t of y ourfede r al

ser vice: C IA , C IA (LW O P ), C IA (P/ T 40 ), from 11 / 9/1985 t o 1/9/ 20 06

— t otal of 2 0 y ears , 7 day s . ” I d. T hi s ver s i on of t he Februar y10 L et t erw as t her eaf t eri ncorpor at ed i nt o t he C ongr es s i onal R ecor d and i s now per m anent l y avai l abl e t o t he publ i c, bot h i n pr i ntand on th e In ter n e t. 10 T hr ee da y s l at er , K ar en T um ol o – t he A gency offi ci al w ho aut hor ed t he Februar y10 L e tter – w ro te to a d v ise M s. W ilso n th a t th e L e tter “ w a s n o t p ro p e rlym a rk e d to in d ica te its nat i onal s ecur i t ycl as s i fi cat i on” due t o “an admi ni s t r at i ve er r or , ” and t hatt he “i nfor m at i on
c o n ta in e d th e re in ” in f

a c t “r e m a in s c las sif

ied .” L e tter f

ro m K . T u m o lo to V . W ilso n a t 1 (Jan
. 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 ). M s . T um ol o r eques t ed t hatM s . W il so n ret ur n t he Let t er , al ong w i t h any copi es , t o t he A gency . M eanw hi l e, C hr i s t opherJ
. W al ker , t he C IA ’s D i r ect orof C ongr es s i onal A ffa i r s , s i m i l ar l y i nfor m ed the C l er k of t he H ous e of R epr es ent at i ves t hatt he F eb rua ry1 0 L ett er introd u ce d into the C o n g ression al R ec or d “cont ai ns cl as s i fi ed i nform at i on19

t hat w as not pr oper l ym ar ked. ” Let t erfr om C hr i s t opherJ
. W al ker , D i r ect orof C ongr es s i onal A ff airs, C IA , to H o n . K are n H aa s, C lerk, U
. S
. H o u se o f R ep rese n tat ives at 1 (Ja n . 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 ). W al kerdi d not , how ever , r eques tr etur n of t he Let t eroranyot hercongr es s i onal act i on. O n J anuary31, 2007, M s . W i l s on agr eed t o r etur n a copyof t he Februar y10 L et t er t o t he C I A and r eques t ed t hatt he A gencypr ovi de herw i t h a r edac t ed c o p y . T h e re dact ed l et t er s o p rovi ded on A pri l 24 , 20 07 , dis cl oses onlyM s. W i l son’s post -2002 ser vice dat es. G
. Fi nal Pr e- Publ i cat i on R evi ew A ft erR ep. I ns l ee’ s publ i c di sclo su re o f t he C I A ’ s Februar y10 L et t er , M s . W i l s on cont i nued t o negot i at e w i t h t he PR B r egar di ng i t s r efus al t o al l ow her t o r efe r ence anypr e2002 C I A aff

i l i at i on i n herm emoi r . I n a s er i es of l et t er s , M s . W i l s on’ s couns el ar gued t hat t he Februar y10 L et t er– w hi ch, he as s er t ed, w as di s cl os ed t o M s . W i l s on i n an “unc l as s i fi ed” for m and had s i nce e nt er ed t he publ i c dom ai n – r epr es ent ed an offi ci al acknow l edgment of M s . W i l s on’ s dat es of ser vi ce w i t h t he C I A thatnece s s ar i l yunder m i ned anyj us t i fi cat i on for bar r i ng herfr om di s cus s i ng t hos e dat es i n herm emoi r . I n tur n, t he A gencym ai nt ai ned t hat t he Let t ercont ai ned pr oper l y cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on t hat had never been offi ci al l ydi s cl os ed

ordecl as s i fi ed. A ft er M s . W i l s on r ej ect ed t he C I A ’ s s ugges t i on t hat s he fi ct i onal i ze orot her w i s e al t er t he fi r s thal f of he rm anus cr i pt , t he PR B m ade e xt ensi ve l i ne- by

- l i ne r edac t i ons t o t hat por t i on of herbook, expl ai ni ng t hat“[w ] i t h l i m i t ed exc ept i ons , t he cl as s i fi ed inf o rm a tio n . . . id en ti fied in y o u r m an u script relat es to a sin g le i ssu e, of w h ich y o u are
a w a re , a n d re f

le c ts th e c la s s if

ic a tio n d e te r m i n a tio n m a d e b yth e D ir e c to r o f th e A g e n c y .”B efor e t he di s t r i ctcour t , “t he par t i es agr ee[ d] t hat t h[i s ] ‘ s i ngl e i s s ue’ ei t heri s , or 11 encompas s es , t he C I A ’ s det er m i nat i on t hatW i l s on cannotdi s cl os e herdat es of C I A s er vi ce pr i ort o 2002, i f any
. ” W i l s on v. M cC onnel l , 501 F. Supp. 2d at 549. A s di s cus s ed fur t her in f ra a t [ 42- 43] , th is s in g le is s u e ra is e s m o re th a n a n a rr o w c h ro n o lo g ic a l c o n c e rn . 20 L et t er fr o m P R B C hairm an R
. P uh l t o V
. W i l son at 2 ( A pr. 19 , 20 07 ). T he P R B al so 11 confi r m ed forM s . W i l s on t hat s he had exhaus t ed her admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es w i t h r es pect t o t hi s i s s ue. T hi s l i t i gat i on fol l ow ed. H
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tPr ocee di ngs O n M ay31, 2007, pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed t hi s ac ti o n s eeki ng ( 1) an i nj unct i on pr event i ng defe ndant s from bar r i ng publ i cat i on of t hos e “por t i ons of [M s . W i l s on’ s m emoi r ] t hat

r efe r ence i nfor m at i on offi ci al l yacknow l edged bydefe ndantC I A i n t he Februar y10, 2006 l et t er , ” and ( 2) a dec l ar at i on t hat , among ot hert hi ngs , t he PR B ’ s p r ohi bi t i on on t he pu bli cat i on of M s. W i l son’s pr e-2002 ser vice dat es vi olat es her Fi rs tA m end m ent r i gh t s. C om pl ai ntat23- 24. T he par ti es cro ss- m oved fors um m ar yj udgm entand, i n an opi ni on dated A ug ust1, 20 07 , t he d i st ri ctcou rtgrant ed d efen dan t s’ m oti on a n d d enied pl ai nti ffs’

m ot i on. See W i l s on v. M cC onnel l , 501 F. Supp. 2d 545. Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tn o t e d t h a t M s . W i l s o n “ i s n o t c h a l l e n g i n g t h e P RB p r o c e s s , t h e P RB reg u lat ion s, o r he r co n tr ac tual sec rec yo b li g ati o n to the g o v ern m en t. ” Id
. at 54 8 n . 3
. F u rt h er,
no par t y had as ked t he cour t “t o rul e on any par t i cul arr edac t i on” t o t he mem oi r . I d. at549

n .6 . T h e d istric t co u rt id e n tifie d th e so le is su e f o r d e c isio n to b e “ w h e th e r, o r to w h a t ex ten t, t he C I A m ayus e W i l s on’ s [pr e- 2002] dat es of s er vi ce a s a bas i s for cens or [s hi p] on nat i onal

s e c u ri ty g ro u n d s .” Id
.21

In ru li n g in f

av o r of d e f

e n d an ts, the d istri ct co u rtd eterm ined that (1) M s. W il so n ’s pr e- 2002 s er vi ce da t es had bee n pr oper l ycl as s i fi ed pri or t o t he i s s uance of t he Februar y10 L ett er; (2) th o se da tes w ere n ev er f o rm all yd ec lassifi ed b ythe A g en cy ; and (3) the F eb rua ry 10 L et t erw as notan “off i ci al acknow l edgment ” of M s . W i l s on’ s s er vi ce dat es beca us e ( a) t he Let t erw as s entonl yt o W i l s on and, t hus , w as nota publ i c di s cl os ur e; and ( b) t he

su b se q u e n t p u b lic d isc lo su re o f th e L e tter b y M s. W ilso n a n d R e p . In sle e w a s n o t “o f f icia l” b e c a u s e it w a s n o t a ttr ib u ta b le to th e C IA . Id . a t 5 5 2 -6 0
. P la in tif f s tim e ly f

ile d n o tic e o f

th is a p p e a l o n S e p te m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 7
. I
. Publ i cat i on of F AI R G AME A ppr oxi m at el yone mont h l at er , on O ct ober22, 2 007, Si m on & Schus t erpubl i s hed F ai r G am e w i t h the r edacti on s r equ i red by t he P R B rendered i n the t ext as blacked-out l i nes. T he b o o k o p en s w i t h a “Publ i s her ’ s N ot e” e xpl ai ni ng t hatm anyof t he C I A ’ s r equi r ed

r edac t i ons “re lat e[] t o m at er i al t hatw oul d di s cl os e M s . W i l s on’ s dat es of s er vi ce, i nfor m at i on t hat has al r eady been w i del ydi s s emi nat ed. ” F AI R G AME ati x. T he not e advi s es
r eade r s t hatt he r edac t ed i nfor m at i on i s eff ect i vel ybei ng pr ovi ded i n an af t er w or d w r i t t en bys om eone othert han M s . W i l s on:

T o enhanc e t he r eade r ’ s e x p er i ence Si m on & Schus t erhas added a n a f t e r wo r d b y r e p o r t e r L a u r a Ro z e n . Dr a wn f r o m i n t e r v i e ws and publ i c s our ces , i tpr ovi des hi s t or i cal back g r ound and r ecount s por t i ons of M s . W i l s on’ s l i fe a nd car eert hat s h e w as unabl e t o i ncl ude her s el f. W hen t he aft er w or d i s r ead t oget her wi t h F a i rGa me , a f

u l l a n d v i v i d pi c tu r e o f Va l e r i e P l a me W i l s on emer ges . M s . W i l s on has had no i nputori nvol vement in the cre ati o n o f t h e af terw o rd, w h ich s h e h as n o t seen b ef o re publ i cat i on of t hi s book.W e n o t e a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t d e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d , s o me wha t h a l f h e a r t e d l y , t h at t he 12 publ i cat ion of M s . W i l s on’ s book r ender s thi s act i on m oot
. I ns ofaras ( 1) t he book w as publ i s hed w it h the C I A ’ s r edac t i ons , and ( 2) pl ai nt i ffs r epr es entt hatt heyw i l l publ i s h a re v is e d , u n re d a c ted v e rsio n o f th e b o o k if

th e yp re v a il h e re , d e f e n d a n ts’ c o n ten tio n is re je c te d a s w ith o u t m e ri t. 22 Id. T h e a fterw o rd p u rpo rt s to d esc ri b e, am o n g o ther thin g s, M s. W il so n ’s en tryinto the C IA in 1 9 8 5 , se e id . at 3 1 3 ; h e r f irst f o re ig n a s s ig n m e n t to A th e n s, G re e c e , an d th e d ip lo m a tic

covers he us ed on t hatt our , s ee i d. at319- 31; and her t r ans i t i on t o “nonoff i ci al cover ” i n t he 1990s , dur i ng w hi ch t i m e s he pos ed as an “e ner gycons ul t ant , ” i d. at333- 48. I I . D i s cus s i on A
. St andar d of R evi ew “W e r evi ew an aw ar d of s um m ar yj udgm entde n o v o , ” and w e “w i l l uphol d t he ju d g m e n t if th e e v id e n c e , v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e p a rty a g a in st w h o m it i s ent er ed, demonst r at es t hatt her e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac t and t hatt he j udgm ent i s w arr ant ed as a m at t er of l aw . ” G l obal N et w or k C om m c’ ns , I nc. v. C i t y of N ew Y or k, 562 F. 3d 145, 150 ( 2d C i r . 2009)
. B efor e appl y i ng thi s s t andar d t o pl ai nt i ffs ’ chal l enges t o t he j ud gm ent i n thi s case, w e ou t l i ne the l egal fr am ew ork rel evan tt o o ur anal y si s. 12 B
. T h e L e g a l F ra m e w o rk R e lev a n t to P lain tiff s’ F irst A m e n d m e n t C laim 1
. C IA E m p lo y e e s H a v e N o F irst A m e n d m e n t R ig h t T o D isc lo se P ro p e rly C l as s i fi ed I nfor m at i on I ti s a bedr ock pr i nci pl e of Fi r s tA me n d m entj ur i s prudence t hat“‘ [a] nys y s t em of pri or restrai n ts of

ex p ression
. . . b ea r[s] a h ea v y p resu m p ti o n ag ains t i ts co n sti tuti o n al va li d ity . ’” N ew Y ork T i m es C o . v. U nit ed S t at es, 40 3 U
. S
. 71 3, 71 4 (197 1) ( qu oti ng B antam B oo ks, I nc. v. Sul l i van, 372 U
. S
. 5 8 , 7 0 (19 63) )
. T he C I A ’ s r equi r ement t hatcur r entand for m erA s ex p lai n ed in D ep artm en t of N av yv . E g an , 4 8 4 U
. S
. 5 1 8 (19 8 8 ): 13 Si nc e W o r l d W a rI , th e Ex e c u t i v e Br a n c h h a s e n g a g e d i n e f f o r t s t o pr ot ect nat i onal s ecur i t yi nfor m at i on bym eans of a c l as s i fi cat i on s y s t em gra ded according t o sensi t i vity . A ft er W orl d W ar I I, cert ai n c ivi l i an ag encies , i ncl udi ng t he C ent r al I nt el l i gence A gency , t he N at i onal Secur i t yA gency , and t he A t om i c Ener gy C om m i s s i on, w er e ent rus t ed w i t h gat her i ng, pr ot ect i ng, or creati n g i nfor m at i on bear i ng on nat i onal s ecur i t y . Pr es i dent s , i n a s er i es of E x ec u ti v e O rde rs, h av e so u g h t t o p rotec t sen sit ive in fo rm ati o n an d to en su re its p ro p e r c las sif

ica tio n th ro u g h o u t th e E x e c u tiv e B ra n c h b yd e leg a tin g th is

23 e m p lo y e e s o b tain A g e n c y c lea ra n c e b e f o re d iss e m in a tin g a n y m a ter ial rela ted to th e ir empl oy m enti s not , how ever , a “s y s t em of pri orr es t r ai nt s ” i n the classic s ens e. See M cG ehee v. C as ey , 718 F.2d 1137, 1147- 48 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1983) ; acc or d J ohn D oe, I nc. v. M u k a s e y , 5 4 9 F .3 d 8 6 1 , 8 7 1 , 8 7 6 n .1 2 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e x p lain e d , w h e n a g o v e r n m e n t em p lo y e e “ v o lu n tar ily

as s um e[s ] a dut y of confi dent i al i t y , gover nm ent al r es t r i ct i ons on di s cl os ur e ar e nots ubj ect t o t he s ame s t r i ngent s t andar ds t hat w oul d appl y t o eff or t s t o i m pos e r es t r i ct i ons on unw i l l i ng
m ember s o f t h e p u b l i c . ” Uni t e d St a t e s v . Agu i l a r , 5 1 5 U. S. 5 9 3 , 6 0 6 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ; s e e U ni t ed St at es v. N at ’ l T r eas ur y E m p loy ees U ni on, 513 U
. S. 454, 465- 66 ( 1995) ( “C ongr es s m ay im p o se re stra in ts o n th e jo b -re late d sp e e c h o f p u b lic e m p lo y e e s th a t w o u ld b e p lain ly

uncons t i tut i onal i f appl i ed t o t he publ i c at l ar ge. ”) ; cf. J ohn D oe, I nc. v. M ukas ey , 549 F. 3d at 877 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng bet w een f or m erC I A empl oy ees and ent i t i es t hat“had no i nt er act i on
w i t h t he G o v ernm entunt i l t he G over nm enti m pos ed i t s nondi s cl os ur e r equi r ement upon [t hem ]”)
. Indeed , on ce a go v e rn m e nt em ploy ee si gn s an agreem ent not t o d i scl ose i nfor m at i on pr oper l y classi fi ed pur s uantt o exec ut i ve or der , t hatempl oy ee “ s i m pl yhas no fi r s tamen d m en t ri ghtt o publ i s h” s uch i nfor m at i on. St i l l m an v. C I A , 319 F. 3d 546, 548 13res po nsi bil i t yt o the head s of ag encies
.

I d
. a t5 2 7 ; s e e g e n e r a l l y D A N IE L P ATR I C K M OYNI HAN E T A L ., R EP OR T O F TH E C OMM I SS I ON ON P R OTE CT ING AN D R EDU C ING G OV ER NME NT S ECRECY , S. D OC . N O . 1 0 5 -2 , a p p . A ( “Secr ecy : A B r i ef A ccountof t he A m er i can E xper i ence ”) ( 1997) ; H ar ol d C
. R el y ea, C ong. R ese arc h Ser v. , “Secur i t yC l as s i fi ed and Cont r ol l ed I nfor m at i on: H i s t or y , St atus and E m e rg in g M a n a g e m e n t I s s u e s ” 2 -5 (2 0 0 8 ) ( re v ie w in g h is to ry o f c la s s if ic a tio n s y s te m ). Pr es i dent i al “author i t yt o cl as s ify an d cont r ol acc es s t o i nfor m at i on bear i ng on nat i onal s ecur i t y. . . fl ow s pr i m ar i l yfr om ” A r t i cl e I I , Sect i on 2 of t he C ons t i tut i on “and exi s t s qui t e apa r tfr om anyexpl i ci tcongr es s i onal gr ant
. ” D epar t m entof N avyv. E gan, 484 U
. S. at 527; s ee al s o J enni fer K
. E l s ea, C ong. R es ear ch S er v. , “The Prot ect i on of C l as s i fi ed I nfor m at i on: T he Legal Fr amew or k” 2- 3 ( 2006) ( di s cus s i ng r el at i vel yl i m i t ed congr es s i onal in ter v e n tio n in in f

o rm a tio n c las sif

ica tio n ); M OYNI HAN E T A L ., R EP OR T OF TH E C OMM I SS I ON ON P ROT EC TING AN D R EDU C ING G OV ER NME NT S ECRECY 1 1 (discu ssing lack o f statuto ry bas i s forcl as s i fi cat i on r egi m e)
. T he pr ocedur e forcl as s i fy i ng and dec l as s i fy i ng i nfor m at i on is c u rr e n tly g o v e rn e d b yE x e c u tiv e O rd e r 1 3 ,2 9 2 , 6 8 F e d . R e g . 1 5 ,3 1 5
. 24 ( D
. C
. Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ; s e e Uni t e d St a t e s v . Pa p p a s , 9 4 F. 3 d 7 9 5 , 8 0 1 ( 2 d Ci r . 1 9 9 6) ( “The G over nm enti s ent i t l ed t o enfor ce i t s agr eement s t o m ai nt ai n t he conf i dent i al i t yof cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on. ”) ; A l fr ed A
. K nopf, I nc. v. C ol by , 509 F. 2d 1362, 1370 ( 4t h C i r . 1975) ( hol di ng th a t g o v e rn m e n t e m p lo y e e su b jec t to se c re c ya g re e m e n t h a s “ e f f e c tiv e lyre lin q u ish e d h is F ir st A m en d m en t r igh t[]” to p u b li sh classified inf o rm ati o n ). T h is ru le d e riv e s p rin c ip a llyf ro m S n e p p v . U n ite d S ta tes , 4 4 4 U .S . 5 0 7 (1 9 8 0 ), in

w hi ch t he Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed a Fi r s t A m endment chal l enge t o t he C I A ’ s enfor cement of i t s s ecr ecyagr eementw i t h for m erempl oy ee Fr ank W
. Snepp I I I , w h o h ad publ i s hed a book aboutC I A act i vi t i es i n Sout h V i et nam w i t houts ubm i t t i ng hi s m anu script forpr ep u b li ca ti o n A g en cyrev iew
. T h e C o u rt a f f ir m ed the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er e n joining fu ture br eac hes bySnepp and imposi ng a cons t ruct i ve t rus ton pr ofi t s al r eadyr eal i zed f r om t he unaut hor i zed publ i cat i on, s ee i d. at 508- 09, concl udi ng not onl y t hat Sn ep p ’s sec r ecy ag ree m en t w as e n fo rce ab le as a n “e n ti relyap p rop ri ate e x erc ise o f th e C IA D ir ec tor’s25

s ta tu to ry m a n d a te to p ro te c t in te llig e n c e so u rce s an d m etho d s fro m u n a u th o ri z e d d is c lo s u re ,” b u t a ls o th a t “ e v e n in th e a b se n c e o f a n e x p re ss a g re e m e n t – th e C IA c o u ld h a v e a c ted to p r o t e c ts u b s t a n t i a l g o v e r n me n ti n t e r e s t s b yi mpo s i n g r e a s o n a b l e r e s t r i c t i o n s o n e mpl oy ee
a c tiv itie s th a t in o th e r c o n te x ts m ig h t b e p ro te c te d b y th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t,” id
. a t 5 1 0 n .3 ( i nt er nal quot at i on m ar ks and al t er at i on om i t t ed)
. T he C our t hel d t hat “[t ] he G over nm enthas a compel l i ng i nt er es ti n pr ot ect i ng bot h t he s ecr ecyof i nfor m at i on i m por t antt o ournat i onal

s ecur i t yand t he appea r ance of confi dent i al i t ys o es s ent i al t o t he ef fec t i ve oper at i on of our f o re ig n in tellig e n c e se rv ice ,” a n d th a t “[ t]h e a g re e m e n t th a t S n e p p sig n e d is a re a so n a b le

m eans for pr ot ect i ng t hi s vi t al i nt er es t
. ” I d. ; s ee a l s o H ai g v. A gee, 453 U
. S. 280, 283, 309 ( 1981) ( hol di ng t hatex- C I A empl oy ee’ s s peec h i nt ended “ ‘ t o expos e C I A off icers and agent s ’ ” i s “cl ear l y not pr ot ect ed byt he C ons t i tut i on”)
. M or eover , t he C our tr ecogni zed the C IA ’s n ee d to m aintain a “d ep en d ab le pre p u b li ca ti o n rev iew p roc ed u re” in o rde r t o “e n su re i n advanc e . . . t hat i nfor m at i on det r i m ent al t o nat i onal i nt er es t i s notpubl i s hed. ” Snepp v. U n ite d S ta te s , 4 4 4 U .S . a t 5 1 3 n .8
.

2
. D ef

en d an ts’ In a b ilit yT o P rev en t Pu b li ca ti o n o f In fo rm ati o n that Is U ncl as s i fi ed orN otPr oper l yC l as s i fi ed B ycont r as t , “[t ] he governm enthas no l egi t i m ate inte r es ti n cens or i ng uncl as s i fi ed

m at er i al s , ” and, t hus , “maynot cens or s uch m at er i al , cont r actual l y or ot her w i s e. ” M cG ehee

v. C as ey , 718 F. 2d at1141 ( i nt er nal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o Snepp v. U ni t ed St at es , 444 U
. S. at 5 1 3 n . 8 ( “I f i n fac ti nfor m at i on i s uncl as s i fi ed ori n t he publ i c domai n,T hi s cas e does noti m pl i cat e t he conc er ns di s cus s ed i n G ar cet t i v. C ebal l os , 547 14 U .S . 4 1 0 (2 0 0 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t sta tem e n ts m a d e b yc u rre n t p u b lic e m p lo y e e s p u rsu a n t to th e ir o ff ici al du ti es, rather tha n as c it izen s, are n o t pro tected b ythe F ir st A m en d m en t)
. 26 nei t hert he C I A nor for ei gn agenc i es w oul d be conc er ned. ”)
. C ons i s t entw i t h t hi s pr i nci pl e, 14 C I A reg u lat ion s pr ovi de t hat“[t ] he PR B w i l l r evi ew m at er i al pr opos ed forpubl i cat i on or p u b lic d is s e m in a tio n s o le ly to d e te rm in e w h e th e r i t c o n ta in s a n y c l a s s if ie d in f o rm a tio n .” A gencyPr epubl i cat i on R evi ew of C er t ai n M at er i al Pr epar ed fo r P u bl i c D i s s emi nat i on § 2( f) ( 2) ( 2005) (em p h asis ad d ed ). M or eov er, i f t he A gencycens or s a manusc r i ptbeca us e i tcont ai ns cl as s i fi ed i n f o r ma t i o n , t h e a u t h o r i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f t h a t d e c i s i o n t o e n s u r e t hat t he i nfor m at i on i n ques t i on i s , i n fac t , pr oper l ycl as s i fi ed undert he s t andar ds s etfor t h i n t he appl i cabl e exec ut i ve or der
. See M cG ehee v. C as ey , 718 F. 2d at1148 ( hol di ng t hatA gency
e m p lo y e e re tain s “ a stro n g f irst a m e n d m e n t in ter e st in e n su rin g th a t C IA c e n so rsh ip o f h is [w or k] r es ul t s fr om a pr opercl as s i fi cat i on of the ce ns or ed por t i ons ”; U ni t ed St at es v. M a rc h e tti , 4 6 6 F .2 d 1 3 0 9 , 1 3 1 7 (4 th C ir. 1 9 7 2 ) (n o tin g rig h t to ju d icia l re v iew in th is cont ext ) ; s ee a l s o Snepp v. U ni t ed St at es , 444 U
. S. at513 n. 8 ( obs er vi ng t hat C I A cl ear ance pr ocedur e i s “s ubj ectt o j udi ci al r evi ew ”)
. Such j udi ci al r ev iew is n eces s ar i l ydefe r ent i al beca us e t he des i gnat i on and prot ect i on of cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on “mustbe comm i t t ed t o t he br oad di s cr et i on of t he agency r es pons i bl e. ” D epar t m ent of N avy v. E gan, 484 U
. S. 518, 529 ( 1988)
. D efe r ent i al r evi ew , how ever , does notequat e t o no r evi ew . See J ohn D oe, I nc. v. M ukas ey , 549 F. 3d at881 ( ci t i ng G ut i er r ez de M ar t i nez v. L amagno , 5 1 5 U
. S. 417, 426 (19 9 5 )). A co u rt m u st sa ti sfy it self “f rom the rec o rd, in ca m era o r o therw ise, that the C IAJ ohn D oe, I nc. v. M ukas eyaddr es s ed t he cons t i tu t i onal i t yof s t atut es aut hor i zi ng 15 t he FB I t o pr ohi bi tcomm uni cat i on s er vi ce pr ovi der s fr om di s cl os i ng r ece i ptof N at i onal S e c u rityL e tters u p o n c e rtific a tio n b yse n io r F B I o f f icia ls th a t d isc lo su re m a yre su lt i n “dange rt o t he nat i onal s ecur i t y. . . , i n terfere nce w i t h a cr i m i nal , count er t er r or i s m , or count er i nt el l i gence i nves t i gat i on, i nt er fer ence w i t h di pl om at i c r el at i ons , ordangert o t he l i fe o r p h ys i c a l s a f

e t y o f a n y p e r s o n . ” 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 7 0 9 ( c ) ( 1 ) ; s e e J o h n D o e , I n c . v . M u k a s e y, 549 F. 3d at867 & n. 7. B y s t atut e, C ongr es s empow er ed fe der al cour t s t o m odi fyors etas i de a n o n d i s c l o s u r e r e q u i r e me n ti f i tf o u n d “ n o r e a s o n ” t o s u p p o r t t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n . 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3511( b) ( 2) ; s ee J ohn D oe, I nc. v. M ukas ey , 549 F. 3d at 868 & n. 9, 875. C i t i ng M cG ehee v. C as ey , 718 F. 2d at1148, w e ac ce pt ed t he governm ent ’ s pos i t i on “t hat‘ r eas on’ i n t he quot ed phr as e means ‘ good r eas on. ’ ” J ohn D oe, I nc. v. M ukas ey , 5 49 F. 3d at875. Fur t her m or e, echoi ng t he s t andar ds out l i ned above , w e r equi r ed t he governm ent “at l eas t[t o] ind icate the n ature o f t h e ap p reh en d ed h arm an d p rov ide a co u rtw ith so m e b asis to as su re it self (b ase d o n in ca m era p rese n tat ion s w h ere ap p rop ri ate) tha t th e li n k b etw ee n d iscl o su re and r i s k of harm i s s ubs t ant i al
. ” I d. at881. A s i m i l ars t andar d appl i es i n t he F O I A cont ext , s ee H al per n v. FB I , 181 F. 3d 279, 16 291 ( 2d C i r . 1999) , i n w hi ch di s t r i ctcour t s ar e author i zed t o under t ake “ de novo” r evi ew of an age ncy ’ s deci s i on t o w i t hhol d r ecor ds underone of the s t atut e’ s exempt i ons , i ncl udi ng t he exempt i on forpr oper l ycl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on, s ee 5 U
. S. C
. § 552( a) ( 4) ( B )
. L i kew i s e, w hen revi ew i ng t he go vernm ent’ s invoc at i on of t he st at e-s ecret s pri vil ege, “the d i st ri ctcou rtm ust be ‘ s at i s f[i ed]
. . . fr om al l t he ci r cumst ance s of t he ca s e[ ] t hatt her e i s a r eas onabl e dange r t hatcompul s i on of t he evi dence w i l l expos e m i l i t ar y m at t er s w hi ch, i n t he i nt er es t of nat i onal s ecur i t y , s houl d notbe di vul ged. ’ ” D oe v. C I A , N o. 07- 0797- cv, 2009 W L 2382751, at*6 (2d C ir
. A u g . 5 , 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o ti n g U n it ed S tat es v . R ey n o lds, 34 5 U
. S
. 1 , 1 0 (19 5 3 )). 27 i n fac thad good r eas on t o cl as s i fy , and t her efor e ce ns or , t he m at er i al s ati s s ue. ” M cG ehee

v. C as ey , 718 F. 2d at 1149. T o t hat end, a cour tm ay“r equi r e t hatC I A expl anat i ons j us t i fy

cens or s hi p w i t h r eas onabl e s peci fi ci t y , d em o n st r at i ng a l ogi cal connec t i on bet w een the del et ed i nfor m at i on and t he r eas ons forcl as s i fi cat i o n . ” I d. ; s ee a l s o J ohn D oe, I nc. v. M ukas ey , 549 F. 3d at875, 881. T he cour t’ s task is nott o s econd- gues s t he A gency , but 15

s im p l y t o e n s u re th a t its “ re a s o n s f o r c la s s if

ic a tio n a re ra tio n a l a n d p la u s ib le o n e s .” M cG ehee v. C as ey , 718 F. 2d at1149. 1628 3. D efe ndant s ’ I nabi l i t y T o Pr eventPubl i cat i on of I nfor m at i on t hatH as B ee n “O ff

ici all yD iscl o sed ” b ythe C IA F in a lly , the C IA c a n n o t p re v e n t a f o rm e r e m p lo y e e f

r o m p u b lish in g e v e n p ro p e rly

c l a s s i f i e d i n f o r ma t i o n o n c e t h e Ag e n c y i t s e l f h a s o f f i c i a l l yd i s c l o s e d i t
. S e e Wo l f v . CI A, 4 7 3 F
. 3 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 8 ( D
. C
. C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ; H u d s o n R i v e rS l o o p C l e a r w a t e r , I n c . v . D e p ’ to f N a v y, 8 9 1 F
. 2 d 4 1 4 , 4 2 1 (2d C ir
. 1 9 8 9 ). A lth o u g h this do ctri n e w as d ev elop ed in the F O IA

co n text, the A g en cyd o es n o t dispu te t h at it m ayb e inv o k ed to ch all en g e the P R B ’s

cens or sh ip d ec isi o n her e. A s th e F o u rt h C ir c u it r e c o g n iz e d in re v ie w in g s u c h a c la im , a for m erC I A agent“s houl d notbe deni ed t he ri ght t o publ i s h i nfor m at i on w hi ch anyci t i zen coul d compel t he C I A t o pr oduce a nd, aft erpr oduct i on, coul d publ i s h. ” A l fr ed A
. K nopf, I nc. v. C ol by , 509 F. 2d at1367. A stric t tes t a p p lies to c laim s o f o f f icia l d isc lo su re . C las sif ied in f o rm a tio n th a t a p a rty
s eeks t o obt ai n orpubl i s h i s deemed t o have b ee n o ffi ci al l ydi s cl os ed onl yi f i t( 1) “[i s ] as sp e c if ic a s th e in f

o rm a tio n p re v io u slyre lea se d ,” (2 ) “ m a tch [ e s] th e in f o rm a tio n p re v io u sly d isc lo se d ,” a n d (3 ) w a s “ m a d e p u b lic th ro u g h a n o f f icia l an d d o c u m e n ted d isc lo su re .” W o lf

v. C I A , 473 F. 3d at378 ( i nt er nal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o H uds on R i verSl oop C l ear w at e r , I n c . v . Dep ’ to f Nav y , 8 9 1 F. 2 d a t4 2 1 ( h o l d i n g t h a tg o v e r n me n tma ynot

w ith h o ld in f

o rm a tio n u n d e r F O IA e x e m p tio n 1 w h e n “ th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s o f f icia lly d is c lo s e d th e s p e c if

ic in f o rm a tio n b e in g s o u g h t” (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) ). T he l as t fac t or acknow l edges “a cr i t i cal di ffe r ence bet w een offi ci al an d u n o ff i ci al di s c l o s u r e s ” o f i n f

o r ma t i o n c l a s s i f

i e d b y t h e CI A. Fi t z g i b b o n v . CI A, 9 1 1 F. 2 d 755, 76529

( D. C. Ci r . 1 9 9 0 )
. As a p r a c t i c a l ma t t e r , f o r e i g n g o v e r n me n t s c a n o f t e n i g n o r e u n o f

f i ci al d isc lo su re s o f

C IA a c tiv iti e s th a t m ig h t b e v iew e d a s e m b a rra ss in g o r h a rm f u l to th e ir i nt er es t s . Se e Afs h a rv . Dep ’ to f St a t e , 7 0 2 F. 2 d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 3 0
- 3 1 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 9 8 3 )
. T hey cannot , how ever , s o eas i l y cas t a bl i nd ey e on offi ci al di s cl os ur es m ade byt he C I A i t s el f, and t heym ay , i n fac t , fee l compel l ed t o r et al i at e. See i d. M i ndful of t hi s r eal i t y , t he l aw w i l l not in f e r o f f icia l d isc lo su re o f

in f o r m a tio n c las sif

ied b yth e C IA f

ro m (1 ) w id e sp re a d p u b lic di s cus s i on of a c l as s i fi ed mat t er , s ee W ol f v. C I A , 473 F. 3d at 378; A fs har v. D ep’ tof St at e, 702 F. 2d at1130- 31; Fi t zgi bbon v. C I A , 911 F. 2d at766; ( 2) s t at ement s m ade bya per s on not aut hor i zed t o s peak f ort he A gency , cf. H uds on R i verSl oop C l earw at er , I nc. v. D ep’ tof N avy , 89 1 F
. 2d at42 1; or (3) rel ease of i nfo rm at i on by ano t her a gen cy , or even byC on gress ,
s ee Frugone v. C I A , 169 F. 3d 772, 774 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1999) ; E ar t h Pl edge Found. v. C I A , 988 F
. S u p p . 6 2 3 , 6 2 8 (S
. D
. N
. Y
. 1 9 9 6 ), af f’d 1 2 8 F
. 3 d 7 8 8 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). W i t h t hes e pr i nci pl es i n m i nd, w e cons i dert he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e. C
. M s . W i l s on’ s Pr e- 2002 E m pl oy m ent H ist or yw i t h t he C I A H as N otB een O ffi ci al l yD i s cl os ed and Rem ai ns Pr oper l yC l as s i fi ed Pl ai nt i ffs do notchal l enge the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hatM s . W i l s o n ’ s pr e2002 empl oy m enthi s t or yw i t h t he C I A w as , as an or i gi nal m at t er , pr oper l y cl as s i fi ed. See W ilso n v . M c C o n n e ll, 5 0 1 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 5 5 2 -5 5 ; A p p e llan ts’ R e p lyB r. at 7 . In f a c t, p lai n ti ff s ac k n o w ledg e tha t, p ri o r t o R o b ert N o v ak ’s J u ly1 4 , 2 0 0 3 co lum n , “[ M s. ] W il so n ’s empl o y me n t a f

f i l i a t i o n wi t h t h e CI A .
. . was h i g h l y c l a s s i f i e d
. ” App e l l a n t s ’ Br
. at 6. M or eover , pl ai nt i ffs do notcont end t hatN ovak’ s col um n, t he pr es s r epor t s that fol l ow edW e r ej ecton s i m i l ar g rou n d s p la i nt i ffs ’ cont ent i on – r ai s ed fort he fi r s tt i m e on 17 r ebut t al at or al ar gum ent– t hatt he r efe r ence t o E xecut i ve O r der12, 356 i n t he now

- publ i c, par t i al l y r edac t ed ver s i on of M s . W i l s on’ s Secr ecy A gr eementoffi ci al l ydi s cl os ed t he fa ct of her C I A empl oy m ent s om et i m e befor e O ct ober 14, 1995, t he dat e on w hi ch t hator derw as r evoked. See Exec. O r der12, 958, § 6. 1, 60 Fed. R eg. 19, 825 , 19, 842- 43 ( A pr . 17, 1995) ( r evoki ng E xec. O r der12, 356)
. T hi s s t r ayr efe r ence to an ex ecut i ve or deri s nei t her“as s p e c i f i c a s ” t h e i n f

o r ma t i o n M s . W i l s o n s e e k s t o p u b l i s h , n o r d o e s i t “ ma t c h ” t hat i nfor m at ion
. W o lf v . C I A , 473 F. 3d at378. M or eover , as defe ndant s not e, t he Secr ecy A gr eementr efe r s not s i m pl y t o E xecut i ve O r der12, 356, butt o “Execut i ve O r der12356 as amended ors uper s eded, orot herappl i cabl e Execut i ve O rde r . ” C I A For m Secr ecy A gr eement¶ 3. 30 purpor t i ng t o d es cr i be M s . W i l s on’ s C I A car eer , ort he C I A ’ s deci s i on t o “r ol l back” her

c o v e r a s o f

Ja n u a ry1 , 2 0 0 2 , eith e r d e c las sif ied M s. W ilso n ’s p re -2 0 0 2 sta tu s o r o f f icia lly di s cl os ed t hati nfor m at i on. A s t he author it y cit ed above makes cl ear , anys uch cont ent i on
w oul d be w hol l yw i t houtm er i t i n any event , as nei t her pr es s r epor t s nor pr i ordi s cl os ur es of in f o rm a tio n th a t d o n o t “m a tch ” th e in f o rm a tio n in q u e stio n c a n o f f icia llyd isc lo se p ro p e rly cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on. W ol f v. C I A , 473 F. 3d at378. 17 Inst ead, pl ai nti ff

s a n d thei r am i ci adv ance tw o d i fferent argum ents , based a l m ost excl us i vel yon t he C I A ’ s Februar y10 L et t er , to su p por tt hei rcl ai m of a Fi r s tA m endment rig h t to p u b lish M s. W ilso n ’s p re -2 0 0 2 d a te s o f se rv ice . S e e A p p e llan ts’ R e p lyB r. at 7 (c o n c e d in g th a t ab se n t A g e n c y ’s “ v o lu n tar yre lea se ” o f th is le tter, p re se n t law su it w o u ld hav e been “un w arr anted”). F i rs t , t heysubm i tt hat the F ebruary10 L et t er, sent byfi rs t -cl ass
m ai l w i t ho ut anycl assi fi cat i on m arki ng s, con st i tutes an o ffic ial C IA dis cl osure of M s. W i l s on’ s pr e- 2002 s er vi ce dat es w i t h t he A gency . T hey as s er t t hat t hi s di s cl os ur e, i n t ur n, pr oxi m at el ycaus ed t he publ i c r evel at i on of t he L et t erbyR ep. I ns l ee. Second, pl ai nt i ffs and ami ci ar gue t hat , even i f t hi s s er i es of eve nt s di d not offi ci al l ydi s cl os e M s . W i l s on’ s s er vi ce31

dat es , t he publ i c ava i l abi l i t y of t he L et t er and t he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned t her ei n depr i ves t he C I A of i t s or i gi nal j us t i fi cat i on for m ai nt ai ni ng t hi s i nfor m at i on as cl as s i fi ed, i
. e. , t hat“t he

u n a u th o riz e d d isc lo s u r e ” o f th is in f o rm a tio n “ re a so n a b lyc o u ld b e e x p e c ted to re su lt i n damage t o t he nat i onal s ecur i t y . ” Exec. O r der 13, 292, § 1. 1( a) ( 4) , 68 Fed. R eg. at15, 315- 16. W e c o n s id e r e a c h o f

th e s e a rg u m e n ts in tu rn . 1
. T h e F eb rua ry1 0 L ett er D o es N o t C o n sti tute an O ff ici al D iscl o su re Pl ai nt i ffs ’ offi cial d i s cl os ur e ar gum enti s unper s uas i ve fort w o r eas ons : ( a) t he Februar y10 L et t ert o M s . W i l s on di d notcons t i tut e a “ di s cl os ur e, ” and ( b) t he Let t erw as not

“ m a d e p u b lic” b yth e C IA . M o re o v e r, w e re jec t p lain tiff

s’ c o n ten tio n th a t th e A g e n c yis

c h a rg e a b le w ith o f

f icia l d isc lo su re b e c a u se , thr o u g h a d m in istra tiv e n e g lig e n c e , it “pr oxi m at el ycaus ed” publ i c di s cl os ur e of the Let t erbyM s . W i l s on and R ep. I ns l ee.

a. C I A T r ans m i t t al of t he L et t er t o M s . W i l s on D oes N otQ ual i fy as a “D i s cl os ur e” T he t er m “di s cl os ur e” doe s notr eas onabl yencompas s C I A tr ans m i t t al of cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on t o a form erempl oy ee w ho ( 1) al r eadyknow s t he i nfor m at i on i n ques t i on, and (2 ) is c o n tra c tu a llyo b lig a ted to m a in tain th e c o n f id e n tialityo f

c las sif ied a n d c las sif

iab le in f o rm a tio n . T h e m o s t c o m m o n m e a n in g s o f “ d isc lo se ” a re “ to o p e n u p ,” “ to e x p o se to vi ew , ” and “ [t o] l ayopen oruncover( s om et hi ng hi dden fr om vi ew )
. ” W EB ST ER ’ S T HI RD N EW I N T E R

N A T IO N A L D I CTI ONARY 6 4 5 (19 8 6 ). P lai n ly , M s. W il so n ’s da tes o f se rvice w ere nots om et hi ng hi dden fr om her
. T o t he ext entt he w or d “di s cl os e” a l s o s ugges t s an “open[ i ng] up t o gener al k n o w le dge, ” i d. , t he t r ans m i t t al of a l et t ercont ai ni ng per s onnel32

i n f o r m a t i o n o n l y t o t h e p e r s o n r e f e r e n c e d h a r d l y d e m o n s t r a t e s s u c h a d i s c l o s u r e . F i n a l l y, al t hough M s . W i l s on w as no l onger empl oy ed by t he A gency on Februar y10, 2006, nei t her par t ys ugges t s t hatM s . W i l s on w as notaut h o ri zed t o r ece i ve t he Let t erort he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned t her ei n. Sendi ng hert he Let t erw as t hus aki n t o pr ovi di ng cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on “t o i ndi vi dual s w i t h pr opers ecur i t ycl ear ance , ” w hi ch, w e have hel d, cannotcons t i tut e an offi ci al di s cl os ur e. H uds on R i verSl oop C l earw at er , I nc. v. D ep’ tof N avy , 891 F. 2d at422.

b
. T h e F eb rua ry1 0 L ett er W as N o t “M ad e P u b li c” B ythe C IA T he off i ci al di s cl os ur e doctr i ne appl i es onl yw hen cl as s i fi ed i nfor m ati o n i s “made publ i c. ” W ol f v. C I A , 473 F. 3d at378. Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue t hatt he C I A ’ s Februar y10 L et t er qual i fi es as a “publ i c” doc um entundert he Feder al R ecor ds A ct , 44 U
. S
. C
. § 3301, and Feder al R ul e of Evi dence 902. T he L et t erm i ghtbe cons i der ed a “ publ i c” doc um enti n t he

se n se th a t itw a s c re a ted b ya f e d e ra l ag e n c y“ in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e tra n sa c tio n o f p u b lic b u sin e ss ,” 4 4 U .S .C . § 3 3 0 1 , se e a lso F e d . R . E v id . 9 0 2 (2 ) (p ro v id in g th a t n o e x trin sic evi dence of authent i ci t yi s r equi r ed t o admi tdom es t i c publ i c document s notunders eal under cert ai n co nd i t i on s) , bu tt his i s besid e th e p o i nt. T he L et t er w as not “pub l i c” i n the sense

r el evant t o t h e o f

f i c i a l d i s c l o s u r e d o c t r i n e . Sp e c i f i c a l l y , t h e Le t t e r was n o t a “ ma t t e r [ ] of publ i c r ecor d” t hat coul d be “e as i l ydi s cover abl e” byanyi nt er es t ed mem berof t he publ i c, t he t w i n fac t or s w e i dent i fi ed a s cr i t i cal t o offi ci al di s cl os ur e i n H uds on R i verSl oop C lea rw a ter , In c . v . D e p a rtm e n t o f N a v y , 8 9 1 F .2 d a t 4 2 2
. T h e F e b ru a ry1 0 L e tter w a s p riv a te
cor r es pondence s entdi r ect l y– and onl y– t o M s . W i l s on at herhom e. W e conc l ude t hats uch33

a lim ited transm i tt al o f

c las sif ied in f o rm a tio n to a n e m p lo y e e c o n tra c tu a llyb o u n d to m a in tain i t s s ecr ecydoes notcons t i tut e an of fi ci al di s cl os ur e.
c. M s . W i l s on’ s D eci s i on T o Per m i tPubl i c R el eas e of the Let t er D o es N o t M an ifest O ff ici al D iscl o su re b ythe C IA I n ur gi ng us t o r eac h a di ffe r ent concl us i on, pl ai nt i ffs not e t hat M s . W i l s on s oughtt he Februar y 1 0 L ett er t o fac i l i t at e R ep. I ns l ee’ s l egi s l at i ve ef for t s on herbehal f – ef

for t s t hat

w ou l d fo res eeablyi nv olve pub l i c dis cl osure of t he L et t er’ s content s on the fl oo r of C on gress . T h e a rg u m e n t is d e f

e c tiv e in a c ritica l re sp e c t: p lain tiff s a d d u c e n o e v id e n c e th a t, pr io r to t r ans m i t t al of t he Februar y10 L et t ert o M s . W i lson, any one att he C I A w as aw ar e t hatt he W ilso n s w e re c o m m u n ica tin g w it h R e p . In sle e , m u c h les s th a t th e yw e re u rg in g h im to in tr o d u c e le g is la tio n o n h e r b e h a lf
. T o be s ur e, t he Februar y10 L et t erdi d become a mat t erof publ i c r ecor d w hen R ep. In sle e p lac e d it i n th e C o n g re ss io n a l R e c o rd o n Ja n u a ry 1 6 , 2 0 0 7
. P lain tiff s c o n ten d th a t th is publ i c di s cl os ur e i s char geabl e t o t he C I A as t he equi val entof off i ci al di s cl os ur e bec aus e of t he A gency ’ s admitt ed negl i gence i n fai l i ng t o m ar k t he Let t eras cl as s i fi ed ort o ut i l i ze
a pp r op r i a t e pr oc e du r e s fo rt r a ns mi t t i ng c l a s s i fi e d i nf or mat i on . Se e D e c l a r a t i on of K a r e n F. T um ol o, Seni orB enef

i t s Speci al i s t , O PR , C I A , at3- 4 ( acknow l edgi ng t hatC I A “negl ect ed t o per for m . . . cl as s i fi cat i on r evi ew of M s . W i l s on’ s per s onnel fi l e” be for e s endi ng t he L et t er , and conc edi ng t hati t w as a “mi s t ake t o m ai l t he i m pr oper l ym ar ked l et t ercont ai ni ng cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on t o M s . W i l s on”)
. Pl ai nt i ffs s ubm i tt hat , i n the ab sen ce of s uch

m ar ki ngs or pr ocedur es , i t w as r eas onabl y for es eea bl e t o t he C I A t hatM s . W i l s on w oul d ( 1)S u ch an assu m p ti o n req u ir es o v erloo k ing at lea st tw o issue s. F ir st, M s. W il so n ’s 18 Secr ecy A gr eement w i t h t he C I A pl ace d “t he bur den
. . . upon [her ] to learn w het her i n fo rm ati o n orm at er i al s w i t hi n [her ] cont r ol ar e cons i der ed byt he [CIA ] t o” be c l as s i fi ed orcl as s i fi abl e, “and w hom t he A gencyhas aut hor i zed t o r ecei ve i t
. ” C I A For m Secr ecy A gr eement ¶ 4. D efe ndant s di d not as s er t i n t he di s t r i ct cour t t hatM s . W i l s on vi ol at ed t he S e c re c yA g re e m e n t in p ro v id in g th e F e b ru a ry1 0 L e tter to R e p . In sle e o r in a p p ro v in g its p u b lic d isc lo su re . W e th e re f o re d o n o t ad d re ss th a t p o ss ib il it y h e r e . W e n o te s im p lyth a t, w e re a f a c tf in d e r to c o n c lu d e th a t M s. W ilso n h a d v io late d h e r S e c re c yA g r e e m e n t in th is m anner , hercl ai m w oul d m os tcer t ai nl yfai l beca us e “[ a] publ i c off i ci al i n a conf

i dent i al re latio n sh ip su re lym a yn o t lea k in f o rm a tio n in v io latio n o f th e c o n f id e n c e re p o se d in h im a n d u se th e re su lti n g p u b lica tio n a s le g iti m a tin g h is o w n su b se q u e n t o p e n a n d p u b lic di s cl os ur e of the s ame i nfor m at i on. ” A l fr ed A
. K nopf, I nc. v. C ol by , 509 F. 2d at1370. S e c o n d , th e re c o rd in d ica tes th a t M s. W ilso n w a s sp e a k in g o p e n ly a b o u t th e lo n g e v ity of herC I A s er vi ce pr i ort o herr ece i ptof t he Let t eri n Februar y 2007. I n e- m ai l excha nges i n N ovember 2005 – t hr ee mont hs befor e s he r ece i ved t he Februar y 10 L et t er– M s . W i l s on a n d Re p . I n s l e e ’ s Ch i e f o f S t a f f f r a n k l yd i s c u s s e d h e rt o t a l y e a r s o f s e r v i c e wi t h t h e CI A, in f o rm a tio n th a t, pla in tiff

s c o n c e d e , w a s th e n c las sif ied
. S e e E -m a il f

ro m B . B o n len d e r to J
. W i l s on, at t achmentat2 ( N ov. 3, 2005) ( s t at i ng i n dr aftl egi s l at i on t hat“[i ] n J anuary2006, V al er i e Pl ame W i l s on w i l l have be en empl oy ed byt he [CIA ] for20 y ear s and w i l l be 42 y ear s of a g e” ); E -m ai l fr om V
. W i l s on t o B
. B onl ender( N ov. 15, 2005) ( s t at i ng y ear s of s er vi ce M s . W i l s on w oul d have w hen she r es i gned on Janua r y2, 2006)
. W e do notr el yon th is p o in t, ho w e v e r, as th e re c o rd d o e s n o t in d ica te w h e th e r M r. B o n len d e r w a s p ro p e rly a u th o ri z e d to re c e iv e th is in f o rm a tio n . 34 concl ude t hatt he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned i n t he Let t erw as uncl as s i fi ed and thatt her e w er e “no

r es t r i ct i ons on i t s fur t herdi s s emi nat i on, ” A ppel l ant s ’ R epl yB r . at2; and (2) ul t i m at el ym ake t he L et t er publi c. T his argum ent fai l s for tw o reasons. F irst, ev e n if w e w e re to a ss u m e th a t w h e n M s. W ilso n a n d R e p . In sle e d e c id e d to

m ake the Februar y10 L et t erpubl i c, t hey act ed i n t he good fai t h – butm i s t aken – be l i ef that th e in f o rm a tio n c o n tain e d th e re in w a s n o lo n g e r c las sif ied , tha t w o u ld n o t d e m o n stra te offi ci al di s cl os ur e byt he C I A
. A former empl oy ee’ s publ i c di s cl os ur e of c l as s i fi ed 18 in f o rm a tio n c a n n o t b e d e e m e d a n “ o f f icia l” a c t o f th e A g e n c y . L ik e th e re tired A d m ira l in H uds on R i verSl oop C l earw at er , I nc. , M s . W i l s on, as a r et i r ed C I A emp loy ee , coul d notT h e A g en cy ’s pre -pu b li ca ti o n rev iew p roc ess is, in f ac t, d esig n ed to av o id the s o rt 19 of pr obl ems t hatcan a r i s e w hen form erage n ts a tt em p tt o r es ol ve fort hemsel ves any ambi gui t i es i n t he cl as s i fi cat i on s t atus of cer t ai n i nfor m at i on. See gene r al l ySnepp v. U ni t ed St at es , 444 U
. S. at512 ( “W hen a f or m eragentr eli es o n hi s ow n j udgm entaboutw hat i nfor m at i on i s det r i m ent al , h e m ay reveal i nfor m at i on t hatt he C I A – w i t h i t s br oader u n d e rsta n d in g o f

w h a t m a ye x p o se c las sif ied in f o rm a tio n a n d c o n f

id e n tial so u rc e s – c o u ld h av e ide n ti fied as h arm fu l. ”) 35 “ef fec tan off

i ci al di s cl os ure o f i nfor m at i on. ” 891 F. 2d at421 ( emphasi s added)
. T he decis i on t o p erm i tt he p u b li c rel ease of the L et t er byR ep. Insl ee w as i nd i sputabl yM s. W i l s on’ s , nott he C I A ’ s . She pos s es s ed, i n t he pr i vacyof herh o m e, the o n ly copyof t he L et t erout s i de of t he A gency ’ s w al l s , and i t w oul d have r emai ned t her e but forherdeci s i on ( 1) t o s end i tt o R ep. I ns l ee, and ( 2) t o gi ve herper m i s s i on forhi m t o pl ace i ti n t he C on gress i on al R ecord. T hu s, even i f A gen cyneg l i gen ce i n tr a n sm itt i ng t he L et t er t o M s. W i l s on s om ehow excus es heract i ons i n al low ing R ep. I ns l ee t o m ake the cl as s i fi ed i nfo rm at i on pu bli c, i tcann ot, as a m at t er of l aw , supp ort a fi nd i ng t hat heract i on s and those

o f Re p . I n s l e e e f

f e c t e d a n o f

f i c i a l d i s c l o s u r e o f

c l a s s i f i e d i n f o r ma t i o n b yt h e CI A. 19 Second, w e decl i ne pl ai nt i ffs ’ i nvi t at i on t o r el yon t he doctr i ne of “ pr oxi m at e ca us e” to c o n c lu d e th a t th e p lac e m e n t o f th e F e b ru a ry1 0 L e tter in to th e C o n g re ss io n a l R e c o rd is at t r i but abl e t o t he C I A as t he for es eea bl e r es ul tof M s . T um o lo’s n egl i gence i n fai l i ng p rop erlyto m ark o r sen d the L ett er. E v en assu m ing that p rox im ate ca u se c o u ld p laya p art in a d e te rm in a tio n o f

o f f ic ia l d is c lo s u re , th e p ri n c ip le c a n n o t b e a p p lie d in th is c a s e . M s . W i l s on g av e R ep. I ns l ee pe r m i s s i on t o publ i s h t he C I A L et t eron J anuary12, 2007. Pl ai nt i ffs as s er tt hatt hi s deci s i on w as the nat ur al r es ul tof M s . T um ol o’ s negl i gence ,
as M s . W i l s on w oul d have t o have be en a “ m i nd- r eade r ” t o under s t and t hatt he i nfor m at i onPl ai nt i ffs ar e t her efor e mi s t aken w hen t heys tat e: “ W h en W i l s on s ubm i t t ed t he 20 m a n u sc rip t o f h e r M e m o ir
. . . f o r th e re q u ire d p re -p u b lica tio n re v iew , C IA so u g h t to p ro h ib it [her ] fr om r epubl i s hi ng t he i dent i cal i nfor m at i on des cr i bi ng her dat es of fe der al s er vi ce that ha d e n t e r e d t h e p u b l i c d o ma i n t h r o u g h t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p r o c e s s . ” App e l l a n t s ’ Br
. at 22 (em ph asi s added ). A tt he tim e M s. W ils on subm i t t ed h er m em oirt o the PR B – the fi rs t s ect i on i n J ul y2006, and t he full m an u scr i pti n Sept ember 2006 – t he i nt r oduct i on of t he F e b ru a ry 1 0 L e tte r i n to th e C o n g re s s io n a l R e c o rd w a s s till s e v e ra l m o n th s a w a y . 36 con t ai ned i n the L et t er w as cl assi fi ed in l i gh t of t he L et t er’ s “unclass i fi ed fo rm . ” A pp el l ants ’ R epl yB r . at2; A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at1, 1 7 , 2 3 , 30. T hi s ar gum entconfr ont s t w o hur dl es : ( 1) E xecut i ve O r der13, 292, w hi ch expr es s l ystat es t hat“[i ] nfor m at i on as s i gned a l evel of cl as s i fi cat i on undert hi s orpr edec es s or or der s s hal l be cons i der ed as cl as s i fi ed att hatl evel of cl as s ifi cat i on des pi t e t he omi s s i on of ot herr equi r ed mar ki ngs , ” Exec. O r der13, 292, § 1. 6( f) , 68 Fed. R eg. at15, 318 ( emphasi s added) ; and ( 2) t he i nqui r yobl i gat i on i m pos ed by th e sta n d a rd C IA S e c re c y A g re e m e n t, se e su p ra a t [ 12- 13]
. B ot h s t r ongl ys ugges tt hateven if a f o rm e r C IA e m p lo y e e m ig h t p o in t to th e lac k o f p ro p e r m a rk in g s o n a d o c u m e n t to
excuse herow n di s cl os ur e of c l as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on, t he l aw s houl d noti dent i fyoffi ci al di s c l o s u r e i n s u c h c i r c u ms t a n c e s o n a t h e o r y o f p r o x i ma t e c a u s e . I n a n y e v e n t , w e r ej ect p lain tiff s’ p ro x im a te c a u se a r g u m e n t f o r a m o re f

u n d a m e n tal re a so n , n a m e ly , tha t itis

e f f e c tiv e ly re f

u te d b yth e c h ro n o lo g ic a l r e c o rd
. B yJ anuary2007, w hen M s . W i l s on aut hor i zed Rep. I ns l ee t o i ncl ude t he Februar y10 L et t er i n t he C ongr es s i onal R ecor d, s he and herat t or neyhad al r eadyconduct ed mont hs of neg oti at i on s w i t h the PR B ov er the co ntentof h er m em oir
. D uri ng t hese neg oti at i on s, byM s. W i l s on’ s ow n acc oun t, t he PR B r epea t edl yadvi s ed hert hatherpr e- 2002 s t atus r emai ned cl as s i fi ed and coul d not be publ i cl y di s cl os ed. I ndeed, t he centr al purpos e of t he l et t ers ent 20I n l i ghtof t hi s concl us i on, w e need not her e deci de w het her , as defe ndant s m ai nt ai n, 21 offi ci al di s cl os ur e r equi r es a demonstr at i on of s peci fi c A gencyi nt entata hi gh exec ut i ve l evel
. See A l fr ed A
. K nopf, I nc. v. C ol by , 509 F. 2d at1369 ( noti n g that pr i oroffi ci al d isc lo su re s “ w e re th e re su lt o f h ig h lev e l ex e c u tiv e d e c isio n s th a t d isc lo su re w a s in th e p u b lic in te re s t” ). 37 byM s . W i l s on’ s at t or neyt o t he PR B on J anuary 9, 2007 – j us tt hr ee da y s befor e M s . W i l s on gave Rep. I ns l ee pe r m i s s i on t o di s cl os e t he L et t er – w as t o obj ect t o the dec i s i on of “s eni or A g e n c ym a n a g e m e n t
. . . n o t to p e rm it h e r to d is c lo s e h e r A g e n c ya f f ilia tio n p ri o r t o 2 0 0 2 .” J an. 9, 2007 L et t erfr om D
. Sm al l m an t o G
. W r i ght , at2. M or eover , t he C I A ’ s pos i t i on on t hi s poi ntw as r el ay ed t o M s . W i l s on per s onal l yand ats om e l engt h i n a N ovember 2006

m e e tin g . S e e id
. a t 3 ; F AI R G AME 267- 70. T hus , even i f A gency negl i gence i n t he t r ans m i t t al of t he Februar y10 L et t ercoul d have pr om pt ed M s . W i l s on m i s t akenl yt o as s um e t hather pr e- 2002 dat es of s er vi ce w i t h t he C I A w er e no l ongercl as s i fi ed, t hatm i s i m pr es s i on w as pl ai nl y cor r ect ed dur i ng her 2006 negot i at i ons w i t h t he PR B befor e s he gave R ep . Insl ee per m i s s i o n t o p l a c e t h e Le t t e r i n t o t h e Con g r e s s i o n a l Re c o r d
. I n l i g h t o f t h i s s e q u ence of event s , M s . W i l s on’ s deci s i on t o per m i tpubl i c di s cl os ur e of the Let t erw as nott he “norm al

orfor es eea bl e cons equenc e of the s i tuat i on cr eat ed by the d ef endant [s ’ ] negl i gence , ” but

ra th e r a n a c tio n “ in d e p e n d e n t o f
. . . d e f e n d a n ts ’ c o n d u c t.” B e c k e r v . P o lin g T ra n s p . C o rp ., 356 F. 3d 381, 392 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng D er di ar i an v. Fel i x C ont r act i ng C orp. , 51 N
. Y
. 2d 3 0 8 , 3 1 5 , 4 3 4 N. Y. S
. 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ( d i s c u s s i n g p r o x i ma t e c a u s e g e n e r a l l y ) )
. T h u s , we
eas i l yr ej ectas w i t hout m er i t pl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum ent t hat C I A negl i gence coul d be dee m ed t he “pr oxi m at e caus e” o f R ep. I ns l ee’ s publ i c di s cl os ur e of M s . W i l s on’ s pr e- 2002 dat es of

s er vi ce. 2138

In su m , w e re

ject as a m att er o f law p lai n ti ff s’ re li an ce o n o ff

ici al A g en cyd iscl o su re as a groun d fo r chal l eng i ng t he aw ard of sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of d efen dan t s.

2. M s . W i l s on’ s P r e- 2002 E m pl oy m entSt atus w i t h t he C I A R emai ns Pr oper l yC l as s i fi ed A lib e ra l re a d in g o f

th e b rie f

s f iled b y p la in tiff

s a n d th e ir a m ici re v e a ls a p o ss ib le al t ernat i ve argu m ent i n sup po rtof M s. W i l son’s cl ai m ed Fir st A m end m ent r i gh tt o p ub l i sh her pr e- 2002 empl oy m ent s t atus . W hi l e acknow l edgi ng t hat “pr ot ect i ng . . . t he s ecr ecyof i nfor m at i on i m por t antt o ournat i onal s ecur i t y ” i s a “c om pel l i ng i nt er es t ” t hatj us t i fi es
cens or i ng a form eragent ’ s publ i c s t at ement s , Snepp v. U ni t ed St at es , 444 U
. S. at510 n. 3, pl ai nt i ffs and t hei rami ci s ubm i t t hat w her e, as her e, t he i nfor m at i on t he for m eragents eeks to d isc u ss is a lre a d yin th e p u b lic d o m a in a n d , thu s, n o lo n g e r “ se c re t,” th a t in ter e st is

w e a k e n e d a n d , in d e e d , o v e rc o m e b y th e f o rm e r ag e n t’s stro n g F irst A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to par t i ci pat e i n t he “fr ee di s cus s i on of gover nm ent al aff ai r s , ” B uckl ey v. V al eo, 424 U
. S. 1, 1 4 (19 7 6 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m it ted). T h e y e m p h asize that, ev en if M s. W il so n ’s p re -2 0 0 2 d a tes o f

se rv ice w e re c o rre c tly c las sif ied a t th e o u tse t an d h a v e n o t b e e n “ o f f icia lly di s cl os ed” byt he C I A , t he form i n w hi ch t hat i nfor m at i on i s pr es ent i n t he publ i c domai n –
a s ig n e d le tte r f

ro m a C IA e m p lo y e e “ in a p o s itio n to k n o w o f [ th e in f o rm a tio n ] o f

f ic ia lly,” A l fr ed A
. K nopf, I nc. v. C ol by , 5 0 9 F
. 2 d at1370 – i s one thatl eave s l i t t l e doubtas t o t he i nfo rm at i on ’s accuracyand ser ves cl ear not i ce on for e ig n int el l i gen ce ser vices of M s. W i l s on’ s pr obabl e pr e- 2002 A gency aff i l i at i on. Fur t her , pl ai nt i ffs and t hei r ami ci not e t hat M s. W ilso n is re q u ire d b y C IA re g u latio n s to in c lu d e a d isc laim e r in h e r b o o k sta tin g th a t it s39

cont ent s s houl d not “be c ons t rued as as s er t i ng ori m pl y i ng U
. S. G over nm entaut hent i cat i on of i nfor m at i on. ” See F AI R G AME atcopyr i ghtpage. T hus , t hey as s er tt hatanydi s cus s i on by M s . W i l s on of herpr e- 2002 empl oy m ent s t atus w oul d not“l end cr edenc e t o” t he i nfor m at i on al r eadycont ai ned i n t he publ i cl yavai l abl e Februar y10 L et t er , A l fr ed A
. K no p f, In c. v. C ol by , 509 F. 2d at1370; norw oul d herdi s cl os ur e have t he s ame di pl om at i c r eper cus s i ons
as an offi ci al acknow l edgment of t hat i nfor m at i on by t he C I A , s ee A fs harv. D ep’ tof St at e, 702 F. 2d at1134. T he pr eci s e l egal chal l enge unde r l y i ng t hi s ar gum enti s notcl ea rl ys t at ed. N e v e rth e les s, w e id e n tifytw o p o ss ib ili ties , n e ith e r o f w h ich h a s m e rit.

a. T he M i ni m al H ar m A r gum ent Pl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum entcoul d be cons t rued t o as s er tt hat , even i f M s . W i l s on’ s pr e- 2002 dates of servi ce hav e no tbeen off i ci al l ydis cl osed a n d rem ai n p roperl ycl assi fi ed, becau se i dent i cal i nfor m at i on i s al r eadyi n t he publ i c domai n, t he harm t hatw oul d r es ul tfrom her d isc u ss io n o f

th a t in f o rm a tio n is e ith e r n e g lig ib le o r n o n e x is ten t an d th e C IA ’s in ter e st in pr event i ng s uch an i m per cept i bl e har m i s i ns uffi ci ent t o over come he r Fi r s t A m en d m ent

r i ght s . T hi s ar gum entover l ooks a cr i t i cal fac t : as a condi t i on of herem p loy m ent w i t h t he C IA , M s. W ilso n sig n e d a c o n tra c t f o re v e r w a iv in g h e r rig h t to “ d isc lo se in a n y f o rm o r in anym anner. . . i nfor m at i on w hi ch i s cl as s i fi ed pur s uantt o E xecut i ve O r derand w hi ch I have obt ai ned dur i ng t he cour s e of myempl oy m ent or ot her s er vi ce w i t h t he C ent r al I nt el l i gence A gency . ” C I A For m Secr ecy A gr eement ¶ 3. T hi s cont r act i s bi ndi ng and enf or cea bl e. See,T he PR B r egul at i ons pr ovi de fort he A gencyt o cons i dert he ext en t to w hi ch 22 cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on has ot her w i s e ent er ed t he publ i c dom ai n i n r evi ew i ng publ i cat i on re q u e sts b ye m p lo y e e s s u b jec t to S e c re c yA g re e m e n ts: W hen ot herw i s e cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on i s al s o avai l abl e i ndepende nt l yi n open so u rc e s a n d c a n b e c ited b yth e a u th o r, th e P R B w ill c o n sid e r th a t f a c t in m a k in g its d e ter m in a tio n o n w h e th e r th a t in f o rm a tio n m a y b e p u b lish e d w ith th e a p p ro p ria te c itatio n s. N e v e rth e les s, th e A g e n c yre ta in s th e rig h t to di s al l ow cer t ai n o pen- s our ce i nfor m at i on orci t at i ons w her e, beca us e of the aut hor ’ s A gencyaff

i l i at i on orpos i t ion, t he r efe r ence m i ghtconfi r m t he c la s s if ie d c o n te n t. A gencyPr epubl i cat i on R evi ew of C er t ai n M at er i al Prep are d forPubl i c D i s s emi nat i on § 2 (f )( 4 ). 40 e. g. , Snepp v. U ni t ed St at es , 444 U
. S. at510 n. 3; U ni t ed S tat es v . Pappas , 94 F. 3d at801; A lf re d A . K n o p f

, In c . v . C o lb y , 5 0 9 F .2 d a t 1 2 7 0
. M s . W i l s o n , “ o f c o u r s e , c o u l d h a v e r e f u s e d t o s i g n ” a Se c r e c y Agr e e me n t w i t h t he C I A , “butt hen [s ] he w oul d nothave be en empl oy ed, and [s ] he w oul d nothave been gi ven
acc es s t o t he cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on [s ] he maynow w antt o br oadca s t
. ” U n it ed S t at es v. M ar ch ett i, 466 F. 2d at1316. H avi ng chos en t o s i gn t he r equi r ed Secr ecyA gr eement , and nothavi ng r ece i ved a r el eas e fr om herobl i gat i ons the r eunder , s ee CIA For m Secr ecy A gr eement¶ 13, M s . W i l s on r emai ns bound byi t s t er m s , w hi ch do noti ncl ude an e xcept i on p erm it ti n g h er to d iscu ss inf o rm ati o n that rem ains classified p rov ided that li tt le or n o h arm
w o u ld re su lt. N o d if

f e re n t co n c lu sio n is w a rra n ted b yth e f a c t th a t M s. W ilso n is o b lig e d to di s cl ai m i n herm emoi ranyC I A aut hent i cat i on of fa ct s di s cus s ed t her ei n. 22

b. T he C ont i nued C l as s i fi cat i on A r gum ent Pl ai nt i ffs and t hei rami ci m i ght al s o be under s t ood t o chal l enge t he C I A ’ s cont i nued

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f

M s . W i l s o n ’ s d a t e s o f s e r v i c e o n t h e g r o u n d t h a tn o f u r t h e rh a r m c a n c o me41

fro m d iscu ssion o f th ese f a c ts in lig h t of

the p u b li c a v ail ab il ityo f th e F eb rua ry1 0 L ett er. See gene r al l yE xec. O r der13, 292, § 1. 1, 68 Fed. R eg. at15, 315 ( pr ovi di ng t hati nfor m at i on
m ayonl ybe cl as s i fi ed i f, i nt er al i a, “t he ori gi nal cl as s i fi cat i on aut hor i t ydet er m i nes t hatt he unaut hor i zed di s cl os ur e of t he i nfor m at i on r eas onabl ycoul d be expe ct ed t o r es ul ti n damage t o t he nat i onal s ecur i t y , and t he or i gi nal cl as s i fi cat i on aut hor i t yi s abl e t o i dent i fyordes cr i be th e d a m a g e ” ) . A s w e n o ted su p ra a t [ 26- 27] , w h e n th e p ro p rie tyo f a c las sif

ica tio n is chal l enged, a cour tappr opr i at el yr evi ew s t he r ecor d, “i n camer a or other w i s e, ” t o ens ur e t hat t he C I A has “good r eas on t o cl as s i fy , and t her efor e cens or , t he m at er i al s at i s s ue, ” and that t he A gencyhas , w i t h “r eas onabl e s peci fi ci t y , demonst r at [ed] a l ogi cal connec t i on bet w een t he del et ed i nfor m at i on and t he r eas ons forcl as s i fi cat i on, ” M cG ehee v. C as ey , 718 F. 2d at 1 1 4 9 ; s e e a ls o J o h n D o e , In c . v . M u k a s e y , 5 4 9 F .3 d a t 8 8 1
. T o the ext ent pl ai nti ffs do no t co ntes tt he A gen cy ’s i nit i al cl assi fi cat i on of M s. W i l s on’ s dat es of s er vi ce, but onl y i t s deci s i on t o m ai nt ai n t hat i nfor m at i on as cl as s i fi ed, defe nd ants no t e t hat an ad m i nis t rat i ve p rocedu re i s avai l able t o p ursue declas si fi cat i on fi rs t

w i t h t he C I A and, i f uns ucce s s ful , on appea l t o t h e I nt er agenc ySecur i t yC l as s i fi cat i on A ppeal s Panel
. See E xec. O r der 13, 292 §§ 3. 5, 5. 3, 68 Fed. R eg. at15, 323- 24, 15, 328; s ee A l fred A
. K no pf, I nc. v. C olby , 50 9 F. 2d at13 69 -70 (di scussi ng predecessor order ); see al so E xec. O r der13, 292 § 1. 8, 68 Fed. R eg. at 15, 319 ( per m i t t i ng “cl as s i fi cat i on chal l enges ” by “[a ] ut hor i zed hol der s of i nfor m at i on”) ; 32 C
. F. R
. § 2001. 14( a) ( defi n ing “author i zed h o ld e rs” to in c lu d e “ in d iv id u a l[ s] e x ter n a l to th e a g e n c y , w h o h a [ v e ] b e e n g ra n ted a c c e ss to
s peci fi c cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on i n acc or dance w i t h t he pr ov i s i o ns of t he” a ppl i cabl e exe cut i veA s th e c o u rt o b se rv e d a t o ra l ar g u m e n t, 23 the A g en cy ’s
. . . co n ce rn i s, that if it ’s k n o w n that [M s. W ilso n ] w a s a C IA oper at i ve fr om dat e X r at her t han dat e Y , and y ou t hen knew t hats he had be en a b u tch e r, a b a k e r, o r a c a n d les tick m a k e r d u r in g th a t p e rio d , tha t w o u ld d isc lo se to th o se in ter e ste d in f in d in g o u t th a t . . . the C IA p lac e d p e o p le in tho se p o sit ion s, th a t s h e in p arti cu lar, in d ea li n g w ith p eo p le .
. . w as a C IA oper at i ve and notw hats he appe ar ed t o be.
. . . [T]ha t ’ s t he conc er n her e. O ra l A rg . T r. a t 1 8 (J a n . 8 , 2 0 0 9 ). 42 or der )
. T hi s A ppeal s Panel cons i s t s of s eni or - l evel r epr es ent at i ves of the D epar t m ent s of St at e, D efe ns e, and J us t i ce, t he C I A , t he N at i onal A r chi ves , and t he P r es i dent ’ s A s s i s t antfor N at i ona l Se c u r i t yAff

a i r s . Se e Ex e c . Or d e r1 3 , 2 9 2 , § 5
. 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 6 8 Fe d
. Re g . a t1 5 , 328. T hus , as t he Four t h C i r cui thas obs er ved, t hi s Panel ’ s m ember s l i kel yhave a bet t er b a c k g ro u n d “ th a n a n y ju d g e . . . f o r m a k in g c la s s if

ic a tio n a n d d e c la s s if

ic a tio n d e c i s io n s .” A l fr ed A
. K nopf, I nc. v. C ol by , 509 F. 2d at1370. W e nee d not , how ever , her e dec i de a q u e stio n n o t sp e c if

ica lly b rie f

e d b y th e p a rties , i. e ., w h e th e r a f o rm e r C IA e m p lo y e e sh o u ld be r equi r ed t o pur s ue t hi s admi ni s t r at i ve opt i on befor e chal l engi ng t he pr opr i et yof cont i nued cl as s i fi cat i on i n a fe der al cour tact i on. W e conc l ude t hat , i n anyevent , pl ai nt i ffs ’ cont i nui ng
c la s s if ic a tio n c h a lle n g e is w ith o u t m e ri t. I n det er m i ni ng w h et hert he C I A s t i l l has good r eas on t o cl as s i fyM s . W i l s on’ s pr e2002 dat es of s er vi ce, w e not e t hatt he A gency ’ s underl y i ng conce r n i s notl i m i t ed t o t he sim p le disclo su re o f a fe w d ates. If M s. W il so n w ere to state i n h er m em o ir , “I w as a C IA op erat i ve from date X , ” t hen anydis cussi on of her act i vit i es aft er that dat e, w hetherbyM s. W i l s on or ot her s , w oul d nece s s ar i l y r evea l C I A “s our ces and met hods , ” i nfor m at i on t hatl i es at“t he hea r tof al l i nt el l i gence oper at i ons . ” C I A v. Si m s , 471 U
. S. 159, 167 ( 1985)
. For 23M s . W i l s on cogent l ym ade a s i m il ar p o int t o C ongr es s i n des cr i bi ng t he damage 24 caus ed byt he i ni t i al di s cl os ur e of he rC I A aff i l i at i on i n t he medi a: T he C I A goes t o gr eatl engt hs t o pr ot ectal l of i t s empl oy ees , pr ovi di ng at si gn i fi cant t axp ay er’ s expen se pai nst akingl y d e vis ed co vers for i t s m ost s ens i t i ve s t aff

er s . T he harm t hati s done w hen a C I A cover i s bl ow n i s gr ave, butI can’ tpr ovi de det ai l s bey ond t hati n t hi s publ i c hea r i ng. B utt he conc ept is ob v iou s. N o t on lyh av e b re a c h es o f n ati o n al sec u ri tyen d an g ere d C IA offi cer s , i thas j eopar di zed a nd even de s t r oy ed ent i r e netw or ks of for ei gn agent s w ho, i n tur n, r i s k t hei r ow n l i ves and t hos e of t hei r fami l i es t o pr ovi de t he U ni t ed St at es w i t h neede d i nt el l i gence . L i ves ar e l i t er al l yats t ake. Wh i t e Ho u s e P r o c e d u r e s f o rS a f e g u a r d i n g Cl a s s i f

i e d I n f o r ma t i o n : He a r i n g Be f

o r e t h e H. C o m m . o n O v e rsig h t & G o v e rn m e n t R e f o rm , 1 1 0 th C o n g . 1 8 (2 0 0 7 ) (s tate m e n t o f V a ler ie 43 t hi s r eas on, t he S upr eme C our thas r ecogni zed the C I A ’ s aut hor i t yt o pr ecl ude di s cl os ur e of

ev en “su p erf

ici all yinn o cu o u s inf

o rm ati o n ” w h en itm igh t fac il it ate the d isc o v eryo f m o re
sen sit ive m att ers. I d
. at 17 8 ; see also L arso n v . D ep ’t o f S tat e, 5 6 5 F
. 3 d 8 5 7 , 8 6 3 (D
. C
. C ir
. 2009) ( r ecogni zi ng t hat“s eem ing lyt r i vi al det ai l s m aybe of gr eats i gni fi canc e t o for ei gn in tellig e n c e se rv ice s w ith a b ro a d v iew o f th e in tellig e n c e lan d sc a p e in th e ir a ttem p ts to d isc o v e r a n d th w a rt C IA in tellig e n c e -g a th e rin g m e th o d s” ). In d e e d , the C IA e x p lain e d th is pr eci s e conc er n t o M s . W i l s on i n 2006, obs er vi ng t hat her di s cl os ur e of t he “s peci fi c t i m e” of herC I A empl oy m ent , w hen combi ned w i t h ot her i nfor m at i on i n herm emoi r“t hatm aybe uncl as s i fi ed s t andi ng al one, ” coul d r evea l s our ces and met hods of agencyi nt el l i gence op erat i on s. L et t er fr om P R B C hairm an R
. P uh l t o V
. W i l son, at 1. A ccordi ng l y , w e m ust
a ss e ss th e im p a c t o f

M s. W ilso n ’s p r o p o se d d isc u ss io n o f h e r d a tes o f

se rv ice n o t in iso latio n , “b u t a lso w ith re g a rd to w h a t se c re ts [th o se f a c ts] c o u ld d iv u lg e w h e n v iew e d in l i ghtof ot heri nfor m at i on avai l abl e t o i nt er es t ed observer s . ” B er m an v. C I A , 501 F. 3d 1136, 1 1 4 3 (9th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). 24P lam e W il so n ).

In thes e circu m stan ce s, w e c an n o t agre e w ith o u r co n cu rri n g co ll ea g u e tha t th e C IA 25 m ust“exp l ai n ho w t he harm s d escr i bed w ou l d be l i kelyt o resul tfrom t he p ub l i cat i on of M s. W ils o n ’s b o o k , in s te a d o f , o r in a d d itio n to , th e p u b lic a tio n o f th e F e b ru a ry 1 0 L e tte r i ts e lf.” P o st a t [ xx]
. M s . W i l s on i s notent i t l ed t o t he bene fi tof publ i c di s cl os ur e of a document , t he 44 P lain tiff s d o n o t d isa g re e th a t M s. W ilso n ’s d a tes o f se rv ice sh o u ld b e v iew e d in th is br oadercont ext
. R at her , pl ai nt i ffs cont end t hatw hat everi nj ur y t o our nat i onal s ecur i t yt he C I A coul d l egi t i m at el yfea r fr om t he di s cl os ur e of M s . W i l s on’ s pr e- 2002 dat es of s er vi ce
w as s us t ai ned w hen t he Februar y10 L et t erbeca m e publ i c. T h ere af t er , cont i nued cl as s i fi cat i on i s no l ongerr eas onabl e. W e ar e notconvi nced. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum ent i s at odds w i t h Sect i on 1. 1( b) of E xecut i ve O r der 13, 292, w hi ch pr ovi des t hatcl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on i s “not
. . . decl as s i fi ed aut om at i cal l yas a r es ul tof any unaut hor i zed di s cl os ur e of i dent i cal ors i m i l ar i nfor m at i on. ” 68 Fed. R eg. at15, 315. T o t he ext ent pl ai nt i ffs s ugges t t hat t hi s pr ovi s i on does notappl ybeca us e M s . T um ol o’ s t r ans m i t t al of t h e F ebruar y10 L et t erw as “author i zed, ” w e r ei t er at e t hatt hi s t r ans m i t t al di d noteff ect t he publ i c di s cl os ur e of the Let t er . T hatact i on w as t aken byM s . W i l s on her s el f w hen s he g a v e R e p . In sle e th e L e tter an d h e r pe rm iss io n f o r i ts pu b lic rele a se . S e e su p ra a t [ 32- 37]
. M or eover , even i f M s . W i l s on’ s act i ons coul d be at t r i but ed t o a bona fi de mi s under s t andi ng,
w e hol d t hata form eragentcannotus e herow n un aut hor i zed di s cl os ur e of c l as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on as a spr i ngboar d forchal l engi ng t he C I A ’ s abi l i t yt o m ai nt ai n t hati nfor m at i on
as cl as s i fi ed. See gene r al l yA l fr ed A
. K nopf, I nc. v. C ol by , 509 F. 2d at1370 ( hol di ng t hat par t yw ho l eaks i nfor m at i on cannot us e s uch di s cl os ur e t o cl ai m r i ghtopenl yt o di s cus s t hat inf o rm ati o n ). 25Februar y10 L et t er , forw hi ch s he i s her s el f r es pons i bl e.

N o di ffe r entconcl us i on i s w ar r ant ed byM s . T um ol o’ s uncl as s i fi ed dec l ar at i on 26 s ubm i t t ed i n t hi s l i t i gat i on, w hi ch expl ai ns how t he Februar y10 L et t er w as pr epar ed butdoes nots peci fi cal l yaddr es s the accur acyof t he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned t her ei n. I ndeed, t he decl ar at i on s ugges t s t hat M s . T um ol o had no per s onal know l edge of t he fa ct s s t at ed i n t he L e tter, b u t sim p lyre lied o n sta f f , w h o se n e g lig e n c e in p e rf o rm in g th e ir d u ties , at le a st w ith r es pectt o cl as s i fi cat i on chec ks , i s undi s put ed. 45 E v en p u tt ing asid e M s. W il so n ’s role i n the p u b li c d iscl o su re o f th e L ett er, ho w ev er, herchal l enge t o t he cont i nued cl as s i fi cat i on of herdat es of s er vi ce i s unavai l i ng. T o be s ur e, the F ebruar y10 L et t er , w r i t t en on C I A l et t er head a nd s i gned byan off i ci al fr om t he A gency ’ s per s onnel depar t m ent , appea r s m or e r el i abl e as evi dence of M s . W i l s on’ s pr i or CI A a f f i l i a t i o n t h a n t h e s o r to f “ p u b l i c s p e c u l a t i o n ” g e n e r a l l yd i s mi s s e d i n t h e c a s e l a w. A fs har v. D ep’ t of St at e, 702 F. 2d at1131. N ever t hel es s , a bur eauc r at i c t r ans m i t t al fr om t he C I A ’ s p erso n n el depar t m entt o a form erempl oy ee i s har dl yaki n t o t he C I A di r ect or p e rso n a llyre a d in g re lev a n t in f o rm a tio n in to th e C o n g re ss io n a l R e c o rd , a s to o k p lac e in W o lf

v. C I A , 473 F. 3d at379. T he di s t i nct i on i s notonl y t hatt he l at t eractcons t i tut ed an “ offi ci al di s cl o su re,” s ee i d. , butal s o t hatanyt hi ng s hor tof s uch a di s cl os ur e nec es s ar i l ypr es er ves
s om e i ncr ement of doubtr egar di ng t he r el i abi l i t yof the publ i cl yavai l abl e i nfor m at i o n. T he 26 C IA ’s refu sal t o p erm itthe e li m ination o f th at re m ainin g d o u b t w ith resp ec t t o M s. W il so n ’s pr e- 2002 s er vi ce i t s el f prot ect s val uabl e i nfor m at i on, namel y , t he ac cur acyof t he fa ct s s t at ed i n t he Februar y10 L et t erand w h ethe r ther e i s anyt hi ng l eftt o hi de on t he s ubj ect
. See Phi l l i p p i v . CI A, 6 5 5 F. 2 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 3 1 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 9 8 1 ) ( “ Th e r e ma y b e muc h l eft t o hi de, and i f t her e i s not , t hati t s el f m ay be w or t h hi di ng. ”)
. W e decl i ne t o di s countt he i m por t ance of s uch “l i nger i ng doubt s ” t o m ai nt ai ni ng t he s ecr ecy of C I A s our ces and met hods r el at i ng46

t o u n c o n f

i r m e d p e r i o d s o f

M s . W i l s o n ’ s A g e n c y s e r v i c e , M i l i t a ry A u d i tP r o j e c tv . C a s e y, 656 F. 2d 7 2 4 , 7 4 5 ( D. C. Ci r . 1 9 8 1 ) , a n d t o p r e s e r v i n g t h e o p t i o n s o f d e n i a b i l i t yand pr ofes s ed i gnor ance t hatr emai n i m por t antni cet i es of i nt er nat i onal r el at i ons , s ee A fs harv. D e p ’t o f S ta te , 7 0 2 F .2 d a t 1 1 3 0 -3 1 ; s e e a ls o S n e p p v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 4 4 4 U .S . a t 5 1 0 n .3 ( r ecogni zing gover nm ent ’ s “compel l i ng i nt er es ti n pr ot ect i ng . . . t he appe ar ance of

co n fid en ti ali tyso esse n ti al t o the e ff ec ti v e o p era ti o n o f o u r fo reign intell igen ce serv ice” ). H avi ng det er m i ned t hatdefe ndant s coul d demonst r at e t hatM s . W i l s on’ s dat es of

ser vice s ho uld rem ai n cl assi fi ed, t he quest i on rem ai ns, of course, w hether t heyhav e do ne so her e w i t h t he “s peci fi ci t y ” nec es s ar yt o confi r m t he r at i onal i t yof t hei rdeci s i on. See M c G e h e e v . C a se y , 7 1 8 F .2 d a t 1 1 4 9
. I n s h o r t, d o e s th e A g e n c yh a v e g o o d re a so n to concl ude t hatful l di s cl os ur e of M s . W i l s on’ s empl oy m enthi s t or y“r eas o n ab ly co ul d be expec t ed t o r es ul ti n damage t o t he nat i onal s ecur i t y ”? E xec. O r der 13, 292, § 1. 1( a) ( 4) , 68 F e d . R e g . at 1 5 ,3 1 5 -1 6 . W e h a v e re v iew e d d e f e n d a n ts’ u n c las sif

ied su b m iss io n s a s w e ll

as – w i t houtobj ect i on byt he par t i es – t he cl as s i fi ed m at er i al s pr ovi ded t o t he cour tex par t e,
a n d w e c o n c lu d e , a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id , th a t d e f e n d a n ts h a v e m e t th e ir b u rd e n . O u r dis c u ss io n o f th e c las sif ied f a c ts i n th is op in io n is ne c e ss a ri ly c irc u m sp e c t. N ever t h e l e s s , we c o n c l u d e f r o m t h e s e f

a c t s t h a tp l a i n t i f

f s ’ d i s c l o s u r e o f

t h e i n f o r ma t i on p re se n tlyc e n so re d b yth e C IA w o u ld d o m o re th a n re v e a l d a tes o f se rv ice . It w o u ld f a c ili tate t he i dent i fi cat i on of par t i cul ar i nt el l i gence s our ces and m et hods , t her ebycompromi s i ng t he A gen cy ’s abil i t yt o u se such sou rces and m et ho ds i n the f u ture. T hat the C IA view s t hese

r i s ks as r eal and subs t ant i al i s demonst r at ed by the si gni fi cant act i ons al r eadyt aken byt he47

A gencyand des cr i bed i n t he cl as s i fi ed s ubm i ssion
. In sum , t he C I A has advanc ed “good

r eas on” t o m ai nt ai n anypr e- 2002 A gencys ervi ce by M s . W i l s on as cl as s i fi ed and t o pr event t he i ncl us i on of s uch i nfor m at i on i n herm emoi r . M cG ehee v. C as ey , 718 F. 2d at1149. T he C I A havi ng pr ovi ded “r at i onal and pl aus i bl e” r eas ons forcont i nued cl as s i fi cat i on, i d. , our
r evi ew obl i gat i ons ar e s at i s fi ed, and w e w i l l not fur t hers econd- gues s A gencyj udgm ent , s ee J o h n D o e , In c . v . M u k a s e y , 5 4 9 F .3 d a t 8 7 5 , 8 8 2
. B ec au se w e re

ject plain tif

fs’ a rgu m en t th at no g o o d rea so n su p p o rt s the C IA ’s

m ai nt e na nc e of

M s . W i l s on ’ s pr e - 20 02 da t e s of A ge nc ys e r vi c e a s c l a s s i fi e d, a nd becau se
w e hav e a l r e a d yd e t e r mi n e d t h a tt h i s i n f o r ma t i o n h a s n o tb e e n o f f i c i a l l yd i s c l o s e d b yt he C IA , w e nece ssar i l ycon cl ud e t hat pl ai nti ffs’ Fi rs tA m end m ent chal l eng e t o d efen dan t s’

r e d a c t i o n s t o F a i rGa me fai l s as a m at t er of l aw . M s . W i l s on – l i ke eve r yot hercur r entand form er A gen cyem ploy ee w ho has si gn ed a S ecrecyA greem ent – “si m plyhas no fir st amendm entr i ghtt o publ i s h” t he i nfor m at i on h ere at issue , r egar dl es s of how “publ i c” he r p a s t a c tiv itie s a p p e a r t o h a v e b e c o m e . S tillm a n v . C IA , 3 1 9 F .3 d a t 5 4 8
. T h e f a c t thatother s, no tsubjectt o such a secr ecyob l i gati on , are fr ee t o invest i ga te M s . W i l s on’ s pas t and t o compi l e and di s cus s al l avai l abl e i nfor m at i on r egar di ng hercar eer

– in c lu d in g th e F e b ru a ry1 0 L e tter

– is n o t, a s p lain tiff s in sis t, a n a b su rd o r a n o m a lo u s re su lt. T h e law h a s lo n g d istin g u ish e d b e tw e e n “ stra n g e rs,” w h o “ m a yre p u b lish p re v io u sly p u b lish e d m a ter ial,” a n d f o rm e r in tellig e n c e a g e n ts, w h o “ a re b o u n d b yf o rm a l ag re e m e n ts not t o di s cl os e [cl as s i fi ed] i nfor m at i on. ” A l fr ed A
. K nopf, I nc. v. C ol by , 509 F. 2d at1370. A s not ed, w hen M s . W i l s on el ect ed t o s er ve w i t h t he C I A , s he ac cept ed a l i fe- l ong r es t r i ct i on48

on her abi l i t y t o di s cl os e cl as s i fi ed and c l as s i fi abl e i nfor m at i on. T hatM s . W i l s on’ s s er vi ce
m ayh av e b ee n cuts hor tbyt he fa i l ur e of other s t o r es pectt he cl as s i fi ed s t atus of her empl oy m ent m ay w el l have w ar r ant ed i nves t i gat i on. B utt hes e ci r cumst ance s do notabs ol ve M s. W i l son o f her ow n secrecyob l i gati on s. I I I . C oncl usi on T o su m m a riz e , b e c a u se a n yp re -2 0 0 2 d a tes o f se rv ice b y V a ler ie P lam e W ilso n w ith t he C I A have not been offi ci al l y di s cl os ed byt he A gencyand r emai n pr oper l ycl as s i fi ed, and becau se M s. W i l son is ob l i gated bya S ecrecyA greem ent w ith th e C IA no tt o d i scl ose cl assi fi ed inform at i on , neither M s. W i l son n or t he p ub l i sher o f her m em oircan asserta F i rs t A m endment r i ghtt o publ i s h that i nfor m at i on. A ccor di ngl y , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s aw ar d of

sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of d efen dan t s i s A F F I R MED .49

K ATZ MANN , Ci rcuit

Judg e , c on c ur

ri ngin t hejudgme nt: Iagree with the majority

that Ms. Wi lson’s pre- 2002 dates of se rvice , if any , were ori gi n al l y p roperly

classified by

the CIA, havenever

been of ficially decla ssified, and we re ne ver of fi c ia lly dis c los e d b y

theCIA. Th e re fo re, I als o agree that th is C ourt ha s n o p ow e r t o f

re e Ms. Wils on from t hese c re c y

a gre e me nt t

hat sh e signe d u

po n c omm e nc e me nt o f h e r e mpl oy me nt w ith theCIA. At

the same tim e , I write to ob se rv e that th e CIA’ s p os iti on in t his lit ig atio n b links re a lity in light of the uniquefac ts of this case a nd the policies behind the doctrines at issue he re. I ndeed, the CIA’s litiga

tion posture may

very well be c ounterproduc tive to its purposes. I f the F ebrua

ry 10, 2006 letter on CIA letterhe ad hadnot surfac ed in the Congr essiona l R e c o r d

( “ F eb r u ar y 1 0 L e tt e r ” ) , an d

w e w e r e mer e ly

f a c e d w it hth e qu e s ti o nof whether Ms. Wilson should be permitted to disclose her possible pre -2002 ser vice dates, despite the fac t that they

were already

the subject of w idesprea d media reports, the answe r would cle arly be no. The samewould be trueif the question was, even g iven the publication of the F ebrua ry 10 L etter, whether the CIA should be forced to of ficially acknow ledg e any

of Ms. Wil son’s possible pre- 2002 dates of se rvice . However, that is not this case.

As it appea

red in the Congressional Rec ord, the F ebruary 10 L etter state d the fo llo wi ng : Dea r Mrs. Wilson, This letter is in response to your re cent telephone
conver sation with reg arding[si c] when you would be elig ible to re ce i ve your defe rre d annuity
. Per federal statute, employees . . . who haveacquired a minimum of 20 year s of servic e, are eligible to re ceivetheir def erred annuity

at their Minimum Retirement Ag e. . . .

. . . .See, e .g. , Military Audit Project v. Casey , 656 F.2d 724, 744- 45 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“ [T] he 1 g overnme nt argues it still has somethingto hide; the report ed p urpose of the Glomar Explorer’s mission m ay

well be notorious, but . . . its actual purpose may well s till be a secret, or, at the ver y least, unre solved doubt may still re m ai n i n the minds of the United States’ potential a nd actual 50 F oll ow ingis a

lis t of your f e de ral se rv ic e : Dates of Service : CIA . . . from 11/9/1985 to 1/9/2006

— t otal 20 year s, 7 days.

. . . . Please let me knowif Ican beof any further assistance
. 153 Cong. Rec . E119 (daily ed. Jan. 16, 2007). Fur ther, in connection to this litigation, Karen F. Tumolo submitted an unc lassified, public decla

ration attesting to the fa ct that she signed the F ebrua ry 10 L etter to Valerie Wilson; at the time she signed the letter she wa s the Chief of Retire ment and Insuranc e Serv i ce s at the CIA, responsible for

manag ing theCIA’s re tirement and insura nce benef its programs; and, in the ordinar y
c ours e , in re sp on din gto a

requ e st s uc h a s Ms . Wil so n’ s f or inf or matio n o n r e tire me nt a

nnuit y elig ibility , her of

ficewould v er i fy

that the employee’ s status was not classified. H oweve r, her decla ration fur ther stat ed , ac kn o wl ed gi n g th e a gen cy ’s n egl i gen ce , th at“[ t ] h e e mp l o yees in my office neg lected to pe rfor

m such a c lassification review of Ms. Wil son’s personne l file. As a conseque nce, the summary

of Ms. Wil son’s service was not properly marke d to indicate that the infor mation was classified.” SeeDec laration of Karen F. Tumolo, Senior B enef its S pecialist, Offi ce of

Personnel Resource s, Direc torate of Support, Central Intellige nce A g ency ¶ 9. Relevant case law, deve loped larg ely in the context of the Fre edom of Information Act, has f ocused on theharm that c ould come to national sec urity from an off

ic ial CI A d isc los ure of information that has alrea dy entered the public domain. Three g eneral co n ce rn s h ave be en identified: (1) thebenef

its that come to the CIA from pl au s ible deniability ; (2) the possibility of 1adver saries a s to the true purpose of the mission. . . . [ E]ven if the true pur pose of the mission was in fac t to raise a submarine from the floor of the ocea n, there may be some advantag e in leavingthe Sov ie t inte lli g e nc e a g en c i e s w i t h l in g erin g do u b t s whe ther s omeoth e r p ur po semotivate d th e proje c t. Whatever thetruth may

be, it remains either unrevealed or unconfirme d. We cannot assume
. . . that th e C IAh a s n o th i n g l e f

t t o h i d e . T o th e c o ntr ar

y , th e r e c o r d b e f

o r e u s s u g g e s t s e i th e r

th atth e C IA still has something to hide or that it wishe s to hide from our a dversa ries the f act that it has nothing to hide.”) ( footnote omitted). See, e .g. , Phillippiv. CIA , 6 5 5 F.2d 1325, 1332- 33 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“ [Former Soviet 2 le a de r N iki ta ] Khru sh c he v s tated in hi s Mem oir s th at what le d h im t o c anc e l th e Pari s Summi t meetingwith President Eisenhower afte r the U- 2 incident [in 1960] was not the fact that Americ an U-2 ’ s h a d o v e r f

lo wn th e So v ie t Un io n [-
- ] th at w a s n o t n e w s to K hr u s h c h e v [-
- ] b ut r ather

that President Ei senhowe r had publicly admitted that he had approve d the m ission
. . . . In the world of international diplomacy , where fac e-saving may often be as important as substan ce , o ff icial confirmation of the purpose of the Glomar Explorer project .
. . could have an adverse e ffe ct on our re latio ns wi th theSov ie ts. ” ); Earth Pledge Found. v . CIA , 988 F. Supp. 623, 628 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (off icial conf irmation of a CIA field station in the Dominican Republic could causea conf rontation with the Dominican Republic or thedisruption of fore ign relations, despit e disclosureof the station’s e x i s t en ce i n a S en at e R ep o rt , b ec au s e “co untri es ar e wi l l i n g t o t o l er at e th e pr es e n c e o f C IA installations in their c ountry only if the United S t at es does not off icially acknow ledg e that such stations ex ist. Thus, confirmation of the e x istence of such an installation, eve n by another branc h of the fe deral government, is different from the CIA itself acknow ledg ing theexis tenceof the ba se.”) (citation omitted). See, e. g. , Mi l i t ary A u d it , 6 5 6 F. 2d at739- 40 ( “The di s cl os ur e of the names of 3 o rga n i zat i ons and t hei rempl oy ees w ho ent er ed i nt o . . . confi dent i al agr eement s w i t h t he C I A , i n connec t i on w i t h t he [G l om arE xpl or er ] Pr oj ect , w o ul d al m os tcer t ai nl yi m pact n e g a tiv e lyo n th e a b ili tyo f th e C IA to o b tain th e a ss ista n c e o f su c h e n tit ies a n d in d iv id u a ls in sim ilar v e n tu re s in th e f u tu re . . . . A d isc lo su re th a t th e se e n tit ies h a d b e e n e n g a g e d w ith th e C IA in a n in tellig e n c e o p e ra tio n c o u ld b e h a rm f u l to th e ir f

o re ig n b u sin e ss a n d p o ss ib ly aff ectt he s afe t yof t hos e of thei rempl oy ees w ho t r avel abr oad.
. . . I f t he C I A ca n n o t be c o u n ted u p o n to k e e p th e id e n tity o f its c o n tra c to rs s e c re t w h e n it h a s g iv e n a ss u ra n c e s it w ill do s o, pot ent i al cont r act or s m ay ei t her demand hi gher fee s or r efus e t o do bus i nes s w i t h t he C I A al t oget her
. . . . [I ] ti s one t hi ng fo ra companyt o as s um e t he r i s ks of unavoi dabl e or i nadver t entl eaks and qui t e anot her t o as s um e t he r i s k t hat
. . . t he C I A [w i l l ] r evea l t he l i nk b e tw e e n th e c o m p a n ya n d th e A g e n c y .”) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ); W o lf v. C IA , 473 F
. 3 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 6 (D .C
. C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ) (of ficial co n firm ati o n o f a h u m an intell igen ce so u rce ’s cooper at i on w i t h t he C I A coul d “ca us e t he t ar getgover nm ent to take r et al i at or yact i on agai ns tt hatper s on, or , i f he i s no l onger al i ve, agai ns thi s s ur vi vi ng fami l yand fr i ends , ” and w oul d “s er i ous l y damage t hi s nat i on’ s cr edi bi l i t y w i t h al l ot hercur r enti nt el l i gence s our ces and under

mine CIA’s ability

to attrac t potential intelligenc e sourc es in the future ”) ( internal quotation marks omitted). 51 fo re ign r e ta liatio n; and

(3 ) t hee ff e c t on theCIA’ s inte lli g e nc e -g atheri ngc a pa bil iti e s, bo th i n te rm s 2 of int e lli g e nc e so urc e s and

int e lli g e nc e me tho ds
. 3Ac c ordin gto t hema jority 4 any thing short of

[the CIA direc tor personally rea ding releva

nt information i n t o the C o ngress i o n a l

R e c ord] nece ssarily

prese rves some inc reme nt of doubt reg ardingthe reliability of the publicly

available information. The CIA’s refusal to permit the elimination of tha t r e maini ngdo ub t w ithre sp e c t to Ms. Wils on ’s pre - 2 0 0 2 s erv ic e its e lf prote c ts v a lua

ble information, namely , the ac cura cy of the fa cts stated in the Februar y 10 L etter a

nd whether thereis a ny thing left to hide on the subject. We de cline to disc ount the importanceof such
“ lin g e ri ngdo ub ts”to m a int a ini ngthese c re c y of CIA s ourc e s and

me tho ds re lati ng to unconfirme d periods of Ms. W i l s o n ’s Agenc y service , and to pre servingthe options of de nia bil ity and prof e sse d igno ra

nc e tha t r e ma in i mpo rt ant n ic e tie s o f i ntern atio na l r e latio ns . Majority Op. at [ ] (citations and f ootnote omitted). F or ins tanc e , a ccor di ng to Mr. Ka pp e s, human inte lli g e nc e so urc e s who fu rn ish 5 inf or matio n to theCIA w illdo so on ly if they arec on fi de nt t

hat th e CIA w illdo e very thi ngin i ts power to ensure that their coope ration will remain f oreve r sec re t
. T h erefore , official acknow ledgment of an individual sourc e’s c ooperation with the CIA would seriously damag e the CIA’s credibility

with all of its other source s, and under mine its ability

to attrac t intelligenc e sourc es in the future. “ The CIA must show its intellig ence source s that, even if information that may

or may not be true ha s been dis closed, the CIA will stand by a policy to not acknowledg e intellige nce inf or matio n, if any , in ord e r to pr e se rv e c omm itm e nts that the CIA ha s ma deto i ts s ourc e s, and to try to preser ve those source s’ trust in the CIA.” De claration of Stephen R. Kappe s, Deputy Direc tor, Central Intellige nce A g ency (“Kappes D ecl.” ) ¶ 36. For example, if an una

uthorized disclosure of c lassified CIA information re g ardinga human intelligenc e sourc e we re ma de, that disclosurecould jeopardize the source. I f the CIA were to officially

acknow ledg e the infor

mati o n , howeve r, that additional step could f urther jeopardiz e the sourc e and c ould deter othe r cla ndestine human intellig encesource s from cooperatingwith the CIA. Exi sting a nd future huma

n intelligenc e sourc es would note that the CIA was w illing to confirm publicly a cla ndestine human intell i gen ce source’ s inv olv e me nt w iththeCIA. Th e sehuman s ourc e s w ou ld fa c tor that a dditi on a l ri sk int o th e ir own dec ision on whether to provideinformation to the CIA and could decidethat the risks aretoo great to cooperatewith the CIA. Kappe s Dec l. ¶ 68. The same applies to “ fore ign liaison relationships,” or cooperati v e, s ec ret relationships between the CIA and f oreign g overnme nt entities. [F]oreign liason sourc es ca n be expected t o co o p er ate with the CIA only as longas they remain assured that the C IA wil l do ever y thing within its power to prote ct the fa ct, nature , and details of the clande stine intelligenc e re lationship. . . . If th e C IA bre ache s that confide nce and trust, the foreign liaison servicecan te rminate the intellig encerelationship, 52 The CIA and the m aj o ri ty re l y on all threeof these c oncer ns in this case. The
ma jority dis c us se s pla

us ibl e de nia

bil ity , and CIA D eputy

Di re c tor Steph e n R. Ka

pp e s c onvin c ing ly 4 explains, both in his classified and unc lassified dec larat i o n s , wh at harm will come to national
se curity , i n t erm s o f fo rei gn ret ali ati onandth e effectonth e C IA’s intel li gence-gath eri ng cap a bil iti e s, if Ms. Wi lson’s pre- 2002 servicedates, if a ny , are officially acknowledged b y th e C IA. Mr. 5or re taliate in any number of w ays . . . . I d. ¶ 44-45. In a dditi on , CIA i nte lli g e nc e -g atheri ngme tho ds areus eful only so lon ga s th e y

re ma in unkn own a

nd un su sp e c te d. On c e a

me tho d is dis c ov e re d, “ its c ontin ue d s uc c e ssf

ul u sewi ll b e in serious jeopa

rdy .” Id. ¶ 4 8. Th e re fo re , “ [a]c kn ow le dg ing c ov e r me c ha nis ms us e d b y

theCIA w ou ld expose and offic ially

confirm those me chanisms, hinderingthe ef fec tiveness of the c over f

or cur rent and futurecover

t employees, a s well as cur rent a nd future intellig enceoperations.” Id. ¶ 58. As fo r f or e ign r e ta liatio n, Mr . Ka pp e s d e c lare s th at an o ff

ic ia l di sc los ur e by

theCIA c ou ld lead a fore ign g overnme nt, either friend or foe , to retaliate ag ainst the United States. For example, th e C IAm a i nt a i n s c o v e rti n s t a l l at i o n s a b r o a d , an d

“ [ o ] f f i c i a l a c kn o w l e d gm e ntth atth e C IA maintains an installation in a p art i cu l ar location abroa d would likely causethe g overnme nt of the country in which the installation is l ocate d to take counte rmea sures.” Id. ¶ 59. The sa me would be tr ueif theCIA w e reto ackno wl edge that a fo re ign c ountr

y wa s th e targ e t or

loc atio n o f i ts intelligenc e operations. Acc ordingto Mr. Kappes, this serious damag e to national sec urity could re sult even if the CIA offic ially

acknow ledg ed information that had alre ady been repor ted in the media. F or example, in t e rm s o f f

or e ign li a iso n r e latio ns hip s: F o r e i gng o v e r

nm e nt s w o u l d

l e ar no f th e o f f i c i a l a c kn o w l e d gm e nt an d c o n c l u d e th atth e C IA is n ot t ru stw or thy e no ugh to pr e ve nt a c kn ow le dgme nt o f s e ns iti veinf ormatio n th at is repor ted in the media. A foreign liason partner could view the a cknowledgment as a dire ct vi o l at i o n of their agree ment with the CIA to keep the ir liaison activities secret. Countries c ou ld b e e xpe c te d to re sp on d b a se d o n th e ir pe rc epti on

of theCIA’ s in a

bil ity to h on or its c omm itm e nts
. Id. ¶ 70. 53 Kappe s’ re asons are detailed, rational, a nd plausible on their fa ce; indee d they arecompelling
. See, e.g. , McGeheev. Casey , 718 F.2d 1137, 1148- 49 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Ho we ve r, Ms. Wils on is no t a skingtheCIA t o o ff ic ia lly a c kn ow le dg e he r p os sib le pre- 2002 dates of service . The purposeof Mr. Ka ppes’ c lassified and unc lassified dec larations was to describe the harm to national security that would result from the CIA officially acknowledging the information containe d in the Feb ruar y 10 L etter. See De c lara

tio n o f S teph e n R. Ka

pp e s, Deputy Di re c tor , Ce ntra l Inte lli g e nc e Ag e nc y (“ Ka pp e s D e c l.” ) ¶

3 ( “ Th e purp os e of

thi s d e c lara

tio n is to de sc ribe
. . . the se ri ou s d ama g e to t henatio na l se c urity

that r e a so na

bly c ou ld b e e xpe c te d to re su lt if ce rtain information in the 10 Febr uary 2006 l et t er is officially

acknow ledg ed by

the CIA.”) ; Classified In Camera , ExParte De clarat i o n o f S tephen R. Ka ppes, Deputy

Direc tor, Central Inte lli g e nc e Ag e nc y , Se c re t, date d July 18 , 20 07 , ¶ 3 (u nc la ssi fi e d p aragra

ph ) ( “ Th e purp os e of

thi s54

d e c l ar at i o n i s t o d es cr i b e . . . th e cl as s i fi ed i n fo rm at i o n th at wo u l d b e re v ea l ed i f t h e C IA
a c kn ow le dg e d whe ther M s. Wils on wa s empl oye d b y

theCIA p ri or

to 1 Janu ary

20 02 . I a lso describe in greater de tail the serious dama g e to the natio n al sec urity that rea sonably

could be expected to re sult if the CIA ac knowledg es the c las s i fi ed i n formation in the 10 F ebrua ry 2006 letter.” ). Ye t the decla

rations do not addre ss why publication of Ms
. Wil son’s memoir would be an official acknowle dgment by the CIA. Moreove r, despite the publ ication of the Februa ry 10 L etter on CIA letterhe ad in the Con gre ssi on a l Re c ord, the de c laratio ns make no e ff or t to e xpla in h owtheha

rm s d e sc ribe d w ou ld be likely to result from the publication of Ms. W ilson’s book, instead of, or in ad d i t i on to, the publication of the F ebrua ry 10 L etter itself. Instead, the de clarations ignore the F ebrua ry 10 L etter
e nt i r e l y . Wh i l e i ti s i nh e r e nt l y p l a u s i b l e th ata

f o r e i g n g o v e rnm e ntc o u l d l e ar no f ano f f i c i a l C IA acknow ledgment and conc lude that the CIA is not trustworthy , thereby causing harm to our national
security , seeKa

pp e s D e c l. ¶

70 , it is n ot in herent ly

pla us ibl e that a

fo re ign g ov e rnme nt w ou ld
c on sid e r M s. Wils on ’s bo ok , rather t ha n th e F ebr ua ry 10 L e tte r c ou

ple d wi th Ms. Tumol o’ s p ub lic decla ration submitted in connection with this case, to bean off icial ac knowledgment by the CIA. Ind e e d, c ourt s a gre e that bo ok s p ubli sh ed by fo rm e r C IA ag e nts areno t of fi c ia l CIA disc los ur e s. See, e .g. , Af

sh ar v . D e

p’ t of Sta te , 702 F .2 d 112 5, 11 33 -3 4 (D .C. Cir . 198 3) (“ Pla intif f p oints f ir st to a number of

books by former CIA age nts and officials, all of which were submitted to the ag ency for prepublication re view .
. . . [N] one of the books is an official and documented disclosure, as the rele ase of CIA cable s would be.”)
. Yet the CIA ignores this issue, and, in doingso, assumes awa y
a cr ucial compone nt in this case .

Finally , if thereis “some incre ment of doubt” re g ardingthe reliability of the F ebrua ry 10 L etter, de spite the fac t that the CIA submitt ed a sworn, unclassified, public decla ration from the55

letter’s a uth o r s tati n g th at th e le tt e r h a d b e e n p r ep ar e d in th e o r d in ar y c o ur s e o f b u s in e s s b ut was inadver tently not subjected to the normal c lassification re view, it is unclear why the publication of Ms. Wi lson’s persona l memoir would somehow erase that doubt and authoritatively establish the
accurac y of the fa cts co n t ai n ed i nthe letter. I f any thing, Ms. Tumolo, and not Ms. Wil son, is the “off icial of the United States in a position to know of what [s] he spoke.” See A lfred A. Knopf, Inc. v. Colby , 5 09 F .2 d at 13 62 , 1 37 0 ( 4th Cir . 1 97 5) (“ It is on e thi ngfo r a repo rt e r o r a

uth or to s pe c ulate
or gue ss that a th ingmay

beso or e ve n, qu oti ngun dis c los e d s ourc e s, to s ay that it is s o; i t is qu ite
ano ther t hin gfo r one in a pos iti on to kno w of it of fi c ia lly to say that it is so. Th e re a din gpu bli c is
a c c us tom e d to tr e atin grepo rt s f ro m un c e rt a in so urc e s a s be ing of un c e rt a in re lia

bil ity , b ut i t w ou ld not be inclined to discre dit reports of se nsitive inf o rm at i o nreve aled by

an off icial of the United States in a position to know of what he spoke.” ).

Indeed, theCIA’s position in thi s liti g ation, set forth i nunclassified, publicly filed court doc uments, has serve d only to givecr edenc e to the perception that the F ebrua ry 10 L etter
accurate ly

set forth Ms. Wilson’s dates of servic e. Senator Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan, a student of
secrecy, believed that the obvious need to protec t leg itimate secre ts is undermined when ag encie s proce ed ref

lexi vely without a fully rea soned assessment of the likely conseque nces of posi tions contemplated. See Daniel Patric k Moy nihan, Secre cy , w itha

ne w p re fa c e by the a

uth or (1 99 8) . T his may have be en such a

case .