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.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs.