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.
It is in the interests of the United States to appropriately protect information that needs to be protected while maintaining our participation in new discoveries to maintain our competitive advantage.
The question is not whether the capital exists (it does!), nor whether energy solutions are available (they are!), but whether we can align energy finance quickly enough to channel the right types of capital where and when it’s needed most.
Our analysis of federal AI governance across administrations shows that divergent compliance procedures and uneven institutional capacity challenge the government’s ability to deploy AI in ways that uphold public trust.
From California to New Jersey, wildfires are taking a toll—costing the United States up to $424 billion annually and displacing tens of thousands of people. Congress needs solutions.