Court Opinion

ID: 9466255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:09:50.871718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:37.745177
License: Public Domain

CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in those portions of Judge No-land’s opinion with respect to the informant’s identity and the Counterintelligence Research Files System. Regretfully, I dissent with respect to the Army Regulations and Field Manual for which the defendants only assert the state secrets privilege enunciated in United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 73 S.Ct. 528, 97 L.Ed. 727.1
As Judge Kirkland correctly ruled, in order to determine whether records should be produced that are classified “Secret” by the Government, it is necessary to conduct an in camera review of the documents. Otherwise the Government could so classify documents just to avoid their production when there is no true need for secrecy. As stated in Reynolds, supra at 9-10, 73 S.Ct. at 533, “Judicial control over the evidence in a case cannot be abdicated to the caprice of executive officers.” Judicial scrutiny of government domestic security claims is therefore especially appropriate. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 320-321, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752; Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187, 1194-1195 (D.C.Cir. 1978).
Like the district judge, I have reviewed the concededly relevant Army Field Manual and Army Regulations in question and fully agree with him that the state secrets privilege claim is “not meritorious in light of the protective order in effect in this case 2 and in light of defendants’ assertions that all military domestic intelligence ceased in 1971” (App. 74). As with Judge Kirkland, “I found State secrets not to exist” (Supp. App. 32). Moreover the protective order will suffice to keep these materials from public view, but even if there were no protective order, the contents of these documents would scarcely surprise sophisticated members of our own public or foreign powers.
Unlike Halkin v. Helms, 194 U.S.App. D.C. 182, 598 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir. 1978), on which the Government so heavily relies, these documents do not strictly concern past and ongoing foreign intelligence gathering. The Government asserts that although the plaintiffs are interested only in domestic surveillance of domestic activities, the procedures described by the regulations and manual at issue also applied to foreign intelligence conducted both in this country and abroad. To that extent, the purely domestic surveillance involved in this case may not be completely segregable from foreign intelligence gathering. Unlike the situation in Halkin, however, the documents at issue here involve only very general in*285telligence techniques and could not reveal to any foreign power the fact that surveillance of its activities occurred, the targets and extent of such surveillance, or the means by which it was accomplished.
Furthermore, in Halkin the reviewing court basically affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the material requested was privileged. While the appellate court also reversed the district court’s decision to release certain information, this was because the district court had mistakenly believed that information to be segregable from the protected material, and was not due to any disagreement about the reach of the privilege. The appellate court recognized that “it is the showing of necessity that determines how deeply the court must probe to satisfy itself of the validity of the claim * * * ” (194 U.S.App.D.C. at 90, 598 F.2d at 9). The district court is better situated than a reviewing court to assess a plaintiff’s need for discovery. Here the district court explicitly concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a need for this material. Its decision to allow discovery of disputed documents should be accorded appropriate deference and should be reversed only if our own in camera inspection convinces us that their release even under a protective order would constitute a true threat to the nation’s security. It is unclear whether the majority was (unlike myself) so convinced or whether it employed a different standard of review.
The Government has not even suggested that the documents are protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act on which the majority relies.3 Since their disclosure would not endanger this nation’s interest and their relevance is plain, these documents should be produced.
APPENDIX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
No. 74 C 3268
Alliance To End Repression, et al., v. James Rochford, et al., Plaintiffs, Defendants.
Consolidated With
No. 75 C 3295
American Civil Liberties Union, et al., v. City Of Chicago, et al., Plaintiffs, Defendants.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties pursuant to the Court’s Order of July 1, 1976, and the Court being fully advised in the premises:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) Paragraph 4(b) of Pretrial Order No. 2 entered July 1, 1976 is hereby set aside. The Protective Order entered by this Court on July 31, 1975 is hereby vacated.
(2) Plaintiffs’ counsel may disclose any writings, recordings or their contents which contain the names of plaintiffs or members of plaintiff class to the subjects thereof. The “subject” of each writing or recording is defined as:
(a) any individual named in a writing or recording; or
(b) with respect to any organization named in a writing or recording, the organization’s present or past officers, staff and governing body members.
(3) Any individual named in a writing or recording may elect to make further disclosure of that writing or recording or the *286contents thereof, but only insofar as it concerns that subject. That individual may not disclose the contents of the writing or recording insofar as the contents identify the system by which the information was obtained. The “system” is defined as:
All information produced by defendants in discovery which concerns the structure of the intelligence-gathering government entity and the manner or mechanics by which defendants gather, compile, record, or otherwise obtain information about plaintiffs’ activities.
(4) Any organization named in a writing or recording may elect to make further disclosure of the writing or recording or the contents thereof, but only insofar as it concerns that organization. An organizational subject may not disclose the contents of the writing or recording to members of the organization or others insofar as the document identifies another individual or organization and insofar as the writing or recording identifies the system, as defined in paragraph (3) above, by which information was obtained.
(5) Prior to the dissemination of writings, recordings or the contents thereof to any plaintiff or class member, plaintiffs’ counsel will deliver a copy of this Order to that plaintiff or class member and will explain the binding nature of this Order.
(6) Plaintiffs’ counsel may adopt any more restrictive approach that they believe is in the best interest of members of plaintiff class.
(7) This Order does not prohibit plaintiffs’ attorneys from discussing the writings, recordings or their contents with counsel who have participated or are participating in litigation of a similar nature so long as the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) Before disclosing the writings, recordings, or their contents to such outside counsel, plaintiffs’ counsel will deliver a copy of this Order to such outside counsel and explain the binding nature of this Order;
(b) Before disclosing the writings, recordings, or their contents to such outside counsel, plaintiffs will obtain the consent of such counsel to the jurisdiction of this Court for the limited purpose of enforcing this Order;
(c) Such outside counsel may not disclose the writings, recordings, or their contents in any way.
(8) This Order in no way prohibits the parties from reporting any violations of law and any and all information relating to such violations to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
ENTER: /s/
ALFRED Y. KIRKLAND, JUDGE October 14, 1976

. The defendants did not rely on 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E), that Section of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on which the majority opinion rests its non-disclosure holding. As in Halkin v. Holmes, infra, they depended entirely upon the state secrets privilege.
If the defendants had attempted to rely on this exception to the FOIA, it would not have helped them. First, that Act only establishes the minimum amount of material that clearly is discoverable. A litigant with a demonstrated need for information is allowed to discover material that would not be routinely released under the FOIA. Second, in the 1974 amendments to the FOIA, Congress mandated de novo judicial review of an agency’s refusal to release documents, thereby clearly establishing that judicial deference to agency classification of its own documents is inappropriate. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).

. The protective order of October 14, 1976, is appended hereto. If defendants should consider it insufficient, plaintiffs’ counsel advised us at oral argument that they would not object to further restrictions. Other protective orders were also entered but are not as pertinent to this issue as the appended one.

. In their reply brief, the defendants cite 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) which makes the disclosure provisions inapplicable to matters that are “(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.” However, defendants' cite no Executive order that supports the secrecy of these documents. As defendants recognize, Executive Order No. 12065 (June 28, 1978), the only one cited by defendants, “in no way affects the ‘state secrets’ privilege” (Reply Br. 4). Indeed the Executive order requires the declassification of documents when, as here, there is a “public interest in disclosure of the information.”