Opinion ID: 370469
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hillenkoetter Statement.

Text: 19 The Hillenkoetter Statement is concededly an agency record. Although the entire 113-page document was originally classified Secret, the CIA has declassified approximately 80% Of it and released those portions to plaintiffs. The Agency contends that the deleted portions are exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemptions 1 49 and 3. The district court held this material ex empt, relying on Exemption 1. We agree, but base our holding instead on Exemption 3, without in any way impugning the correctness of Judge Hart's conclusion. 50 20 As originally enacted, FOIA provided that the Act's disclosure requirements (do) not apply to matters that are . . . (3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute. 51 Two statutes are relevant to an Exemption 3 claim by the CIA. A Proviso to 50 U.S.C. § 403(d)(3) states that the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. 52 Section 403g of the same title provides that, in order further to implement this Proviso, the Agency shall be exempted from . . . the provisions of any . . . law which require the publication or disclosure of the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency. 53 In Weissman v. CIA, 54 this Court squarely held that both § 403(d)(3) and § 403g are precisely the type of statutes comprehended by exemption (b)(3). 55 This conclusion derived incontrovertible support from legislative history 56 and was unanimously adopted by other courts. 57 21 In 1976 Congress amended Exemption 3 in order to eliminate the gap created in (FOIA) by the Supreme Court's decision in FAA Administrator v. Robertson. 58 Robertson held that a statute giving an agency broad discretion to withhold information in the interest of the public 59 qualified as an Exemption 3 statute. Congress amended Exemption 3 to provide that information shall be deemed Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute only if such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld. 60 There is nothing on the face of amended Exemption 3, or in its legislative history, to suggest that Congress in 1976 intended to upset the well-established Exemption 3 status of the CIA's protective statutes. Both § 403(d)(3) and § 403g refer( ) to particular types of matters to be withheld namely, information respecting intelligence sources and methods. Rep. Abzug, the amendment's primary sponsor in the House, explicitly stated on the floor that § 403g was one of the statutes intended to qualify under the new Exemption 3. 61 The only courts to consider the issue have held that the amendment left the Exemption 3 status of §§ 403(d)(3) and 403g unimpaired. 62 Scholarly commentators have reached the same conclusion. 63 22 Having decided that § 403(d)(3) and § 403g remain qualifying statutes under amended Exemption 3, we must determine whether the deleted portions of the Hillenkoetter Statement fall within these statutes' protective compass. A court may be able to make such a determination on the basis of affidavits, without the need for discovery or In camera inspection. 64 Exemption 3 differs from other FOIA exemptions in that its applicability depends less on the detailed factual contents of specific documents; the sole issue for decision is the existence of a relevant statute and the inclusion of withheld material within that statute's coverage. 65 23 In this case, the issue for decision is whether the CIA has shown by affidavit that release of the Hillenkoetter Statement in its entirety would reveal intelligence sources and methods, E. g., by revealing the organization or functions of CIA personnel. According to an affidavit submitted by CIA Legislative Counsel George L. Cary, the deleted portions of the Hillenkoetter Statement contain detailed descriptions of (1) intelligence collection and operational devices . . . still utilized; (2) methods of procurement and supply . . . unique to the Intelligence Community which are currently utilized; (3) basic concepts of intelligence methodology of which the essential elements remain viable; (4) specific clandestine intelligence operations, including the names (of) the foreign countries involved; and (5) certain intelligence methodologies of a friendly foreign government. This affidavit has not been challenged. It demonstrates, in nonconclusory and detailed fashion, 66 that the deleted material describes intelligence . . . methods, including the functions and organization of CIA personnel. 67 We hold, therefore, that the deleted portions of the Hillenkoetter Statement were properly withheld under FOIA Exemption 3. 24 The dissent would deny summary judgment on the Exemption 3 status of the Hillenkoetter Statement because the CIA did not furnish a Vaughn v. Rosen index of that document. 68 This argument exalts form over substance. Vaughn involved a request for numerous documents running to many hundreds of pages, and the Government made a blanket claim that the documents, as a whole, (were) exempt under three distinct exemptions. 69 We found it preposterous to contend that all of the information (was) equally exempt under all of the alleged exemptions, and found an adequate indexing system necessary owing to our inability to determine which exemptions appl(ied) to what portions of the information. 70 The present case involves 23 pages of deletions from one document. The CIA's affidavit lists the deletions; provides a relatively detailed analysis 71 of the material deleted; makes clear which exemptions are claimed for the deletions (Exemptions 1 & 3); and explains why the deleted material fits within the exemptions claimed (I. e., how the deletions relate to national security and intelligence sources and methods). The CIA's justifications, we think, could not have been much more detailed without compromis(ing) the secret nature of the information. 72 Although the Agency did not tender its analysis in the form of an index, it satisfied the detailed justification, specificity, and separation requirements whose satisfaction the Vaughn index was meant to ensure. Although we do not retreat in the least from our belief that an index is of great assistance to requesters and courts in appropriate cases, common sense suggests that an index was unnecessary for the 23 pages that were so specifically described and justified here. 25