Totten v. United States
92 U.S. 105, 23 L. Ed. 605, 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1732 (1876)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Public policy forbids suits against the government founded upon a contract for secret services, such as espionage, because the public disclosure required for litigation would breach the implied condition of secrecy inherent in the contract itself.
Facts:
- In July 1861, President Abraham Lincoln entered into a contract with William A. Lloyd.
- Under the agreement, Lloyd was to travel into the insurrectionary Southern states to act as a secret agent for the United States.
- His duties included ascertaining the number of Confederate troops, procuring plans of forts, and gathering other beneficial intelligence for the U.S. government.
- In exchange for these services, Lloyd was to be paid a salary of $200 per month.
- Lloyd proceeded behind Confederate lines and performed these secret services for the duration of the Civil War, transmitting information to the President.
- Following the war's conclusion, the government only reimbursed Lloyd for his expenses and did not pay the stipulated salary.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrator of William A. Lloyd's estate, Totten, filed a petition against the United States in the Court of Claims to recover payment under the alleged contract.
- The judges of the Court of Claims were equally divided in opinion on the President's authority to bind the United States to the contract.
- For the purpose of facilitating an appeal, the Court of Claims entered a judgment against the claimant and dismissed the petition.
- The claimant then appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 public policy forbid an action in the Court of Claims to enforce a contract for secret espionage services made with the President on behalf of the United States?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Field
Yes. Public policy forbids the maintenance of a suit to enforce a contract for secret government services because the very nature of such an agreement implies a condition of permanent secrecy. While the President has the authority as commander-in-chief to employ secret agents, the enforcement of such contracts in a public court is impossible. The court reasoned that both the employer (the government) and the agent must have understood that the details of their arrangement were to remain sealed forever. Allowing a lawsuit would necessitate public disclosure of the secret service, which would itself constitute a breach of the contract's implied terms. This publicity would endanger agents, compromise government operations, and render future secret services impossible. Therefore, agents in such matters must look for compensation to the executive's contingent funds rather than to the courts.
Analysis:
This case establishes the foundational principle of the Totten doctrine, creating a categorical bar to lawsuits that would reveal state secrets related to espionage contracts. The decision prioritizes national security and the government's ability to conduct foreign policy and clandestine operations over an individual's contractual rights. By making such contracts unenforceable in court, the ruling forces agents to rely solely on the executive branch's discretion for payment. This precedent is a cornerstone of the broader state secrets privilege, influencing how courts handle cases where litigation could expose sensitive national security information, extending far beyond contract law.
Unlock the full brief for Totten v. United States