A landmark 1953 U.S. Supreme Court ruling which affirmed the government’s use of the “state secrets” privilege to withhold information is the focus of a new book called “In the Name of National Security” by constitutional scholar Louis Fisher.
The 1953 case, United States v. Reynolds, revolved around a request by three widows for access to an accident report about a military plane crash in which their husbands died in 1948. The government refused to release the requested report.
Confronted by this dispute, Fisher writes, the Supreme Court had at least two valid options. It could have ruled in favor of the widows, granting their claims for damages in full, as lower courts had done. Or it could have subjected the disputed document to in camera review to determine whether withholding was justified on security grounds.
But the Court did neither. Instead, it upheld the government’s denial of the document without bothering to review it, establishing an unfortunate precedent that would resound throughout the coming decades up to the present day.
Fisher traces the fateful Reynolds case from its inception throughout the litigation process to its final resolution. And he considers the ramifications of this frequently cited case for current national security policy.
Richly detailed, the new book combines legal scholarship, critical analysis, and even some “Law and Order”-style suspense.
See “In the Name of National Security: Unchecked Presidential Power and the Reynolds Case” by Louis Fisher, University Press of Kansas, September 2006.
I will introduce Louis Fisher at a September 11 event at the Library of Congress, where he will discuss the book and sign copies. Come on by.
The Federation of American Scientists supports the Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act of 2026 (WEPA). The Act would amend Section 319(b) of the Clean Air Act so that it addresses prescribed burns as a standalone activity. If passed, this bill would support wildfire resilience by reducing administrative barriers to getting needed prescribed burns on the ground. […]
As Congress considers broader packages to advance critical minerals production and supply chain resilience, science diplomacy vehicles must be part of that conversation, not as an afterthought, but as an intentional and foundational pillar of any strategy.
“Structured partnerships with our allies on critical minerals innovation can ensure that the best science and the best talent are working together towards shared security and economic prosperity.”
This is a bipartisan, commonsense measure to reauthorize the Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) before it expires in September 2026.