Access to Justice

RELEASE: State Secrets Privilege Not Grounded in Constitution

WASHINGTON – Following today’s oral argument in FBI v. Fazaga, where the Supreme Court considered whether allegations of unlawful government surveillance may be adjudicated using procedures in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, instead of being dismissed as a result of the state secrets privilege, Constitutional Accountability Center Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod issued the following statement:

The Supreme Court is considering today whether individuals who allege that the FBI unlawfully targeted them for surveillance because of their religion can have their day in court, and the government has looked to the Constitution in an attempt to buttress its argument that no court should hear these individuals’ claims. The government is wrong.

According to the government, dismissal of the plaintiffs’ case is required by the state secrets privilege, which allows the government to withhold information from judicial proceedings if its disclosure would harm national security. And according to the government, the state secrets privilege is rooted in the Constitution, and that should influence the way the Justices interpret the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law that the Ninth Circuit held displaces the state secrets privilege and allows the case to proceed.

As we explain in our brief, the history of the state secrets privilege makes clear that the government’s argument is wildly off base. When the federal courts developed the privilege during the early twentieth century, they did so using their common law authority to craft evidentiary rules based on their own perceptions of sound public policy, without any reference to constitutional considerations. When the Justices decide whether this case can proceed, their decision should not be influenced by an inaccurate account of the history of the privilege.

#

Resources:

CAC case page in FBI v. Fazaga: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/federal-bureau-of-investigation-v-fazaga/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Beck v. United States

In Beck v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether servicemembers may sue the United States for money damages pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act when they are injured in the course of...
Access to Justice
March 19, 2025

Fight over False Claims Act whistleblower provision heats up on appeal

Reuters
At first glance, it might seem far-fetched to suggest a whistleblower law that’s been on...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Martin v. United States

In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Supremacy Clause overrides the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)’s express waiver of sovereign immunity when a federal employee’s actions “have some nexus with...
Access to Justice
February 21, 2025

TV (Gray DC): CAC’s Becker-Cohen Joins Gray DC to Discuss Procedural Due Process Claim in Death Row Case

Gray DC
Access to Justice
February 24, 2025

RELEASE: As Justice Jackson Points Out, Seemingly Narrow Death-Penalty Case Would Have “Major Implications” for Standing Jurisprudence if Court Adopted Texas’s Argument

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Gutierrez v....
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates

In United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act violates the Appointments...