Court Opinion

ID: 9427762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:21:49.148335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:09.527423
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stevens,
with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Marshall join,
dissenting.
In 1968, Frank W. Snepp signed an employment agreement with the CIA in which he agreed to submit to the Agency any information he intended to publish about it for prepubli-cation review.1 The purpose of such an agreement, as the Fourth Circuit held, is not to give the CIA the power to censor its employees’ critical speech, but rather to ensure that classified, nonpublic information is not disclosed without the Agency’s permission. 595 F. 2d 926, 932 (1979); see also United States v. Marchetti, 466 F. 2d 1309, 1317 (CA4 1972), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1063.
In this case Snepp admittedly breached his duty to submit the manuscript of his book, Decent Interval, to the CIA for prepublication review. However, the Government has conceded that the book contains no classified, nonpublic material.2 Thus, by definition, the interest in confidentiality *517that Snepp’s contract was designed to protect has not been compromised. Nevertheless, the Court today grants the Government unprecedented and drastic relief in the form of a constructive trust over the profits derived by Snepp from the sale of the book. Because that remedy is not authorized by any applicable law and because it is most inappropriate for the Court to dispose of this novel issue summarily on the Government’s conditional cross-petition for certiorari, I respectfully dissent.
I
The rule of law the Court announces today is not supported by statute, by the contract, or by the common law. Although Congress has enacted a number of criminal statutes punishing the unauthorized dissemination of certain types of classified information,3 it has not seen fit to authorize the constructive trust remedy the Court creates today. Nor does either of the contracts Snepp signed with the Agency provide for any such remedy in the event of a breach.4 The Court’s per curiam *518opinion seems to suggest that its result is supported by a blend of the law of trusts and the law of contracts.5 But neither of these branches of the common law supports the imposition of a constructive trust under the circumstances of this case.
Plainly this is not a typical trust situation in which a set-tlor has conveyed legal title to certain assets to a trustee for the use and benefit of designated beneficiaries. Rather, it is an employment relationship in which the employee possesses fiduciary obligations arising out of his duty of loyalty to his employer. One of those obligations, long recognized by the common law even in the absence of a written employment agreement, is the duty to protect confidential or “classified” information. If Snepp had breached that obligation, the common law would support the implication of a constructive trust upon the benefits derived from his misuse of confidential information.6
But Snepp did not breach his duty to protect confidential information. Rather, he breached a contractual duty, imposed in aid of the basic duty to maintain confidentiality, to *519obtain prepublication clearance. In order to justify the imposition of a constructive trust, the majority attempts to equate this contractual duty with Snepp’s duty not to disclose, labeling them both as “fiduciary.” I find nothing in the common law to support such an approach.
Employment agreements often contain covenants designed to ensure in various ways that an employee fully complies with his duty not to disclose or misuse confidential information. One of the most common is a covenant not to compete. Contrary to the majority’s approach in this case, the courts have not construed such covenants broadly simply because they support a basic fiduciary duty; nor have they granted sweeping remedies to enforce them. On the contrary, because such covenants are agreements in restraint of an individual’s freedom of trade, they are enforceable only if they can survive scrutiny under the “rule of reason.” That rule, originally laid down in the seminal case of Mitchel v. Reynolds, 1 P. Wms. 181, 24 Eng. Rep. 347 (1711), requires that the covenant be reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate interest of the employer (such as an interest in confidentiality), that the employer’s interest not be outweighed by the public interest,7 and that the covenant not be of any longer duration or wider geographical scope than necessary to protect the employer’s interest.8
*520The Court has not persuaded me that a rule of reason analysis should not be applied to Snepp’s covenant to submit to prepublication review. Like an ordinary employer, the CIA has a vital interest in protecting certain types of information; at the same time, the CIA employee has a countervailing interest in preserving a wide range of work opportunities (including work as an author) and in protecting his First Amendment rights. The public interest lies in a proper accommodation that will preserve the intelligence mission of the Agency while not abridging the free flow of unclassified information. When the Government seeks to enforce a harsh restriction on the employee’s freedom,9 despite its admission that the interest the agreement was designed to protect — the confidentiality of classified information — has not been compromised, an equity court might well be persuaded that the case is not one in which the covenant should be enforced.10
*521But even assuming that Snepp’s covenant to submit to pre-publication review should be enforced, the constructive trust imposed by the Court is not an appropriate remedy. If an employee has used his employer’s confidential information for his own personal profit, a constructive trust over those profits is obviously an appropriate remedy because the profits are the direct result of the breach. But Snepp admittedly did not use confidential information in his book; nor were the profits from his book in any sense a product of his failure to submit the book for prepublication review. For, even if Snepp had submitted the book to the Agency for prepublication review, the Government’s censorship authority would surely have been limited to the excision of classified material. In this case, then, it would have been obliged to clear the book for publication in precisely the same form as it now stands.11 Thus, Snepp has not gained any profits as a result of his breach; the Government, rather than Snepp, will be unjustly enriched if he is required to disgorge profits attributable entirely to his own legitimate activity.
Despite the fact that Snepp has not caused the Government the type of harm that would ordinarily be remedied by *522the imposition of a constructive trust, the Court attempts to justify a constructive trust remedy on the ground that the Government has suffered some harm. The Court states that publication of "unreviewed material” by a former CIA agent “can be detrimental to vital national interests even if the published information is unclassified.” Ante, at 511-512. It then seems to suggest that the injury in such cases stems from the Agency’s inability to catch “harmful” but unclassified information before it is published. I do not believe, however, that the Agency has any authority to censor its employees’ publication of unclassified information on the basis of its opinion that publication may be “detrimental to vital national interests” or otherwise “identified as harmful.” Ibid. The CIA never attempted to assert such power over Snepp in either of the contracts he signed; rather, the Agency itself limited its censorship power to preventing the disclosure of “classified” information. Moreover, even if such a wide-ranging prior restraint would be good national security policy, I would have great difficulty reconciling it with the demands of the First Amendment.
The Court also relies to some extent on the Government’s theory at trial that Snepp caused it harm by flouting his pre-publication review obligation and thus making it appear that the CIA was powerless to prevent its agents from publishing any information they chose to publish, whether classified or not. The Government theorized that this appearance of weakness would discourage foreign governments from cooperating with the CIA because of a fear that their secrets might also be compromised. In support of its position that Snepp’s book had in fact had such an impact, the Government introduced testimony by the Director of the CIA, Admiral Stans-field Turner, stating that Snepp’s book and others like it had jeopardized the CIA’s relationship with foreign intelligence services by making them unsure of the Agency’s ability to maintain confidentiality. Admiral Turner’s truncated testimony does not explain, however, whether these unidentified *523“other'5 books actually contained classified information.12 If so, it is difficult to believe that the publication of a book like Snepp’s, which does not reveal classified information, has significantly weakened the Agency’s position. Nor does it explain whether the unidentified foreign agencies who have stopped cooperating with the CIA have done so because of a legitimate fear that secrets will be revealed or because they merely disagree with our Government’s classification policies.13
In any event, to the extent that the Government seeks to punish Snepp for the generalized harm he has caused by failing to submit to prepublication review and to deter others from following in his footsteps, punitive damages is, as the Court of Appeals held, clearly the preferable remedy “since a constructive trust depends on the concept of unjust enrichment rather than deterrence and punishment. See D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 3.9 at 205 and § 4.3 at 246 (1973).” 595 F. 2d, at 937.14
*524II
The Court’s decision to dispose of this case summarily on the Government’s conditional cross-petition for certiorari is just as unprecedented as its disposition of the merits.
Snepp filed a petition for certiorari challenging the Fourth Circuit’s decision insofar as it affirmed the entry of an injunction requiring him to submit all future-manuscripts for pre-publication review and remanded for a determination of whether punitive damages would be appropriate for his failure to submit Decent Interval to the Agency prior to its publication. The Government filed a brief in opposition as well as a cross-petition for certiorari; the Government specifically stated, however, that it was cross petitioning only to bring the entire case before the Court in the event that the Court should decide to grant Snepp’s petition. The Government explained that “[bjecause the contract remedy provided by the court of appeals appears to be sufficient in this case to protect the Agency’s interest, the government has not independently sought review in this Court.” In its concluding paragraph the Government stated: “If this Court grants [Snepp’s] . . . petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 78-1871, it should also grant this cross-petition. If the petition in No. 78-1871 is denied, this petition should also be denied.” Pet. for Cert, in No. 79-265, p. 5.
Given the Government’s position, it would be highly inappropriate, and perhaps even beyond this Court’s jurisdiction, to grant the Government’s petition while denying Snepp’s. Yet that is in essence what has been done.15 The majority obviously does not believe that Snepp’s claims merit this Court’s consideration, for they are summarily dismissed in a *525footnote. Ante, at 509, n. 3. It is clear that Snepp’s petition would not have been granted on its own merits.
The Court’s opinion is a good demonstration of why this Court should not reach out to decide a question not necessarily presented to it, as it has done in this case. Despite the fact that the Government has specifically stated that the punitive damages remedy is “sufficient” to protect its interests, the Court forges ahead and summarily rejects that remedy on the grounds that (a) it is too speculative and thus would not provide the Government with a “reliable deterrent against similar breaches of security,” ante, at 514, and (b) it might require the Government to reveal confidential information in court, the Government might forgo damages- rather than make such disclosures, and the Government might thus be left with “no remedy at all,” ante, at 515. It seems to me that the Court is foreclosed from relying upon either ground by the Government’s acquiescence in the punitive damages remedy. Moreover, the second rationale16 is entirely speculative and, in this case at least, almost certainly wrong. The Court states that.
“[p]roof of the tortious conduct necessary to sustain an award of punitive damages might force the Government to disclose some of the very confidences that Snepp promised to protect.” Ante, at 514.
Yet under th,e Court of Appeals’ opinion the Government would be entitled to punitive damages simply by proving that Snepp deceived it into believing that he was going, to comply with his duty to submit the manuscript for prepubli-cation review and that the Government relied on these misrepresentations to its detriment. I fail to see how such a showing would require the Government to reveal any confidential information or to expose itself to “probing discovery into the Agency’s highly confidential affairs.” Ante, at 515.
*526Ill
The uninhibited character of today’s exercise in lawmaking is highlighted by the Court’s disregard of two venerable principles that favor a more conservative approach to this case.
First, for centuries the English-speaking judiciary refused to grant equitable relief unless the plaintiff could show that his remedy at law was inadequate. Without waiting for an opportunity to appraise the adequacy of the punitive damages remedy in this case, the Court has jumped to the conclusion that equitable relief is necessary.
Second, and of greater importance, the Court seems unaware of the fact that its drastic new remedy has been fashioned to enforce a species of prior restraint on a citizen’s right to criticize his government.17 Inherent in this prior restraint is the risk that the reviewing agency will misuse its authority to delay the publication of a critical work or to persuade an author to modify the contents of his work beyond the demands of secrecy. The character of the covenant as a prior restraint on free speech surely imposes an especially heavy burden on the censor to justify the remedy it seeks. It would take more than the Court has written to persuade me that that burden has been met.
I respectfully dissent.

 Snepp also signed a termination agreement in 1976 in which he made substantially the same commitment.

 In response to an interrogatory asking whether it contended that “Decent Interval contains classified information or any information concerning intelligence or CIA that has not been made public by CIA,” the Government stated that “[f]or the purpose of this action, plaintiff does not so contend.” Record Item No. 24, p. 14. Because of this concession, the District Judge sustained the Government’s objections to defense efforts *517to determine whether Decent Interval in fact contains information that the Government considers classified. See, e, g., the testimony of Admiral Stansfield Turner, Director of the CIA, Tr. 135; and of Herbert Hetu, the CIA’s Director of Public Affairs, Tr. 153.

 See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 798, which imposes a prison term of 10 years and a $10,000 fine for knowingly and willfully publishing certain types of classified information; 18 U. S. C. § 794, which makes it a criminal offense punishable by life in prison to communicate national defense information to a foreign government; and 5 U. S. C. §8312, which withdraws the right to Government retirement benefits from a person convicted of violating these statutes. See also Exec. Order No. 12065, 3 CFR 190 (1979), note following 50 U. S. C. § 401 (1976 ed., Supp. II), which provides administrative sanctions, including discharge, against employees who publish classified information. Thus, even in the absence of a constructive trust remedy, an agent like Snepp would hardly be free, as the majority suggests, “to publish whatever he pleases.” Ante, at 513, n. 8.

 In both his original employment agreement and the termination agreement Snepp acknowledged the criminal penalties that might attach to any publication of classified information. In his employment agreement he also agreed that a breach of the agreement would be cause for termina*518tion of his employment. No other remedies were mentioned in either agreement.

 In a footnote, see ante, at 515, n. 11, the Court suggests that it need not look to the common law to support its holding because the .case involves a written contract. But, inasmuch as the contract itself does not state What remedy is to be applied in the event of a breach, the common law is the only source of law to which we can look to determine what constitutes an appropriate remedy.

 See, e. g., Sperry Rand Corp. v. A-T-O, Inc., 447 F. 2d. 1387, 1392 (CA4 1971) (Virginia law), cert. denied, 405 U. S. 1017; Tlapek v. Chevron Oil Co., 407 F. 2d 1129 (CA8 1969) (Arkansas law); Structural Dynamics Research Corp. v. Engineering Mechanics Research Corp., 401 F.Supp. 1102, 1120 (ED Mich. 1975) (Michigan law); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 396 (c) (1958) (“Unless otherwise agreed, after the termination of the agency, the agent: . . . (c) has a duty to account for profits made by the sale or use of trade secrets and other confidential information, whether or not in competition with the principal . . .”).

 As the court held in Herbert Morris, Ltd. v. Saxelby, [1916] A. C. 688, 704, the employer’s interest in protecting trade secrets does not outweigh the public interest in keeping the employee in the work force:
“[A]n employer can [not] prevent his employee from using the skill and knowledge in his trade or profession which he has learnt in the course of his employment by means of directions or instructions from the employer. That information and that additional skill he is entitled to use for the benefit of himself and the benefit of the public who gain the advantage of his having had such admirable instruction. The case in which the Court interferes for the purpose of protection is where use is made, not of the skill which the man may have acquired, but of the secrets of the trade or profession which he had no right to reveal to any one else. . . .”

 See, e. g., Briggs v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 589 F. 2d 39, 41 (CA1 *5201978) (Illinois law); American Hot Rod Assn., Inc. v. Carrier, 500 F. 2d 1269, 1277 (CA4 1974) (North Carolina law); Alston Studios, Inc. v. Lloyd V. Gress & Associates, 492 F. 2d 279, 282 (CA4 1974) (Virginia law); Mixing Equipment Co. v. Philadelphia Gear, Inc., 436 F. 2d 1308, 1312 (CA3 1971) (New York law); Water Services, Inc. v. Tesco Chemicals, Inc., 410 F. 2d 163, 167 (CA5 1969) (Georgia law); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 330 (Tent. Draft No. 12, Mar. 1, 1977).

 The covenant imposes a serious prior restraint on Snepp’s ability to speak freely, see n. 17, infra, and is of indefinite duration and scope— factors that would make most similar covenants unenforceable. See, e. g., Alston Studios, Inc. v. Lloyd V. Gress & Associates, supra, at 283 (holding void under Virginia law a covenant with no geographical limitation); American Hot Rod Assn., Inc. v. Carrier, supra, at 1279 (holding void under North Carolina law a covenant with no durational or geographical limitation); E. L. Conwell & Co. v. Gutberlet, 429 F. 2d 527, 528 (CA4 1970) (holding void under Maryland law a covenant with no durational or geographical limitation).

 The Court correctly points out that the Government may regulate certain activities of its employees that would be protected by the First Amendment in other contexts. Ante, at 509, n. 3. But none of the cases it cites involved a requirement that an employee submit all proposed public statements for prerelease censorship or approval. The Court has not pre*521viously considered the enforceability of this kind of prior restraint or the remedy that should be imposed in the event of a breach.

 If he had submitted the book to the Agency and the Agency had refused to consent to the publication of certain material in it, Snepp could have obtained judicial review to determine whether the Agency was correct in considering the material classified. See United States v. Marchetti, 466 F. 2d 1309, 1317 (CA4 1972), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 1063. It is noteworthy that the Court does not disagree with the Fourth Circuit’s view in Marchetti, reiterated in Snep-p, that a CIA employee has a First Amendment right to publish unclassified information. Thus, despite its reference in footnote 3 of its opinion to the Government’s so-called compelling interest in protecting “the appearance of confidentiality,” ante, at 509, n. 3, and despite some ambiguity in the Court’s reference to “detrimental” and “harmful” as opposed to “classified” information, ante, at 511-512, I do not understand the Court to imply that the Government could obtain an injunction against the publication of unclassified information.

 The District Judge sustained the Government’s objections to questions concerning the identity of other agents who had published the unauthorized works to which Admiral Turner referred. Tr. 136. However, Admiral Turner did testify that the harmful materials involved “primarily the appearance in the United States media of identification of sources and methods of collecting intelligence. . . .” Id., at 143. This type of information is certainly classified and is specifically the type of information that Snepp has maintained he did not reveal in Decent Interval. See, e. g., Snepp’s December 7, 1977, interview on the Tomorrow show, in which he stated: “I have made a very determined effort not to expose sources or methods. . . .” Government’s Requests for Admissions, Record Item 19, Exhibit I, p. 5.

 Snepp’s attorneys were foreclosed from asking Admiral Turner whether particular foreign sources had stopped cooperating with United States’ authorities as a direct result of the publication of Decent Interval. Tr. 138. Thus, it is unclear whether or why foreign sources may have reacted unfavorably to its publication. However, William E. Colby, the CIA’s former Director, did indicate in his testimony that foreign nations generally have a stricter secrecy code than does the United States. Id., at 175-176.

 One of the Court’s justifications for its constructive trust remedy is that “it cannot saddle the former agent with exemplary damages out of all *524proportion to his gain.” Ante, at 516. This solicitude for Snepp’s welfare is rather ironic in view of the Draconian nature of the remedy imposed by the Court today.

 I have been unable to discover any previous case in which the Court has acted as it does today, reaching the merits of a conditional cross-petition despite its belief that the petition does not merit granting certiorari.

 Which, it should be noted, does not appear anywhere in the Government’s 5-page cross-petition.

 The mere fact that the Agency has the authority to review the text of a critical book in search of classified information before it is published is bound to have an inhibiting effect on the author’s writing. Moreover, the right to delay publication until the review is completed is itself a form of prior restraint that would not be tolerated in other contexts. See, e. g., New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U. S. 713; Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U. S. 539. In view of the national interest in maintaining an effective intelligence service, I am not prepared to say that the restraint is necessarily intolerable in this context. I am, however, prepared to say that, certiorari having been granted, the issue surely should not be resolved in the absence of full briefing and argument.