Court Opinion

ID: 9453898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:27:34.670175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:51.390923
License: Public Domain

CRAVEN, Circuit Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
I agree with the court that summary judgment was improvidently entered. In addition to the deficiency pointed out by Chief Judge Haynsworth in the majority opinion, I suggest there are others, especially the failure to develop the scope of Raus’ duty. Indeed, it seems to me the affidavits and meager information elicited from Raus by deposition are merely conclusory and not at all sufficient to support summary judgment. I believe it error to accept general asser*792tions1 as a basis for summary judgment where the opposing party is without access to information normally available to test the affidavits because of the invocation of the state secrets privilege. Cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f).
The court says that if executive immunity “is to serve its intended purpose, it must extend to subordinate officials and employees who execute the officials’ orders.” This means that millions of federal employees are accorded absolute immunity from any liability whatsoever for intentional defamation either because such employees fall within the definition of “official” or “officer” as defined in Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed. 1434 (1959), or, like Raus, take orders from those who do. On remand, there is to be no further inquiry as to Raus’ “scope of duty.” It seems to me the court is assuming 2 that the publication of defamation is within his official duties, or it is holding that so long as he did what he was told to do the privilege extends even to conduct outside the scope of employment. I cannot believe that the latter is intended3 and, therefore, conclude the court must be making the' assumption. But the burden of proof is upon Raus to show that he is entitled to executive immunity, and there is no presumption to aid him. Prosser, Torts § 111 at 823 (3rd ed. 1964). Clearly, it seems to me, he has failed to sustain his burden. That he may have failed to do so because of (a) his secrecy agreement with CIA or (b) CIA’s invocation of the executive privilege to protect state secrets are appealing factors that furnish no leverage for decision. Raus does not attack the secrecy agreement if, indeed, he could do so. We are agreed that we may not invalidate the state secrecy privilege. If the result be that Raus cannot show that he acted within the scope of his employment and is thus entitled to a derivative privilege, it does not seem to me that the court ought to assume what he cannot establish. To do so is to put upon Heine a burden of proof that is not his and which he cannot possibly sustain: to show that Raus is not entitled to executive immunity.
The National Security Act specifically delegates to the Director, and not to the Agency, the statutory power relied on by the CIA and the district judge to justify the defamatory statements, and the affidavits do not suggest that the Director personally instructed Raus to defame Heine, nor is there any showing that the Director approved the defamation of Heine or properly delegated his responsibility to protect intelligence sources.4 On *793remand, surely a probing inquiry into this matter can be accomplished without compelling disclosure of “state secrets.” I do not view the omission as one sure to be remedied by the filing of another con-clusory affidavit.
The court today, it seems to me, extends Barr beyond its breaking point. I would not go so far for several reasons, one of which is the court’s concession that it is not necessary to do so, and that a qualified privilege would adequately protect the government employee in this case. I agree that such a result seems likely, and I would be content if Raus were accorded only that privilege and Heine given the opportunity to prove, if he can, actual malice.
What distinguishes this case for me from Barr and its progeny is the deliberate choice by the Central Intelligence Agency of defamation of character as an instrument of national policy. Such a factor alone seems to me to adequately distinguish Barr and all other cases with which I am familiar. I do not believe the Supreme Court in Barr intended that the immunity there recognized should extend to intentional defamation as an instrument of governmental policy. But if I am wrong about that, I suggest that a rule must be fashioned to limit the exercise of intentional defamation to responsible officers and officials. To immunize millions of government subordinate employees from liability for intentionally slandering private persons upon their mere explanation that they were told to do it, and the assertion that it was within the scope of employment, destroys, in my opinion, the balance that was struck in Barr. If the CIA must defame someone in order to protect national security, it seems to me it could be done more effectively by the Director himself rather than a secret underling — and with far less danger to a free society.
Justifying factors found in recent cases where absolute executive immunity has been sustained are not present in this case. See Spying and Slandering: An Absolute Privilege for the CIA Agent? 67 Colum.L.Rev. 752, 766-768 (1967). There is here no comment which served the interest of discussion and criticism of government activity or foreign relations. Not involved here are intra-departmental confidential communications necessary to the intelligent functioning of government. Nor is there any possibility here of scrutiny by an alternative remedial procedure in which Heine might vindicate himself or rehabilitate his reputation.5 The privilege is sought by one who is not subject — as are most federal employees — to normal public scrutiny and sanctions for improper conduct. Since Raus was instructed to defame Heine, it is scarcely to be supposed he will be reprimanded by CIA for doing so.
Unlike Barr v. Matteo and other typical defamation cases, there was here deliberate use of defamatory material, said even now, after the event, to have been authorized by an agency of government (not simply done by an “unworthy” individual employee) for the very purpose of destroying the influence and effectiveness of an individual. Barr was not intended to protect the oppressive use of governmental power. Nor was the rule in Barr formulated for the protection of the “unworthy” officer of government. The protection afforded such an officer was given to him, not because he deserved to have it but because of fear that if he was denied it, there might result a deterrent effect upon honest and well intentioned *794officers of government that would hamper government operation. The premise of Barr is that because of human foible officers of government may sometimes unfortunately defame innocent individuals and that protection of such an officer is a necessary evil in order to protect worthy officers from the fear of private civil libel actions. Barr envisioned defamation and possible slander as the occasional failures of fallible human beings acting as government officers and not as instruments of governmental policy. I think the immunity conferred in Barr has no application to a fact situation where defamation is chosen by a government agency as deliberate policy.6 That CIA may adopt a policy of defamation for the reason that it thinks such a policy is in the best interest of the United States is implicit in the silence of the Federal Tort Claim Act7 and the undoubted power of the executive to invoke the “state secrets” privilege in a proper ease. All that I would hold is that the individual person who publishes such defamation will not thereafter be entitled to absolute executive immunity under the doctrine enunciated in Barr as I understand it.
I would reverse and remand to the district court to consider whether or not Raus by reason of his position in the Estonian Legion is entitled to assert the qualified privilege commonly granted to those who have a special interest to preserve. See Prosser, Torts § 110 (3rd ed. 1964). I would also ask the district court to consider whether Heine was such a public figure as to afford defendant the privilege allowed under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), and its progeny. Surely, as the court suggests, one or the other of these ought to be enough.

. Rule 56(e) contemplates that a sufficient affidavit shall “set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence.”

. It is true that Helms’ affidavit contains the assertion that Raus was “acting within the scope and course of his employment” and was instructed to publish the defamatory words. Without factual aver-ments, i. e., job description, the statement is simply a legal conclusion, unless one is willing to say employment is always co-extensive with instructions of the employer.

. If Raus had shot Heine, presumably no court would exonerate him of tort liability on the ground he was told to do it —not even for the purpose of shielding the government official who told him. “When 007 plinks an enemy with a well directed projectile from his trusty Wal-ther PPK .32, aficionados give no thought to his possible legal liability; we are all aware that Bond is licensed to kill. In the real world, however, intelligence agents often strike not with guns but with words — allegations that destroy reputations, families, careers. And the question of their responsibility before the law is not nearly so settled as it is in the Fleming phantasmagoria.” Comment, Spying and Slandering; An Absolute Privilege for the CIA Agent? 67 Colum.L.Rev. 752 (1967), citing I. Fleming, Goldfinger 29 (1959).

. Helms’ affidavit of April 1, 1966, shows a broad delegation of powers to the Deputy Director effective April 28, 1965— long after the defamation of Heine occurred in 1963 and 1964.

. Indeed, Heine presented himself in Washington for arrest on the theory that if he were in fact a Communist, he would he guilty of failing to register under the Federal Foreign Agents Registration Act. 22 U.S.C.A. §§ 611-621 (1964) as amended (Supp.1966). Neither the FBI nor the OIA made any response. N.T. Times, April 28, 1966, at 29, col. 1; id., April 29, 1966, at 19, col. 1; id., May 14, 1966, at 2, col. 3.

. See Comment, 77 Yale L.J. 367, 387 (1967), where in discussing legislative immunity under U.S.Const. art. I, § 6, it is suggested that a defamed person ought to have “redress against conduct that no rationale for the constitutional privilege purports to justify: the exercise of public power with intent to inflict injury on private citizens or with reckless disregard for their interests.”

. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(h) excludes slander and libel actions.