Director of Central Intelligence Agency Porter J. Goss invoked the state secrets privilege last month to block litigation filed against the CIA and another U.S. Government agency.
The likely effect is to terminate the case, for reasons that DCIA Goss said cannot be explained on the public record.
“After deliberation and personal consideration, I have determined that the bases for my assertion of the state secrets privilege cannot be filed on the public court record, or in any sealed filing accessible to the plaintiffs or their attorneys, without revealing the very information that I seek to protect,” Director Goss stated in an unclassified March 16 Declaration (pdf).
Little is known about the case. Even the identity of one of the government agencies that is a defendant in the suit has been withheld from disclosure.
What is known is that last September, attorney Mark S. Zaid filed a lawsuit on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff, Jane Doe, and three minors, alleging violations of the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the U.S. Constitution, in this country and abroad. See the severely redacted complaint (pdf).
The government defended its assertion of the state secrets privilege and moved for dismissal of the case in a March 29, 2006 memorandum of law (pdf).
“Use of the state secrets privilege in courts has grown significantly over the last twenty-five years,” wrote William G. Weaver and Robert M. Pallitto in a study of the privilege in Political Science Quarterly last year (“State Secrets and Executive Power,” PSQ, volume 120, no. 1, Spring 2005).
“Recent use of the state secrets privilege shows a tendency on the part of the executive branch to expand the privilege to cover a wide variety of contexts,” they found.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.