Opinion ID: 390183
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; or

Text: 28 (g) other categories of information which are related to national security and which require protection against unauthorized disclosure as determined by the President by a person designated by the President pursuant to Section 1-201, or by an agency head. 34 29 The standard that a court must follow in reviewing the agency's classification decision under Executive Order No. 12,065, then, is whether the information fits within one of the seven enumerated categories and whether unauthorized disclosure of the material reasonably could be expected to cause the requisite potential harm. 35 30 As we have held repeatedly in other national security cases, in making this assessment the court must conduct a de novo review of the agency's classification decision, with the burden on the agency of demonstrating proper classification. 36 The court is to afford the agency the opportunity to meet this burden through the submission of affidavits that describe with reasonably specific detail the nature of the documents at issue and the justification for nondisclosure. 37 The courts must accord substantial weight to these affidavits. 38 That is, if the description in the affidavits demonstrates that the information logically falls within the claimed exemption and if the information is neither controverted by contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith, then summary judgment for the Government is warranted. 39 The court need not review the documents in camera unless the affidavits are inadequate for a reasoned de novo determination. 40 31 In this instance the FBI official stated that classification was imposed on FBI documents obtained from files maintained on appellant to protect information that was provided by a foreign intelligence agency or that would reveal cooperation with a foreign intelligence agency. In addition, the official averred that certain portions of these documents were classified to avoid the disclosure of an intelligence method or a confidential source and to avoid the release of the FBI's specific interest in a foreign diplomatic establishment. 41 Classification was also imposed on certain materials found in FBI files maintained on individuals other than appellant to avoid disclosing intelligence sources or methods, to avoid revealing the FBI's relationship with a foreign intelligence agency which had requested confidentiality, and to protect the FBI's interest in a specific foreign relations matter. 42 32 The affidavit detailed at length the type of harm that would result from the disclosure of the materials. 43 First, the FBI official explained that disclosure of confidential intelligence sources would destroy the usefulness of these sources for gathering further intelligence, would discourage others from becoming active providers of intelligence, and would subject these individuals to the risk of retaliation. 44 Second, the affiant averred that materials provided by foreign intelligence agencies or pertaining to cooperative arrangements between the FBI and the foreign entities were classified because the foreign agencies involved specifically had requested such secrecy. A failure to honor the agreements to maintain the confidentiality of this information, the official explained, could be expected to dissuade foreign agencies from entrusting additional information, to the Bureau. 45 Third, the classifying officer stated that information concerning intelligence methods and practices of the Bureau could not be made public without completely destroying the usefulness of these techniques for future intelligence operations. 46 Finally, with respect to foreign matters of investigative interest to the Bureau, the official explained that (t)he acknowledgement of the details or specific targets and methods described in these documents could lead to the disruption of foreign relations by precipitating possible diplomatic confrontations which could damage national security. 47 33 We think that the affidavits indicate a logical nexus between the information at issue and the claimed exemption. 48 First, the information clearly fits within one of three categories enumerated in Executive Order No. 12,065: foreign government information, intelligence activities, sources or methods, or foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States. 49 Second, contrary to appellant's contention, we think that the affidavits depict with reasonably specific detail the nature of the documents at issue and the harm that could be expected to occur. The release of further detail could well impair legitimate secrecy needs and thus defeat the purpose of the exemption. 34 A more particularized indication of the type of intelligence sources involved reasonably could be expected to destroy their particular usefulness for future intelligence gathering and even subject these individuals to some risk of retaliation. As the Supreme Court observed in Snepp v. United States : The continued availability of these . . . sources depends upon the (agency's) ability to guarantee the security of information that might compromise them and even endanger (their) personal safety. 50 We also are persuaded that a more detailed description of the types of intelligence methods involved could render these methods ineffective for future intelligence operations. Finally, as we indicated in Lesar v. United States Department of Justice, a more precise indication of the type of intelligence cooperation between foreign governmental agencies and the FBI or a description of the information provided in confidence by these foreign agencies would not only violate the agreement to maintain this information in confidence, and thus disclose the sensitive nature of the materials, but also reasonably could be expected to impair future intelligence exchanges as a result. 51 35 In sum, we are convinced that the FBI has met its burden of showing that the materials logically fit within the claimed exemption. Appellant has provided absolutely no evidence to controvert the FBI's affidavits or to indicate bad faith on the part of the Bureau. We conclude that summary judgment for the Government on this issue was warranted without the need for an in camera inspection of the materials.