Adele Halkin v. Richard Helms, Department of State
34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1611, 223 U.S. App. D.C. 254, 690 F.2d 977 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the state secrets privilege prevents a plaintiff from obtaining evidence necessary to prove an essential element of their claim, such as injury-in-fact, the claim is non-justiciable for lack of standing. A plaintiff cannot establish standing based on the mere possibility of injury, such as having their name placed on a government watchlist, without proof that the injurious surveillance actually occurred.
Facts:
- In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the plaintiffs, various individuals and organizations, were actively involved in protesting the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War.
- At the request of President Johnson, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) initiated 'Operation CHAOS' in 1967 to determine the extent of foreign influence on domestic anti-war movements.
- As part of Operation CHAOS, the CIA gathered intelligence on U.S. citizens through various methods, including surveillance by overseas stations, infiltration of anti-war groups by informants, and using information from other CIA programs like mail-opening operations.
- The CIA maintained thousands of computerized files on American citizens, ultimately developing specific files on 15 of the individual plaintiffs and all 5 plaintiff organizations.
- The CIA also submitted the names of some U.S. citizens to the National Security Agency (NSA) on 'watchlists,' which targeted them for potential interception of their international communications.
- Operation CHAOS was officially terminated in 1974.
Procedural Posture:
- Halkin and other plaintiffs sued CIA officials and other government agency heads in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking damages and injunctive/declaratory relief for alleged constitutional violations.
- During discovery, the government invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing specific information about its surveillance activities.
- The district court upheld the government's claim of privilege.
- Based on the privilege, plaintiffs conceded they could not prove their damages claims, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants.
- The district court also granted summary judgment to the agency heads on the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, finding no likelihood of future harm and that plaintiffs could not prove injury from NSA watchlisting.
- Halkin and the remaining plaintiffs, the appellants, appealed the district court's orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where the CIA officials were the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the state secrets privilege, which prevents plaintiffs from proving that their communications were intercepted by the National Security Agency, preclude them from having the necessary standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief against the Central Intelligence Agency for the practice of placing their names on watchlists?
Opinions:
Majority - MacKinnon, Circuit Judge
Yes, the state secrets privilege, by preventing plaintiffs from proving their communications were intercepted, precludes them from establishing the injury-in-fact required for standing. A plaintiff's claim is non-justiciable without proof of a concrete injury. The court first affirmed the district court's upholding of the state secrets privilege regarding Operation CHAOS, finding that the Director of the CIA's public affidavit was sufficient to establish a reasonable danger to national security, such as revealing foreign intelligence relationships and the identities of covert sources. The court then held that because the privilege prevents the plaintiffs from proving that the NSA actually intercepted their communications, they cannot demonstrate the 'injury in fact' necessary for standing. The mere act of placing a name on a watchlist is not a constitutional violation in itself; the potential injury stems from the interception, which cannot be proven. Consequently, their claims for relief regarding watchlisting are not justiciable. Similarly, claims for injunctive relief regarding Operation CHAOS fail because the program was terminated long ago, making any threat of future harm purely speculative, and claims for declaratory relief are moot because the challenged government policy is no longer active and its recurrence is contingent on executive discretion.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the formidable power of the state secrets privilege as a barrier to litigation challenging government intelligence activities. It establishes that when the privilege validly shields the very evidence needed to prove injury, it can defeat a plaintiff's standing, rendering the claim non-justiciable. The ruling reinforces a high bar for standing, rejecting claims based on a subjective 'chill' or the mere potential for harm without concrete proof of an actual injury. Consequently, it significantly limits the ability of individuals to seek judicial redress for alleged constitutional violations arising from clandestine national security programs, shifting the responsibility for oversight and remedy to Congress.
