%PDF-1.3 %% %%Page: 1 1 4 0 obj << /Length 5 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm /F1 13 Tf 100 Tz 88.1395 -8.4 Td 1.3 Tw 0 Tc (FOR PUBLICATION) Tj /F1 15 Tf 100 Tz -78.2395 -24 Td 1.5 Tw (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj 43.47 -16 Td (FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -53.37 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (J) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OHN) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( D) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OE AND) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( J) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ANE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( D) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 76.332 -13.2 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellees,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 6.168 -18 Td (v.) Tj 132.57 -1.8 Td (No. 01-35419) Tj -215.07 -16.2 Td (G) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (EORGE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( J. T) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, Individually and) Tj 226.734 -1.8 Td (D.C. No.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -45.114 -7.9 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -3.5 Td 1.2 Tw (as Director of Central Intelligence) Tj 202.668 -1.8 Td (CV-99-01597-RSL) Tj -202.668 -11.4 Td (and Director of the Central) Tj 224.34 -6.6 Td (OPINION) Tj -224.34 -6.6 Td (Intelligence Agency; U) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (TATES OF) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (MERICA) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 61.008 -13.2 Td (Defendants-Appellants.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 120.612 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -142.878 -26.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj 14.442 -13.2 Td (for the Western District of Washington) Tj -8.85 -13.2 Td (Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding) Tj 50.136 -26.2 Td (Argued and Submitted) Tj -41.76 -13.2 Td (February 7, 2002Seattle, Washington) Tj 48.156 -26.2 Td (Filed May 29, 2003) Tj -85.65 -26.2 Td (Before: William) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (C.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Canby,) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Jr., Marsha) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (S.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Berzon,*) Tj ( and) Tj 47.088 -13.2 Td (Richard) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (C.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Tallman, Circuit Judges.) Tj 22.734 -26.2 Td (Opinion by Judge Berzon;) Tj .666 -13.2 Td (Dissent by Judge Tallman) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm 0 G .9 w 0 -65.95 m 183.8 -65.95 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -130.1 m 186.6 -73.8 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -203.4 m 186.6 -147.1 l s .9 w 0 -210.35 m 183.3 -210.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 200.9 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 148.5 -1 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -138.5 -26 Td 1.28 Tw (*Pursuant to General Order 3.2g, Judge Berzon was drawn to replace) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.77 Tw (Judge Henry A. Politz. Judge Berzon has read the briefs, reviewed the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (records, and listened to the tape of oral argument. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 200.9 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -12.75 m 300 -12.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 295 -664.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (6989) Tj ET Q endstream endobj 5 0 obj 3379 endobj 3 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 4 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 2 2 12 0 obj << /Length 13 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 120.996 -27.6 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (COUNSEL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -120.996 -26.2 Td 2.32 Tw (Daniel L. Pines, Central Intelligence Agency, Mclean, Vir-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.62 Tw (ginia; Stuart Schiffer, Francis J. Diskin, Barbara L. Herwig,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.6 Tw (and Freddi Lipstein, Department of Justice, Washington,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (D.C., for the defendants-appellants. ) Tj 0 -26.2 Td 1.22 Tw (Steven W. Hale and Elizabeth A. Alaniz, Perkins Coie LLP,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Seattle, Washington, for the plaintiffs-appellees. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -8.15 m 300 -8.15 l s .5 w 0 -157.55 m 300 -157.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (6993) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 13 0 obj 1053 endobj 11 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 12 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 3 3 15 0 obj << /Length 16 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 123.666 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (OPINION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -123.666 -26.8 Td (BERZON, Circuit Judge:**) Tj ( ) Tj 12 -26.8 Td .16 Tw (Jane and John Doe fictitious names, adopted for this liti-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 2.4 Tw (gation for reasons that will appear assert that they per-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.75 Tw (formed espionage activities on behalf of the United States) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.62 Tw (against a former Eastern bloc country. The Central Intelli-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.93 Tw (gence Agency \(the ) Tj (CIA) Tj (\), they say, assured them that it) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1 Tw (would provide assistance in resettling in the United States as) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .81 Tw (well as lifetime financial and other support. According to the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.13 Tw (Does, the CIA has now reneged on its obligation of support.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.25 Tw (The United States will neither confirm nor deny the Does') Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (allegations, for reasons of national security. ) Tj 12 -26.8 Td .81 Tw (We must decide whether the Does can sue the CIA for the) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 5.57 Tw (alleged wrongs committed by the Agency, or whether,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .9 Tw (instead, their action is either appropriate only in the Court of) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 0 Tw (Federal Claims or precluded by the venerable doctrine enunci-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (ated in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 92 U.S. 105 \(1875\). ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 147.666 -26.8 Td (I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -135.666 -26.7 Td 1.44 Tw (We assume, without deciding, that the facts as alleged by) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .39 Tw (the Does are true and construe the complaint in the light most) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.25 Tw (favorable to their case. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Burgert v. Lokelani Bernice) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .76 Tw (Pauahi Bishop Trust) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 200 F.3d 661, 663 \(9th Cir. 2000\). The) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .77 Tw (facts that appear in this opinion, with the exception of proce-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .37 Tw (dural history in federal court, are all, therefore, simply allega-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (tions, even when not stated as such. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td .94 Tw (The Does allege that they were citizens of an Eastern bloc) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 4.71 Tw (country formerly considered an adversary of the United) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.23 Tw (States. During his tenure as a high ranking diplomat for that) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.44 Tw (country during the Cold War, Mr. Doe approached a person) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.4 Td 1 Tw (**Part II of the opinion is authored by Judge Canby. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -477.55 m 300 -477.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (6994) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 16 0 obj 3092 endobj 14 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 15 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 4 4 18 0 obj << /Length 19 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.95 Tw 0 Tc (associated with the United States embassy and requested) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.2 Tw (assistance in defecting to the United States. ) Tj 12 -24.7 Td 2.36 Tw (The Does recount that after this request was made, CIA) Tj -12 -12.4 Td 1 Tw (agents took them to a ) Tj (safe house) Tj ( for approximately twelve) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.24 Tw (hours. The CIA officers employed intimidation and coercion) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 2.47 Tw (to convince the Does to remain instead at their diplomatic) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 2.03 Tw (post and to engage in espionage for the United States. The) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .8 Tw (agents told the Does that if they agreed to conduct espionage) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 2.37 Tw (on behalf of the United States, the CIA would arrange for) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .85 Tw (their resettlement in the United States and ensure their finan-) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.26 Tw (cial and personal security ) Tj (for life.) Tj ( The Does further allege) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .33 Tw (that the agents assured them that this assistance was approved) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .51 Tw (at the highest level of authority at the CIA and was mandated) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.2 Tw (by U.S. law. ) Tj 12 -24.7 Td .33 Tw (The Does state that although they were initially reluctant to) Tj -12 -12.4 Td 3.24 Tw (conduct espionage activities, they eventually agreed to do) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 2.3 Tw (what was asked of them. They allege that they carried out) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .63 Tw (their end of the bargain but that the Agency has now reneged) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.2 Tw (and abandoned them to fend for themselves. ) Tj 12 -24.7 Td 3.33 Tw (The Does represent that they entered the United States) Tj -12 -12.4 Td .03 Tw (under the special provisions of the ) Tj (PL-110 Program.) Tj () Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Pursu-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -24.5 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .72 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (PL-110 refers to the original public law number of the Central Intelli-) Tj -10 -10.5 Td .53 Tw (gence Act of 1949. As used by the parties to this litigation, PL-110 refers) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .85 Tw (to an alleged program emerging from a section of that statute, now codi-) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1 Tw (fied at 50 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (403h: ) Tj 18 -15.3 Td 2.55 Tw (Whenever the Director [of Central Intelligence], the Attorney) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1.37 Tw (General, and the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturaliza-) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1.06 Tw (tion shall determine that the admission of a particular alien into) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1.96 Tw (the United States for permanent residence is in the interest of) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1.83 Tw (national security or essential to the furtherance of the national) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .06 Tw (intelligence mission, such alien and his immediate family shall be) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1.96 Tw (admitted to the United States for permanent residence without) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .28 Tw (regard to their inadmissibility under the immigration or any other) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .91 Tw (laws and regulations, or to the failure to comply with such laws) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 2.15 Tw (and regulations pertaining to admissibility: ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Provided) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, That the) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .1 Tw (number of aliens and members of their immediate families admit-) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1.09 Tw (ted to the United States under the authority of this section shall) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1 Tw (in no case exceed one hundred persons in any one fiscal year. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -304.35 m 300 -304.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (6995) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 19 0 obj 4008 endobj 17 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 18 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 5 5 22 0 obj << /Length 23 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .7 Tw 0 Tc (ant to that program, the CIA provided them with false identi-) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.75 Tw (ties and backgrounds and offered to ) Tj (retire) Tj ( them with) Tj 0 -13 Td .15 Tw (financial and health benefits. The Does allege that the Agency) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.85 Tw (provided them with various benefits, including health care) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.62 Tw (and education. Because the Does desired to ) Tj (become inte-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.21 Tw (grated into American society,) Tj ( they requested that the CIA) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .06 Tw (assist them in obtaining employment. They claim that the CIA) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (continued to assure them that, to the extent that their earned) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.92 Tw (income was insufficient to meet their needs, they would be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (supported by the Agency for the remainder of their lives with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (a ) Tj (safety net,) Tj ( which was ) Tj (required by law.) Tj ( The Does allege) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .09 Tw (that they were told that such support was required on the basis) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (of their classification as ) Tj (PL-110s.) Tj ( ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.77 Tw (The Does eventually settled in the Seattle area, and were) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (initially provided with a stipend of $20,000 per year, as well) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (as housing and other benefits. Over time, their stipend was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (increased to $27,000. They say that with the CIA's assistance) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .08 Tw (in providing false identities, resumes, and references, Mr. Doe) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (obtained professional employment in 1987. As Mr. Doe's sal-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (ary increased, the amount of the stipend provided by the CIA) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (commensurately decreased. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.4 Tw (In 1989, Mr. Doe and the CIA allegedly agreed that once) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (Mr. Doe's salary hit the $27,000 mark, his stipend would be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.42 Tw (suspended. However, Mr. Doe received the CIA's assurance) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (that if his employment were terminated, his stipend would be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.83 Tw (resumed. The CIA assertedly assured Mr. Doe that the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Agency would ) Tj (always be there) Tj ( for the Does. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .55 Tw (As a result of a corporate merger in 1997, Mr. Doe lost his) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (job. Although Mr. Doe made efforts to find new employment,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (he says that his advanced age and his security arrangement) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .24 Tw (with the CIA, which required him to use the false identity and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (background that he had been provided, limited his options.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (The Does assert that they contacted the CIA to request assis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (tance. The CIA refused to assist Mr. Doe in finding a new job) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .24 Tw (as it had done in the past. Mr. Doe has remained unemployed.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (6996) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 23 0 obj 3411 endobj 21 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 22 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 6 6 25 0 obj << /Length 26 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.87 Tw 0 Tc (After several failed attempts to obtain CIA assistance, the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (Does sought legal representation. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td .37 Tw (In 1997, the Does were allegedly informed by a CIA repre-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 2.66 Tw (sentative that the Agency had determined that the benefits) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.83 Tw (they had previously been provided had been adequate com-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.08 Tw (pensation for the services rendered and that further support) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.3 Tw (would not be provided. The Does were then told that they) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .74 Tw (could appeal this decision to the Director. The Does' counsel) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .85 Tw (therefore prepared an appeal to the Director. While so doing,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.95 Tw (the Does' counsel repeatedly requested from the Agency) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.25 Tw (internal regulations governing the appeals process as well as) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 7.5 Tw (regulations regarding resettled aliens. The CIA never) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.71 Tw (responded to these requests. Other requests for access to) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .7 Tw (records or individuals within the CIA were also either denied) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (or ignored by the CIA. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 1.95 Tw (Nevertheless, the Does claim, they filed their administra-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .23 Tw (tive appeal with the Director in late 1997. It was subsequently) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .7 Tw (denied. The Does assert that they then appealed to the Helms) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.16 Tw (Panel, a panel consisting of former Agency officials. The) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.91 Tw (Does allege that the Helms Panel recommended that the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 0 Tw (Agency provide the plaintiffs ) Tj (certain benefits . . . for a period) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .63 Tw (not to exceed one year, and nothing thereafter.) Tj ( The payment) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.75 Tw (was conditioned on the Does' signing waivers and release) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.71 Tw (documents. Apparently, the Does declined to execute such) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .42 Tw (documents and therefore did not receive the payments recom-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (mended by the Helms Panel. ) Tj 12 -26.6 Td .6 Tw (The Does then filed suit in the United States District Court) Tj -12 -13.4 Td .71 Tw (for the Western District of Washington. They asserted claims) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.96 Tw (under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.32 Tw (United States Constitution, seeking declaratory, injunctive,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.52 Tw (and mandamus relief. Their complaint further requested that) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.8 Tw (the district court require the CIA to resume payment of the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1 Tw (benefits allegedly promised and provide constitutionally ade-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (quate internal review procedures. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (6997) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 26 0 obj 3206 endobj 24 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 25 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 7 7 28 0 obj << /Length 29 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 2.07 Tw 0 Tc (The United States moved to dismiss the case for lack of) Tj -12 -14.3 Td .66 Tw (subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Proce-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.94 Tw (dure 12\(b\)\(1\) and for failure to state a claim under Federal) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .14 Tw (Rule of Civil Procedure 12\(b\)\(6\). The district court denied the) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .94 Tw (CIA's jurisdictional motion under Rule 12\(b\)\(1\), finding that) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.73 Tw (the rule announced by the Supreme Court in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( did not) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .06 Tw (prohibit the court from entertaining this suit. The district court) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2.75 Tw (determined that the trial could proceed despite the alleged) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.3 Tw (existence of a secret agreement, and any materials involving) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2.24 Tw (national security interests could be adequately protected by) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.2 Tw (submission under seal or by ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( review. ) Tj 12 -28.3 Td 2.16 Tw (The district court also rejected the CIA's contention that) Tj -12 -14.3 Td 1.47 Tw (the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.47 Tw (1346, requires that this case be) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.07 Tw (heard in the United States Court of Federal Claims, because,) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.47 Tw (according to the Agency, this was essentially a contract suit) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.28 Tw (seeking money damages from the United States. The district) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.08 Tw (court reasoned that although the Does' request for injunctive) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .34 Tw (relief may have included a directive that the CIA resume pay-) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 2 Tw (ments, the Does were not seeking solely a money damages) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.2 Tw (judgment. ) Tj 12 -28.2 Td 1.4 Tw (The district court went on to determine that the Does had) Tj -12 -14.2 Td 1.85 Tw (properly stated both substantive and procedural due process) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .1 Tw (claims, even apart from the existence of an alleged secret con-) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .47 Tw (tract with the Agency. First, the district court found that ) Tj ([the) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.18 Tw (Does] may be able to base their entitlement to receipt of the) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.62 Tw (CIA's monetary stipend on theories other than contract. For) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .3 Tw (example, if plaintiffs are able to prove an entitlement to bene-) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.1 Tw (fits based on a promissory or equitable estoppel theory, or if) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.92 Tw (there is a regulatory or statutory basis for their entitlement,) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 2.25 Tw (then they may be able to show a constitutionally protected) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 3.52 Tw (property interest, regardless of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj ( Further, the court) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .33 Tw (found that the Does had sufficiently stated due process claims) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.36 Tw (on two separate theoriesthat the CIA had placed the Does) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (6998) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 29 0 obj 3422 endobj 27 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 28 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 8 8 32 0 obj << /Length 33 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1 Tw 0 Tc (in danger and that the CIA had created a special relationship) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (with the Does.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj 12 -26.1 Td 1.58 Tw (The United States later renewed its motion to dismiss for) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.41 Tw (lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12\(b\)\(1\) and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.12 Tw (moved for summary judgment under Rule 56\(c\). The district) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.91 Tw (court denied these motions and we granted an interlocutory) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (appeal. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .3 Tw (1292\(b\). On appeal, the United States) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (maintains that there is no jurisdiction over the case because) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .72 Tw (any suit must be in the Court of Federal Claims, and because) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.78 Tw (the rule in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 92 U.S. at 107, requires dismissal of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Does' case. We disagree. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 145.332 -26.1 Td (II) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -133.332 -26.1 Td .47 Tw ([1]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( At the outset, we must address whether the Tucker Act,) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .21 Tw (28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .21 Tw (1491\(a\)\(1\), precludes the district court from exer-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (cising jurisdiction in this case. That Act, in relevant part,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (grants the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction over) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .83 Tw (any claim against the United States in excess of $10,000 that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (is ) Tj (founded . . . upon any express or implied contract with the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (United States.) Tj ( 28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (1491\(a\)\(1\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.1 Td 2.63 Tw ([2]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The Does do not frame their complaint expressly to) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .6 Tw (assert a contract claim. Indeed, they reserve the right to bring) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .08 Tw (a contract action in the Court of Federal Claims at a later date.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.39 Tw (The label that is attached to a claim is not conclusive, how-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.5 Tw (ever. Whether an action is founded upon a contract for pur-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .55 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The district court granted the CIA's motion to dismiss in part, holding) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .37 Tw (that the Does had failed to allege facts demonstrating that the Agency had) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .47 Tw (subjected them to unequal treatment in violation of the Fifth Amendment.) Tj 10 -14 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.15 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The Tucker Act does not specify that the jurisdiction of the Court of) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .32 Tw (Federal Claims over contract claims in excess of $10,000 is exclusive, but) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .63 Tw (courts have referred to the Tucker Act's grant of exclusive jurisdiction as) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 3.12 Tw (a shorthand way of recognizing that Congress has waived sovereign) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .41 Tw (immunity for such claims only for actions brought in the Court of Federal) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .37 Tw (Claims. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (e.g.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Transohio Sav. Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Super-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (vision) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 967 F.2d 598, 608-09 \(D.C. Cir. 1992\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -374.15 m 300 -374.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (6999) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 33 0 obj 4178 endobj 31 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 32 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 9 9 35 0 obj << /Length 36 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.42 Tw 0 Tc (poses of the Tucker Act ) Tj (depends both on the source of the) Tj 0 -13 Td .83 Tw (rights upon which the plaintiff bases its claims, and upon the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.87 Tw (type of relief sought \(or appropriate\).) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Megapulse v. Lewis) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.16 Tw (672 F.2d 959, 968 \(D.C. Cir. 1982\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj (also ) Tj (North Star) Tj 0 -13 Td .05 Tw (Alaska v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 14 F.3d 36, 37 \(9th Cir. 1994\) \(adopt-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (ing the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Megapulse) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( test\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td .7 Tw (The Does' complaint may be read as seeking an injunction) Tj -12 -13 Td .07 Tw (directing payment of $27,000 per year because that figure was) Tj 0 -13 Td .3 Tw (agreed upon by the Does and the CIA. Such an award derived) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (from the agreement of the parties, although phrased in terms) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (of constitutional due process, would amount to specific per-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.94 Tw (formance of the contract that the Does allege that they had) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (with the governmentan agreement to ) Tj (ensure financial and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (personal security for life.) Tj ( That type of claim falls within the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .43 Tw (North Star) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 14 F.3d at 37-38 \(right to reformation of contract,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .23 Tw (even if phrased as statutory or constitutional right, is based on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .97 Tw (terms of contract and is therefore subject to the Tucker Act\).) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.09 Tw (The fact that the Court of Federal Claims has no power to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (grant specific enforcement of a contract does not mean that a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (suit for specific enforcement can be brought in district court.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (The Tucker Act is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (contract actions; equitable contract remedies denied to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (Court of Federal Claims are not within the waiver and may) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (not be enforced against the United States at all. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 38.) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.07 Tw (The primary claim of the Does, however, is for an injunc-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (tion requiring the CIA to conduct internal hearings on their) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.92 Tw (claims that comport with due process. The effect of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (Tucker Act on this claim for relief depends upon the interest) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.78 Tw (life, liberty or propertythat is asserted to trigger the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.12 Tw (requirement of procedural due process. One type of property) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.47 Tw (interest might be argued to arise from the alleged contract) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (between the CIA and the Does, which the Does allege guaran-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (teed lifetime payments and protection. The District of Colum-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (bia Circuit has held that a due process claim that is triggered) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (by a contractually-based property interest may be brought in) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7000) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 36 0 obj 3775 endobj 34 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 35 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 10 10 38 0 obj << /Length 39 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 4.36 Tw 0 Tc (district court, on the theory that the right sought to be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (enforced arises from the due process clause and is not a suit) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (on the contract itself. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Transohio Sav. Bank v. Director,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (Office of Thrift Supervision) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 967 F.2d 598, 610-11 \(D.C. Cir.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.82 Tw (1992\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sharp v. Weinberger) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 798 F.2d 1521, 1523-24 \(D.C.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (Cir. 1986\). Our circuit has taken a stricter view, however, and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.33 Tw (has held that constitutional claims based on a contractual) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (property interest fall within the Tucker Act and may not be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (brought in district court. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Tucson Airport Auth. v. General) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.62 Tw (Dynamics Corp.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 136 F.3d 641, 647-48 \(9th Cir. 1998\)) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .26 Tw (\(rejecting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Transohio) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( rule\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (cf. ) Tj (North Star) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 14 F.3d at 37-38. In) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1 Tw (this view, we are joined by the Second Circuit. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Up State) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.86 Tw (Fed. Credit Union v. Walker) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 198 F.3d 372, 377 \(2d Cir.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.91 Tw (1999\) \(holding that district court did not have jurisdiction) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.27 Tw (over any claims that could not exist independently of a con-) Tj /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.6 Tw (tract\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Indeed, one district court in New York has held that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .91 Tw (a constitutional claim seeking enforcement of a CIA contract) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (similar to that alleged by the Does, and also seeking a declara-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1 Tw (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Our decisions in ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Tucson Airport) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (North Star) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, and the Second Cir-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .85 Tw (cuit's decision in ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Up State) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, involved plaintiffs who sought by invoking a) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.65 Tw (constitutional claim to secure rights guaranteed by the contract. Such) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .4 Tw (actions are more directly contractual than those brought by the Does, who) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .35 Tw (do not seek to enforce the contract in district court but merely to force the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .65 Tw (CIA to hold a hearing that meets the requirements of procedural due pro-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .39 Tw (cess. Our ruling in ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Tucson Airport) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, however, is broad enough to cover the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (present case: ) Tj 18 -16.2 Td 8.64 Tw ([B]ecause General Dynamic's constitutional claims are) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .57 Tw (contractually-based, the district court lacks jurisdiction under the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.31 Tw (Tucker Act. All three constitutional claims are premised on the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.15 Tw (notion that the United States has some contractual obligation to) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .36 Tw (General Dynamics under the Modification Center Contract that it) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .44 Tw (has failed to satisfy. If the Modification Center Contract imposes) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.65 Tw (no such obligation, the United States owes no duty to General) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 3.9 Tw (Dynamics giving rise to an alleged constitutional violation.) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.38 Tw (Because the United States's obligation is in the first instance) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.24 Tw (dependent on the contract, these claims are contractually-based.) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz -18 -16.2 Td .85 Tw (Tucson Airport) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 136 F.3d at 647. This rationale, by which we are bound,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .12 Tw (applies to any due process claim of the Does that is based on their contract) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (with the CIA. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -243.75 m 300 -243.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7001) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 39 0 obj 4676 endobj 37 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 38 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 11 11 41 0 obj << /Length 42 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 4 Tw 0 Tc (tion requiring a due process hearing, was subject to the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.37 Tw (Tucker Act and could not be brought in district court. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.22 Tw (Kielczynski v. United States CIA) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 128 F. Supp.2d 151, 160) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.22 Tw (\(E.D.N.Y. 2001\), ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (aff'd ) Tj (sub ) Tj (nom. ) Tj (Kielczynski v. Does 1-2) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 56) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (Fed. Appx. 540 \(2d Cir. 2003\) \(unpublished\). ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td .66 Tw (Perhaps because of this line of authority, the Does contend) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .72 Tw (that their claim to a due process hearing is ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (not) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( based on their) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.63 Tw (contract with the CIA. Several of the stated due process) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.82 Tw (claims, however, are based in considerable part on the CIA) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .47 Tw (contract, and the district court seems so to have interpreted it.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.47 Tw (These claims, for reasons we have just stated, may not be) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.12 Tw (entertained by the district court. The Does, however, assert) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .2 Tw (additional bases for their due process claims that do not suffer) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (from the same jurisdictional defect. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.6 Td .93 Tw ([3]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The primary additional claim is based on an interest in) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .87 Tw (liberty. The Does' claim that, regardless of the terms of their) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.04 Tw (contract or whether a contract even existed, the CIA brought) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .25 Tw (them into this country under conditions requiring a false iden-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.36 Tw (tity and false history for their continuing safety. The Does) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .97 Tw (allege and declare that, because of the false history and false) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .33 Tw (references supplied by the CIA and the CIA's refusal to assist) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.62 Tw (them further, no employment is available to them in the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.18 Tw (United States now that Mr. Doe's employment here was ter-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .24 Tw (minated. The failure of the CIA to provide the means for their) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .33 Tw (subsistence, according to the Does, leaves them no alternative) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .4 Tw (but to return to eastern Europe, where they are in danger. The) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.36 Tw (district court held that the Does had raised a triable issue of) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .97 Tw (fact with regard to this claim based on a liberty interest. The) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1 Tw (district court also held that these same allegations and decla-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.55 Tw (rations presented a triable issue of a due process violation) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.13 Tw (based on the duty of the government not to act affirmatively) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.27 Tw (to place a person in a dangerous situation. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Huffman v.) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .83 Tw (County of Los Angeles) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 147 F.3d 1054, 1059 \(9th Cir. 1998\).) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .4 Tw (Without indicating any view as to the ultimate merits of these) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .9 Tw (claims, we find no error in the district court's ruling denying) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7002) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 42 0 obj 3690 endobj 40 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 41 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 12 12 44 0 obj << /Length 45 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td -.37 Tw 0 Tc (summary judgment and permitting these claims to go forward.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td 1.73 Tw (We also conclude that the district court is not precluded by) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.46 Tw (the Tucker Act from entertaining these claims, because they) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .27 Tw (are not founded upon, and do not depend on, any alleged con-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (tract between the CIA and the Does. ) Tj 12 -26.6 Td 2.18 Tw (The Does also contend that their right to procedural due) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .73 Tw (process arises from their status as persons in the PL-110 pro-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .96 Tw (gram. The government contends that the only relevant provi-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.3 Tw (sion of that Act is 50 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.3 Tw (403h, which authorizes the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.14 Tw (Attorney General in the interest of national security to cause) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 4.04 Tw (the admission of particular aliens as permanent residents) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.28 Tw (regardless of their inadmissibility under other laws. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (50) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .12 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .12 Tw (403h. The government argues that this statute clearly) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.7 Tw (creates no entitlement of the sort claimed by the Does. The) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 0 Tw (Does contend, however, that other regulations and practices of) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .47 Tw (the CIA establish an entitlement to continued support for per-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.17 Tw (sons brought into the United States pursuant to the program.) Tj 12 -26.6 Td 2.93 Tw (It is difficult to evaluate this claim for purposes of the) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.67 Tw (Tucker Act \(or for summary judgment\) because the internal) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .74 Tw (regulations of the CIA that have been presented are redacted,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.38 Tw (and it is not clear that all regulations that might bear on the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.71 Tw (subject have been produced. The unredacted portions of the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.08 Tw (regulations in the record do not present sufficient foundation) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .66 Tw (for the Does' claim to permit them to survive summary judg-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .84 Tw (ment, but we do not know what is in the unredacted portions) Tj 0 -13.4 Td -.7 Tw (or whether other undisclosed regulations might bear on the sub-) Tj /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td 1.11 Tw (ject.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Because the government relied on its right to dismissal) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.4 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.17 Tw (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (We emphasize that this litigation is in a very early stage and full-) Tj -10 -11.3 Td 1.16 Tw (fledged discovery has not yet begun. If, in further proceedings, the state) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .57 Tw (of the evidence on this claim or any other claim that we permit to go for-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.03 Tw (ward becomes such that no rational trier of fact could find for the Does,) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .22 Tw (nothing we say here prevents a renewed motion for summary judgment on) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (the part of the CIA. ) Tj 10 -14.1 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.65 Tw (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The record contains a declaration from a CIA official that ) Tj (I can) Tj -10 -11.3 Td .99 Tw (inform the court unequivocally that there are ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (no) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( Agency or other federal) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -395.65 m 300 -395.65 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7003) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 45 0 obj 4013 endobj 43 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 44 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 13 13 47 0 obj << /Length 48 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .11 Tw 0 Tc (under ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and the Tucker Act, the record is not fully devel-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .52 Tw (oped. Discovery has been stayed by the district court pending) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.23 Tw (this appeal. Although the Does have not yet made their case) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .3 Tw (on their claim of PL-110 status, a grant of summary judgment) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.25 Tw (against them would be premature at this point. We therefore) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .63 Tw (affirm the district court's denial of summary judgment on the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .14 Tw (due process claim based on PL-110 status. Whether that claim) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .58 Tw (may be successfully maintained in further proceedings in dis-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.77 Tw (trict court will depend in part on whether the government) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.57 Tw (asserts a state secrets privilege, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (Part III, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (infra) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, and what) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (disposition follows from that assertion. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td .41 Tw (We emphasize, however, that a due process claim based on) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .3 Tw (PL-110 status must not depend on the alleged contract, or any) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.7 Tw (other contract, between the CIA and the Does. Such a) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .25 Tw (contract-based due process claim is within the exclusive juris-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (diction of the Court of Federal Claims under our decision in) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td .2 Tw (Tucson Airport) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. In denying the government's motion for sum-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .83 Tw (mary judgment on the claim based on PL-110 status, the dis-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.9 Tw (trict court stated that the claim was based ) Tj (not only on the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.03 Tw (regulations, but also on promises made to them and on the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.16 Tw (surrounding circumstances. A plaintiff's property right may) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.08 Tw (exist if words, conduct, or circumstances indicate a mutually) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1 Tw (explicit understanding between the parties.) Tj ( The Tucker Act,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .62 Tw (however, grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Federal) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 0 Tw (Claims over actions ) Tj (founded . . . upon any express or implied) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.07 Tw (contract with the United States.) Tj ( 28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.07 Tw (1491\(a\). This) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26.5 Td .58 Tw (regulations that require the CIA to provide lifetime subsistence assistance) Tj 0 -11.4 Td 1.43 Tw (to individuals brought into the United States under the authority of PL-) Tj 0 -11.4 Td 0 Tw (110. Neither PL-110, nor any other law, statute, regulation, internal policy,) Tj 0 -11.4 Td .68 Tw (unstated principle or anything else has ever before, or does now, obligate) Tj 0 -11.4 Td .28 Tw (the Agency to provide any form of lifetime financial assistance to individ-) Tj 0 -11.4 Td .02 Tw (uals brought into the United States by CIA under the authority of PL-110.) Tj () Tj 10 -16.4 Td 1.39 Tw (The district court interpreted the first sentence above as a declaration) Tj -10 -11.4 Td 1 Tw (that the official's search revealed no Agency or other federal regulations) Tj 0 -11.4 Td .2 Tw (that require the CIA to provide lifetime subsistence. The court disregarded) Tj 0 -11.4 Td 1 Tw (the legal conclusions set forth in the second sentence. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -369.95 m 300 -369.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7004) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 48 0 obj 3983 endobj 46 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 47 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 14 14 51 0 obj << /Length 52 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 4.52 Tw 0 Tc (grant encompasses claims based on ) Tj (a mutually explicit) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .74 Tw (understanding between the parties.) Tj ( If the Does are to pursue) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.84 Tw (their due process claim based on PL-110 status in district) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .43 Tw (court, they will have to establish a property right arising from) Tj 0 -13.4 Td -.18 Tw (such status that is not based on an express or implied contract.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.5 Td 3.28 Tw (The Does also contend that CIA procedural regulations) Tj -12 -13.4 Td .4 Tw (grant them a right to a fair hearing regarding their entitlement) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .71 Tw (to benefits under the PL-110 program. Here again, the record) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .74 Tw (may be incomplete because not all of the regulations are pre-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .5 Tw (sented in full form. An agency is generally required to follow) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .92 Tw (its own regulations. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Vitarelli v. Seaton) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 359 U.S. 535 \(1959\).) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.94 Tw (The government contends that the regulations impose no) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.25 Tw (requirements on the CIA, and the unredacted portions of the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.2 Tw (regulations now in the record support the CIA's position.) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.21 Tw (Here, too, it is too early in the litigation to enter a summary) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 5.28 Tw (judgment against the Does because further proceedings,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.14 Tw (including discovery, may provide further support for their) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .84 Tw (claim. If the Does' entitlement to a hearing under the regula-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.93 Tw (tions is based on their alleged contract with the CIA rather) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .41 Tw (than a status conferred by regulation or other conditions inde-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.07 Tw (pendent of the contract, then under the principle of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Tucson) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.5 Tw (Airport) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( the Tucker Act will preclude further proceedings on) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (that claim in the district court as well. ) Tj 12 -26.4 Td 1.5 Tw (The final claim presented by the Does is one of estoppel.) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 2.91 Tw (The district court concluded that the Does had adequately) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.16 Tw (pleaded the elements of estoppel: that the government actors) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .43 Tw (knew the facts, that they intended that their conduct would be) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.3 Tw (acted upon or acted in such a way that the Does had a right) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .18 Tw (to believe they so intended, that the Does were ignorant of the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .37 Tw (true facts, and that they detrimentally relied on the conduct of) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.1 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .4 Tw (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The Does ultimately have the burden of showing entitlement. If a state) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.54 Tw (secret privilege is asserted and the district court concludes that the evi-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .97 Tw (dence required to support the Does' claim is denied them because of the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .14 Tw (privilege, then the Does' claim will fail, as we explain below in discussing) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (the ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( issue. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7005) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 52 0 obj 3819 endobj 50 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 51 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 15 15 54 0 obj << /Length 55 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .18 Tw 0 Tc (the government actors. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Lehman v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 154 F.3d) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.36 Tw (1010, 1016 \(9th Cir. 1998\). In addition, estoppel against the) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.61 Tw (government requires a showing that the government actors) Tj 0 -13 Td (engaged in affirmative conduct going beyond mere negli-) Tj 0 -13 Td .2 Tw (gence and that the public's interest will not suffer undue dam-) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.6 Tw (age as a result) Tj ( of the estoppel. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1016-17 \(internal) Tj 0 -13 Td .87 Tw (quotation marks and citation omitted\). The district court held) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.54 Tw (that the Does had raised a triable issue of fact concerning) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (these last two requirements. On the basis of John Doe's decla-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ration, the district court did not err in so ruling. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.28 Tw (Under ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 496) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (U.S. 414, 426 \(1990\), a litigant can use estoppel defensively) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (but not offensively against the government. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (United States) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .62 Tw (v. Hatcher) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 922 F.2d 1402, 1409 \(9th Cir. 1991\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Richmond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ('s) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (prohibition is against using estoppel offensively to obtain an) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .51 Tw (award that would be contrary to a statute and would thus vio-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.12 Tw (late the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Rich-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.33 Tw (mond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 496 U.S. at 424. The Does, however, claim that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (payment of their subsistence is clearly authorized by statute) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (and regulation and thus would violate no principle of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Rich-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (mond) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( or the Appropriations Clause. They also contend that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (their use of estoppel is similar to that authorized by this court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.8 Tw (in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Watkins v. United States Army) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 875 F.2d 699 \(9th Cir.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.05 Tw (1989\) \(en banc\), where we held the government estopped) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (from preventing the plaintiff's reenlistment in the Army. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 2.37 Tw (at 711. We conclude that the Does have made a sufficient) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.85 Tw (showing to forestall summary judgment. The district court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (accordingly did not err in denying summary judgment on the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (estoppel claim. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.22 Tw (We also conclude that the estoppel claim does not fall) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.7 Tw (within the confines of the Tucker Act, because it is not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.14 Tw (founded on an express or implied contract. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Jablon v.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.53 Tw (United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 657 F.2d 1064, 1069-70 \(9th Cir. 1981\).) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.14 Tw (Although ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Jablon) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( also held that the United States had not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (waived its immunity from a promissory estoppel claim, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (1070 & n.9, our subsequent en banc decision in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Watkins) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( sup-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7006) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 55 0 obj 4094 endobj 53 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 54 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 16 16 57 0 obj << /Length 58 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.07 Tw 0 Tc (ports the use of estoppel to prevent the government from) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (denying the benefit of PL-110 status if all of the elements can) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.02 Tw (be proved. The district court did not err in concluding that it) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (had jurisdiction to entertain the estoppel claim. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.07 Tw ([4]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We therefore conclude that the Does are not barred by) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (the Tucker Act from proceeding on their constitutional, statu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (tory or regulatory claims or their estoppel claim in the district) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (court, so long as those claims are not based on the alleged) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.04 Tw (contract, or any contract, between the CIA and the Does.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.13 Tw (Those claims that we have identified as being based on con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.86 Tw (tract are not within the jurisdiction of the district court and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.84 Tw (must be dismissed. The district court may proceed with the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.51 Tw (remaining claims. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (North Side Lumber Co. v. Block) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 753) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.2 Tw (F.2d 1482, 1486 \(9th Cir. 1985\) \(holding that contractual) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.11 Tw (claim must be dismissed under the Tucker Act, but other) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (claims could go forward on remand\). ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 142.998 -26 Td (III) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -130.998 -26 Td 1.44 Tw (Resolution of this case also requires us to decide whether) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( bars judicial review of this action. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .12 Tw (One hundred twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court dis-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (missed a civil war spy's case for damages for breach of a con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.55 Tw (tract with the government. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 92 U.S. 105. The) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (Agency maintains that as this case is also one by spies seek-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (ing recompense, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( squarely governs this case. We do not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (agree. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .63 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( was indeed a landmark case, and one that retains its) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (core vitality. But, as discussed at length below, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( does) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (not require immediate dismissal as to the Does' case because) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (their claims those that survive our Tucker Act analysis ) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (do not arise out of an implied or express contract. Instead, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (instant case is governed by the state secrets privilege, a sepa-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (rate aspect of the decision in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( that has evolved into a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.32 Tw (well-articulated body of law addressing situations in which) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7007) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 58 0 obj 3518 endobj 56 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 57 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 17 17 60 0 obj << /Length 61 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.42 Tw 0 Tc (security interests preclude the revelation of factual matter in) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (court. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .92 Tw (Both the Supreme Court and our own court have specified) Tj -12 -13 Td 3.14 Tw (the ) Tj (mode in which the government must invoke the state) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.3 Tw (secrets privilege and the manner in which courts must apply) Tj 0 -13 Td .92 Tw (it. And since ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the constitutional protection of the right) Tj 0 -13 Td .2 Tw (to due process of law has developed into an assurance in most) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.82 Tw (instances of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (some) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( fair procedure, secret or open, judicial or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (administrative, before governmental deprivation of liberty or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.33 Tw (property becomes final. These two developments, taken) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.28 Tw (together, preclude the summary dismissal of this case for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (which the Agency argues. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.33 Tw (We acknowledge at the outset that it could very well turn) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (out, after further district court proceedings, that the Does will) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (still be left without redress even if everything they allege is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (true. When the government asserts that the interests of indi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (viduals otherwise subject to legal redress must give way to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (national security interests for the larger public good, the result) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.5 Tw (can end in a balance tipped toward the greater good, with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (resulting unfairness to the individual litigants as the acknowl-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.62 Tw (edged corollary. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Bareford v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 973) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (F.2d 1138, 1144 \(5th Cir. 1992\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Int'l) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (Ltd.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 776 F.2d 1236, 1238 n.3 \(4th Cir. 1985\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (cf. ) Tj (Nixon v.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Sirica) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 487 F.2d 700, 713 \(D.C. Cir. 1973\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.52 Tw (But precisely because the net result of refusing to adjudi-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (cate the Does' claims is to sacrifice their asserted constitu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.27 Tw (tional interests to the security of the nation as a whole, both) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.53 Tw (the government and the courts need to consider discretely,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.15 Tw (rather than by formula, whether this is a case in which there) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (is simply no acceptable alternative to that sacrifice. The law) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (regarding protection of national security interests in judicial) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (proceedings provides guidance toward that end. State secrets) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (privilege law prescribes that courts must be sure that claims) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (of paramount national security interest are presented in the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (manner that has been devised best to assure their validity and) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7008) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 61 0 obj 3619 endobj 59 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 60 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 18 18 63 0 obj << /Length 64 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.75 Tw 0 Tc (must consider whether there are alternatives to outright dis-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1 Tw (missal that could provide whatever assurances of secrecy are) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.12 Tw (necessary. That counterweight role has been reserved for the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.4 Tw (judiciary. We must fulfill it with precision and care, lest we) Tj 0 -13 Td 5.9 Tw (encourage both executive overreaching and a corrosive) Tj 0 -13 Td 5.38 Tw (appearance of inequitable treatment of those who have) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (undertaken great risks to help our nation, an appearance that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (could itself have long-run national security implications. ) Tj 144.168 -26 Td (A.) Tj -132.168 -26 Td 1.63 Tw (In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the estate of William A. Lloyd, a spy hired by) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (President Abraham Lincoln to gain information on Confeder-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (ate troop positions during the Civil War, brought suit in the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (Court of Claims to recover compensation Lloyd had allegedly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (been promised under his secret agreement with the President.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (The Supreme Court explained that the case was not justiciable) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (because:) Tj 22 -26 Td 1.92 Tw (The service stipulated by the contract was a secret) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.94 Tw (service; the information sought was to be obtained) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.5 Tw (clandestinely, and was to be communicated pri-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (vately; the employment and the service were to be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.71 Tw (equally concealed. Both employer and agent must) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (have understood that the lips of the other were to be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .26 Tw (for ever sealed respecting the relation of either to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 6.05 Tw (matter. This condition of the engagement was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.78 Tw (implied from the nature of the employment, and is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .32 Tw (implied in all secret employments of the government) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .52 Tw (in time of war, or upon matters affecting our foreign) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.95 Tw (relations, where a disclosure of the service might) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (compromise or embarrass our government in its pub-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .81 Tw (lic duties, or endanger the person or injure the char-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .64 Tw (acter of the agent. If upon contracts of such a nature) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.18 Tw (an action against the government could be main-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (tained . . . whenever an agent should deem himself) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.45 Tw (entitled to greater or different compensation than) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (that awarded to him, the whole service in any case,) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7009) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 64 0 obj 3172 endobj 62 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 63 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 19 19 66 0 obj << /Length 67 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td 1.47 Tw 0 Tc (and the manner of its discharge, with the details of) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.5 Tw (dealings with individuals and officers, might be) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.41 Tw (exposed, to the serious detriment of the public. A) Tj 0 -13 Td .82 Tw (secret service, with liability to publicity in this way,) Tj 0 -13 Td .03 Tw (would be impossible; and, as such services are some-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.14 Tw (times indispensable to the government, its agents in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.04 Tw (those services must look for their compensation to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.43 Tw (the contingent fund of the department employing) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.07 Tw (them, and to such allowance from it as those who) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (dispense that fund may award. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -22 -26 Td 1.54 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 106-07. In applying this reasoning to the claim of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.78 Tw (Totten estate, the Court concluded that ) Tj ([t]he publicity pro-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .59 Tw (duced by an action would itself be a ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (breach of a contract) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( . . .) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (and thus defeat a recovery.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 107 \(emphasis added\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1 Tw (The Agency and the dissent treat ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( as a jurisdictional) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (bar to any case arising out of a relationship involving spy ser-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (vices. On this view, a court faced with any cause of action) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.5 Tw (that traces back to allegations of an espionage relationship) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (with the government must simply dismiss the complaint. We) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (do not read ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( so broadly. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td .66 Tw ([5]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Read with care, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( embodies two rulings. The first,) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (often mistaken for a blanket prohibition on suits arising out of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (acts of espionage, is instead simply a holding concerning con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (tract law: In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the plaintiff, Lloyd, breached his contract) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (with the President by revealing the contract's contents in his) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (lawsuit. The Supreme Court held that because an implicit) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.06 Tw (aspect of the contract was that the parties agreed to keep the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .05 Tw (very existence of the contract secret, ) Tj ([t]he publicity produced) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.22 Tw (by an action would itself be a breach of a contract of that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (kind, and thus defeat a recovery.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (;) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( see) Tj ( also) Tj ( Halpern) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.36 Tw (v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 258 F.2d 36, 44 \(2d Cir. 1958\) \(explaining) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj (primarily turned on the breach of contract which) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (the Court found occurred by the very bringing of the action) Tj (\);) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (Edward J. Imwinkelried, The New Wigmore: A Treatise on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .48 Tw (Evidence ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .48 Tw (8.2 at 1146 \(2002\) \() Tj ([A] close reading of [) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (]) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7010) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 67 0 obj 3994 endobj 65 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 66 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 20 20 70 0 obj << /Length 71 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.54 Tw 0 Tc (indicates that the basis for the decision was the law of con-) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.25 Tw (tracts rather than any privilege doctrine.) Tj (\) \(citing Charles A.) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .63 Tw (Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Pro-) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.2 Tw (cedure: Evidence ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (5663, at 506 & n.39 \(1992\)\). ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -27.5 Td .16 Tw ([6]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( For two reasons, the contractual holding of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is not) Tj -12 -13.9 Td 1.66 Tw (applicable here. First, as discussed in Part II, unlike Totten,) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.17 Tw (the Does do not seek only enforcement of a contract. Rather) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.63 Tw (their principal concern at this point, as they explain in their) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.17 Tw (brief to this court, is ) Tj (to compel fair process and application) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.73 Tw (of substantive law to their claims within the Central Intelli-) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.36 Tw (gence Agency's . . . internal administrative process.) Tj ( As the) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .1 Tw (Agency is accustomed to conducting its affairs in secret, a fair) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .14 Tw (internal process could presumably proceed in accordance with) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.18 Tw (the secrecy implicit in an agreement to engage in espionage.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -27.4 Td 2.26 Tw ([7]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Second, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( assumed ) Tj (publicity) Tj ( inconsistent with) Tj -12 -13.8 Td .13 Tw (the implicit promise of secrecy as inherent in any judicial pro-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .54 Tw (ceeding and did not consider whether there are means to con-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 5.4 Tw (duct judicial proceedings without unacceptable attendant) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 5.05 Tw (publicity. Since ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, courts, including the Supreme) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 3.95 Tw (Court, have developed means of accommodating asserted) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 5.88 Tw (national security interests in judicial proceedings while) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.75 Tw (remaining mindful that there are circumstances in which no) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .78 Tw (special procedures will be adequate to protect those interests.) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.81 Tw (To the extent that the court can proceed without generating) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 3.18 Tw (public exposure, it may be possible to fulfill any secrecy) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.2 Tw (promise implicit in the agreement. ) Tj 12 -27.4 Td .79 Tw (Here, the Does have so far proceeded in a manner that has) Tj -12 -13.8 Td 2.3 Tw (not breached the agreement. They have done everything in) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.66 Tw (their power not to reveal secret information: They filed suit) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.9 Tw (under fictitious names and revealed only minimal, noniden-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.03 Tw (tifying details in their complaint. Their attorneys for security) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.08 Tw (reasons cleared their complaint with CIA officials before fil-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.2 Tw (ing it, and received security clearances from the CIA. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7011) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 71 0 obj 3537 endobj 69 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 70 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 21 21 73 0 obj << /Length 74 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .52 Tw 0 Tc ([8]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( With court and government cooperation, it may be pos-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .39 Tw (sible to continue the suit in a manner that avoids public expo-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.95 Tw (sure of any secret information.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Possible measures include) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.85 Tw (using ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( proceedings, sealing records, and requiring) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.28 Tw (security clearances for court personnel and attorneys with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .54 Tw (access to the court records. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Halpern) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 258 F.2d at 43) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .93 Tw (\(describing the availability of an ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( trial as an option) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (when the government invoked the state secrets privilege\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .13 Tw (re United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 872 F.2d 472, 478 \(D.C. Cir. 1989\) \(describ-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (ing options of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( review, redaction, limited disclosure) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .11 Tw (of documents, and a bench trial\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Int'l) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (Ltd.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 776 F.2d 1236, 1243 \(4th Cir. 1985\) \() Tj (Once the state) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (secrets privilege has been properly invoked, the district court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (must consider whether and how the case may proceed in light) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.62 Tw (of the privilege. The court may fashion appropriate proce-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.21 Tw (dures to protect against disclosure.) Tj (\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. Musa) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .86 Tw (833 F. Supp. 752, 758-61 \(E.D. Mo. 1993\) \(putting a protec-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (tive order in place to control viewing of classified documents) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw (8) Tj 0 Ts /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (In camera) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( court review is routinely considered consistent with asser-) Tj -10 -11.1 Td 2.4 Tw (tions of the need for secrecy. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Cf. ) Tj (Loral Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1.81 Tw (Corp.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 558 F.2d 1130, 1132 \(2d Cir. 1977\) \(invocation of state secrets) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .03 Tw (privilege does not preclude court review of documents ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (\). Review) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .12 Tw (by the court ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( of a contract or other materials claimed to be secret) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.43 Tw (is no different from ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (in camera ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (review of allegedly secret materials in a) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.41 Tw (trade secrets case, or of evidence asserted to be subject to the attorney-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .22 Tw (client privilege. In such situations, a court's ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( inspection to deter-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .1 Tw (mine whether a privilege applies is not itself a breach of the privilege. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.2 Td .93 Tw (e.g.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz ( United States v. Zolin) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 491 U.S. 554, 568-69 \(1989\) \(privileges sur-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.36 Tw (vive ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (in camera ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (review\); ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (In re Perrigo Co.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 128 F.3d 430, 441 \(6th Cir.) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .83 Tw (1997\) \(no waiver of attorney-client privilege by submitting documents to) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.01 Tw (the) Tj ( court for ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( review\); ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Burlington N. R. Co. v. Omaha Pub.) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .85 Tw (Power Dist.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 888 F.2d 1228, 1232 \(8th Cir. 1989\) \(contract alleged to be) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .84 Tw (trade secret could be reviewed ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( without revealing trade secret\);) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.2 Td .16 Tw (see ) Tj (also ) Tj (Anderson v. Dep't of Health and Human Serv.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 907 F.2d 936, 942) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.3 Tw (\(10th Cir. 1990\) \() Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (in camera ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (review by court of documents to determine) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .88 Tw (if material could be released to public under the Freedom of Information) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.41 Tw (Act \() Tj (FOIA) Tj (\) does not equate with release to the public\). Just as privi-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .43 Tw (leges are not waived and secrets not considered revealed in other contexts) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .11 Tw (by ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( review, a court's review of documents ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( here would) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .02 Tw (not breach any obligation the Does may have to keep the agreement secret.) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -242.75 m 300 -242.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7012) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 74 0 obj 5808 endobj 72 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 73 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 22 22 76 0 obj << /Length 77 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.28 Tw 0 Tc (and requiring counsel to sign confidentiality agreement\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj 0 -13 Td 0 Tw (generally) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, Note, The Military and State Secrets Privilege: Pro-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.14 Tw (tection for the National Security or Immunity for the Execu-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.44 Tw (tive?, 91 Yale L.J. 570, 586-88, n.90 \(1982\); Veronica M.) Tj 0 -13 Td .11 Tw (Fallon, Note, Keeping Secrets from the Jury: New Options for) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.66 Tw (Safeguarding State Secrets, 47 Fordham L. Rev. 94, 109-13) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.54 Tw (\(1978\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (cf.) Tj ( Guerra v. Board of Trs.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 567 F.2d 352, 355 \(9th) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (Cir. 1977\) \(describing methods court could use to protect con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.52 Tw (fidentiality including ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( review, sealing of records,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.21 Tw (and deletion of names\); Classified Information Procedures) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (Act \(CIPA\), Pub. L. 96-456, 94 Stat. 2025 \(Oct. 15, 1980\), 18) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.93 Tw (U.S.C. app. III ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.93 Tw (1 ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (et seq. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (\(providing procedures for use of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .62 Tw (privileged information as evidence in criminal trials\); Neil A.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.3 Tw (Lewis, After Sept. 11, a Little-Known Court has a Greater) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.13 Tw (Role, N.Y. Times, May 3, 2002, at A20 \(describing the For-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.71 Tw (eign Intelligence Surveillance Court and its procedures for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.55 Tw (approving wiretaps without jeopardizing national security or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (releasing state secrets\). ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.96 Tw ([9]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Thus, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ('s holding with regard to enforcement of) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.48 Tw (the secrecy aspect of contracts for spy services should not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.28 Tw (entirely preclude further proceedings in this suit. And with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (some creativity in devising flexible procedures such as those) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (suggested by courts that have grappled with these issues in the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (century and a quarter since ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, it may prove possible to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.96 Tw (resolve the essential issues through court processes. That is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .81 Tw (not to say that such ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in camera ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (review would always be justi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .23 Tw (fied or permissible, but only that it would not be precluded on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (a breach of contract theory. ) Tj 144.498 -26 Td (B.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -132.498 -26 Td 1.13 Tw ([10]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The other element of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is an early expression of) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .04 Tw (the evidentiary state secrets privilege: ) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ([P]ublic policy) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( forbids) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.35 Tw (the maintenance of any suit in a court of justice, the trial of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.82 Tw (which would inevitably lead to the disclosure of matters) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.28 Tw (which the law itself regards as confidential, and respecting) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .46 Tw (which it will not allow the confidence to be violated.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7013) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 77 0 obj 3968 endobj 75 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 76 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 23 23 79 0 obj << /Length 80 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .51 Tw 0 Tc (92 U.S. at 107 \(emphasis added\). This public policy principle) Tj 0 -13 Td .24 Tw (has flowered into the state secrets doctrine of today. It is prin-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1 Tw (cipally in this context that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td .77 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ('s currency. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj ( United States v. Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345 U.S. 1,) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.97 Tw (7 n.11 \(1953\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( for support of the ) Tj (well estab-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.81 Tw (lished military secrets privilege\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Jencks v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .13 Tw (353 U.S. 657, 670 n.16 \(1957\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (general principle that government documents may be privi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (leged on basis of national interest\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Rubin v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (525 U.S. 990, 992 \(1998\) \(Breyer, J., dissenting from denial) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (cert.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( for state secrets privilege\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td .82 Tw (This court has so recognized. Our leading recent case con-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (struing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (treats ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (as a state secrets case, albeit one) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.9 Tw (of a special variety. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Kasza v. Browner) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d 1159,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (1166-67 \(9th Cir. 1998\). ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.63 Tw ([11]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, we noted that ) Tj ([t]he state secrets privilege) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (is a common law evidentiary privilege that allows the govern-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.23 Tw (ment to deny discovery of military secrets,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1165, and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.16 Tw (further noted that invoking the privilege requires certain for-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.58 Tw (malities \(discussed below in part III.C\). We then stated that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ([o]nce the privilege is properly invoked and the court is sat-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (isfied as to the danger of divulging state secrets) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( . . . [t]he) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.76 Tw (application of the state secrets privilege can . . . have three) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.87 Tw (effects, one of which is ) Tj (dismiss[ing] the plaintiff's action) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (based solely on the invocation of the state secrets privilege.) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .06 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1166 \(emphasis added\). For the latter point, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( cited,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (inter alia) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at 1166. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.54 Tw ([12] ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( then went on to apply its analysis to the facts) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (of the case before it, investigating whether the privilege was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (properly asserted and, even if properly asserted, [whether]) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.54 Tw (the . . . invocation of the privilege was overbroad.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.52 Tw (1168. Concluding that the government defendant had ) Tj (satis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (fied the formal requirements necessary to invoke the privi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (lege, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 1169, we determined that ) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( review of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4 Tw (. . . classified declarations was an appropriate means to) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7014) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 80 0 obj 4736 endobj 78 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 79 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 24 24 82 0 obj << /Length 83 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .8 Tw 0 Tc (resolve the . . . scope of the state secrets privilege.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( After) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.58 Tw (conducting that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( review, we decided, quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Tot-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.6 Tw (ten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, like ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, was a case in which ) Tj () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.6 Tw (`the trial) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.14 Tw (. . . would inevitably lead to the disclosure of matters which) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.83 Tw (the law itself regards as confidential,') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.83 Tw ( because ) Tj (the very) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.07 Tw (subject matter of Frost's action is a state secret.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (F.3d at 1170. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -25.8 Td .15 Tw ([13]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( It is therefore the law of this circuit that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( permits) Tj -12 -13 Td .63 Tw (dismissal of cases in which it is asserted that the very subject) Tj 0 -13 Td .53 Tw (matter is a state secret only ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (after) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( complying with the formali-) Tj 0 -13 Td .81 Tw (ties and court investigation requirements that have developed) Tj 0 -13 Td -.58 Tw (since ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (within the framework of the state secrets doctrine.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (9) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td 1 Tw (This understanding of the role of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( in the contemporary) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.16 Tw (legal world comports with both ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and later Supreme) Tj 0 -13 Td .85 Tw (Court authority. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( relied on other well-established privi-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.04 Tw (leges, such as the spousal privilege, attorney-client privilege,) Tj 0 -13 Td 3 Tw (doctor-patient privilege, and clergy-penitent privilege, as a) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.17 Tw (basis for its holding with regard to national secrets. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Tot-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (ten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 92 U.S. at 107. Moreover, it is primarily in the context) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.8 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.94 Tw (9) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Other circuits have similarly treated ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( as the progenitor of the) Tj -10 -11.1 Td .38 Tw (state secrets doctrine, now subject to later-enunciated standards governing) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .39 Tw (recognition of the privilege. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj ( Clift v. United States) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 597 F.2d 826, 828-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .6 Tw (30 \(2d Cir. 1979\) \(holding that a case analogous to ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( should be ana-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .58 Tw (lyzed under the state secrets privilege, and that the case could go forward) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 2.75 Tw (even though revealing the underlying subject of the lawsuit, a secret) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1.33 Tw (patent, was barred by the privilege\); ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. Erlichman) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 376 F.) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .4 Tw (Supp. 29, 32 n.1 \(D.D.C. 1974\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Nixon v. Sirica) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 487 F.2d 700, 713) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .8 Tw (\(D.C. Cir. 1973\)\) \(describing the modification of ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj (by a century of) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1.86 Tw (legal experience, which teaches that the courts have broad authority to) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 2.17 Tw (inquire into national security matters so long as proper safeguards are) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .18 Tw (applied to avoid unwarranted disclosures) Tj (\). The Federal Circuit appears to) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .61 Tw (have conflicting authority on the application) Tj ( of ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Compare ) Tj (McDon-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .2 Tw (nell Douglas Corp. v. United States) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 323 F.3d 1006, 1021 \(Fed. Cir. 2003\)) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .31 Tw (\(citing to ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 92 U.S. at 107, for proposition that ) Tj (when the `very sub-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .57 Tw (ject matter of the action' is a state or military secret, the action must give) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1.92 Tw (way to ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (the proper invocation of the state secrets privilege) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj ( \(emphasis) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 2.29 Tw (added\)\) ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (with ) Tj (Guong v. United States) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 860 F.2d 1063, 1066 \(Fed. Cir.) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .4 Tw (1988\) \() Tj (A close reading of ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( reveals that it does not limit or mod-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (ify the authority of ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Totten.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -266.95 m 300 -266.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7015) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 83 0 obj 5697 endobj 81 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 82 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 25 25 85 0 obj << /Length 86 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .67 Tw 0 Tc (of the state secrets privilege that the Supreme Court in recent) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (years has affirmatively cited to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 2.87 Tw (The Agency relies on ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Weinberger v. Catholic Action of) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .7 Tw (Hawaii/Peace Education Project) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 454 U.S. 139 \(1981\) for its) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .8 Tw (contrary view of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (as a free-floating, expansive doctrine) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.5 Tw (of its own, divorced from the later development of the state) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.62 Tw (secrets privilege. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, however, was decided well after) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td .95 Tw (Weinberger) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, so ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is binding on us regarding the modern) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (role of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( doctrine. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td .46 Tw (Further, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Weinberger) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( concerned in the main an explicit stat-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 7.37 Tw (utory exemption to the Freedom of Information Act) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .36 Tw (\(FOIA\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Weinberger) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 454 U.S. at 144. FOIA analysis is) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.62 Tw (governed strictly by statute, while the state secrets privilege) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.33 Tw (is governed solely by judge-made law. Also, FOIA cases) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.33 Tw (involve a determination of what information can be released) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td .7 Tw (to the public) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( without any restriction on the information's dis-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.18 Tw (semination. In contrast, the state secrets privilege governs) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.96 Tw (what material can be used by individual litigants who need) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.12 Tw (such information to make their cases, under such restrictions) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.6 Tw (of access as may be necessary, including ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( review,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .78 Tw (closed proceedings, and sealed records. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Weinberger) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( therefore) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.8 Tw (dealt principally with the substantive question whether the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.33 Tw (sensitive material at issue could be made public and only as) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.28 Tw (a subsidiary matter with the handling of that material within) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (the confines of litigation. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.6 Td .75 Tw (Weinberger) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( did refer to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at the end of the opinion as) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 3.67 Tw (an explanation, by analogy, concerning why the National) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 0 Tw (Environmental Policy Act \() Tj (NEPA) Tj (\) inquiry could not go for-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1 Tw (ward in court. It also referred, however, in the same context,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .25 Tw (to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the seminal state secrets privilege case. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Weinber-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.36 Tw (ger) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 454 U.S. at 147. The brief reference to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Wein-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .58 Tw (berger ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (therefore cannot be read as prescribing the application) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.83 Tw (of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (without regard to the later-developed state secrets) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (privilege doctrine, and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( evidently did not so read it. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7016) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 86 0 obj 4254 endobj 84 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 85 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 26 26 89 0 obj << /Length 90 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .85 Tw 0 Tc ([14]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We therefore conclude that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is applicable to the) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.8 Tw (case before us only as applied through the prism of current) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (state secrets doctrine. ) Tj 144.498 -26.3 Td (C.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -132.498 -26.2 Td .3 Tw ([15]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( To invoke the state secrets privilege, a formal claim of) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 3.3 Tw (privilege must be ) Tj (lodged by the head of the department) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.26 Tw (which has control over the matter, after actual personal con-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.25 Tw (sideration [of the evidence] by that officer.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.53 Tw (U.S. at 7-8 \(footnotes omitted\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj ( also ) Tj (Kasza, ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (133 F.3d at) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2 Tw (1165. After that, ) Tj ([t]he court itself must determine whether) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .96 Tw (the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege.) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.78 Tw (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345 U.S. at 8; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj ( also ) Tj (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at 1165.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.7 Tw (The government has not thus far asserted the state secrets) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .73 Tw (privilege in this case and has therefore not complied with the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (required procedures.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (10) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 1.36 Tw (This initial matter is one of formalities, true. But formali-) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.14 Tw (ties often matter a great deal, and they certainly matter here.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.1 Tw (As ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( noted, ) Tj (dismissal of an action based on the state) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.03 Tw (secrets privilege is harsh,) Tj ( but sometimes ) Tj (the greater public) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.4 Tw (good ultimately the less harsh remedy [is] dismissal.) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 2.25 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1167 \(internal citation and quotation marks omitted\).) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.06 Tw (Determining when we must ask individuals to bear the brunt) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.13 Tw (of our national interest is a matter of profound moral impor-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.62 Tw (tance. We therefore require that the government address the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (question in a manner commensurate with its gravity. ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 1.24 Tw (Additionally, there are practical reasons for insisting upon) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 4.8 Tw (compliance with the formalities established by the state) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .71 Tw (secrets privilege. There is always the possibility that subordi-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.33 Tw (nate officials have a motive to seek dismissal of an action) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .1 Tw (based on state secrets considerations because they themselves,) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.47 Tw (10) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (On remand, the government should be given the opportunity before) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 2.2 Tw (the case proceeds further to assert the state secrets privilege should it) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (choose to do so. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7017) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 90 0 obj 3846 endobj 88 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 89 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 27 27 92 0 obj << /Length 93 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .07 Tw 0 Tc (or someone under their supervision, would be exposed as hav-) Tj 0 -13 Td .93 Tw (ing acted unfairly or illegally if the case went forward. Also,) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.6 Tw (invocation of the state secrets privilege can have adverse as) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.48 Tw (well as salutary effects on national security interests. If per-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.42 Tw (sons contracting with the government on matters involving) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .93 Tw (the national security spies, yes, but also suppliers of mili-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.92 Tw (tary and espionage-related goods and services come to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.12 Tw (expect that promises cannot be enforced, their willingness to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (offer their services may in the long run dissipate. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.57 Tw (For all these reasons, the state secrets privilege ) Tj (is not to) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.48 Tw (be lightly invoked.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 345 U.S. at 7. If we are to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (inflict upon individuals otherwise protected by our laws, par-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.37 Tw (ticularly the United States Constitution, the harsh remedy of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.46 Tw (dismissal to protect the rest of us, we must do so only after) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (the individual responsible for the national security interest at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.17 Tw (stake personally reviews the matter, and only after he or she) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (concludes and certifies that there is indeed a national security) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (basis for refusing to allow any form of court consideration of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (the facts necessary to adjudicate the dispute. It is invocation) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.24 Tw (at that level of the executive hierarchy, and with that degree) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (of personal assurance, that lessens the possibility of reflexive) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (invocation of the doctrine as a routine way to avoid adverse) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.53 Tw (judicial decisions. Invocation at that level of the executive) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .23 Tw (hierarchy therefore underlies the ) Tj (utmost deference) Tj ( accorded) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (state secrets claims. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at 1166. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 1.58 Tw ([16]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The government has not complied here with the for-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.46 Tw (malities essential to invocation of the state secrets privilege.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (That is reason enough to affirm the district court's refusal to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (dismiss this case. ) Tj 144.168 -26 Td (D.) Tj -132.168 -26 Td 1.3 Tw (Given our holdings that the Tucker Act does not preclude) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (the bringing of some of the Does' claims in the district court,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.16 Tw (and that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( does not jurisdictionally preclude the lawsuit) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (before us, we provide some guidance concerning the handling) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7018) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 93 0 obj 3496 endobj 91 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 92 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 28 28 95 0 obj << /Length 96 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.44 Tw 0 Tc (of the remaining claims should the state secrets privilege be) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (invoked. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 1.46 Tw (In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the Court emphasized that judges must care-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 2.58 Tw (fully review assertions of the state secrets privilege before) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.3 Tw (approving the privilege. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Reynold) Tj (s) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345 U.S. at 9-10; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.41 Tw (also ) Tj (Jencks) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 353 U.S. at 676 \(Burton, J., concurring\). ) Tj (Judi-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.54 Tw (cial control over the evidence in a case cannot be abdicated) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .54 Tw (to the caprice of executive officers.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345 U.S. at 9-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .85 Tw (10; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj (also ) Tj (In re United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 872 F.2d at 475; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ellsberg v.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.06 Tw (Mitchell) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 709 F.2d 51, 58 \(D.C. Cir. 1983\); 8 Wigmore on) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.28 Tw (Evidence ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.28 Tw (2379 at 809-10 \(McNaughton Rev. 1961\) \() Tj (A) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .5 Tw (court which abdicates its inherent function of determining the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.57 Tw (facts upon which the admissibility of evidence depends will) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.55 Tw (furnish bureaucratic officials too ample opportunities for) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .08 Tw (abusing the [state secrets] privilege.) Tj (\); James Zagel, The State) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.03 Tw (Secrets Privilege, 50 Minn L. Rev. 875, 900 \(1966\); Raoul) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .32 Tw (Berger & Abe Krash, Government Immunity from Discovery,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (59 Yale L.J. 1451, 1463 \(1950\). ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 1.52 Tw (More specifically, before approving the application of the) Tj -12 -13.4 Td .74 Tw (privilege, the district court must be convinced by the Agency) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.03 Tw (that there is a ) Tj (reasonable danger) Tj ( that military or national) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.44 Tw (secrets will be revealed. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345 U.S. at 10-11. The) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.44 Tw (state secrets privilege is an absolute privilege and cannot be) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .5 Tw (overcome by a showing of necessity. Nonetheless, the greater) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.37 Tw (the party's need for the evidence, the more deeply a court) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.42 Tw (must probe to see whether state secrets are in fact at risk.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345 U.S. at 11; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ellsberg) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 709 F.2d at 58-59. ) Tj 12 -26.6 Td .37 Tw (As discussed at length previously, there are numerous safe-) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.74 Tw (guards courts can use to protect secret material from public) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.42 Tw (exposure. The standard practice when evaluating claims that) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .6 Tw (the state secrets privilege applies is to conduct ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in camera) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td .63 Tw (ex parte ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (review of documents. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Kerr v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 426) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.53 Tw (U.S. 394, 405-06 \(1976\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Nixon) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 418 U.S. at 706 and) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td 1.23 Tw (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345 U.S. at 1\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at 1166, 1169; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7019) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 96 0 obj 4140 endobj 94 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 95 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 29 29 98 0 obj << /Length 99 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .23 Tw 0 Tc (re United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 872 F.2d at 475, 478-79; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ellsberg) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 709 F. 2d) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (at 59. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.21 Tw (In addition, unprivileged material can and must be sepa-) Tj -12 -13 Td 2.52 Tw (rated from the privileged material. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.61 Tw (1166 \() Tj ([W]henever possible, sensitive information must be) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.94 Tw (disentangled from nonsensitive information to allow for the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.3 Tw (release of the latter.) Tj (\) \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ellsberg) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 709 F.2d at 57\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In) Tj 0 -13 Td 1 Tw (re United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 872 F.2d at 475-76 \() Tj (The `broad sweep' of) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.87 Tw (the [state secrets] privilege, likewise requires that the privi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.13 Tw (lege not be used to shield any material not strictly necessary) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (to prevent injury to national security . . . .) Tj (\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ellsberg) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (709 F.2d at 57\). Finally, sealing of records and secret hearings) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (are possible ways to adjudicate issues without public exposure) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.97 Tw (of state secrets. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (e.g) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (., ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Halpern) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 258 F.2d at 43; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 872 F.2d at 478. Where, as here, the govern-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (ment is seeking complete dismissal of the action for national) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.47 Tw (security reasons, a court should consider these possibilities) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (before determining that there is no way both to adjudicate the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (case and to protect state secrets.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 0 Tw (Webster v. Doe) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 486 U.S. 592 \(1988\), confirms that particu-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.37 Tw (larly where constitutional claims are at issue, the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 4.08 Tw (inquiry requires courts to make every effort to ascertain) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .92 Tw (whether the claims in question can be adjudicated while pro-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.58 Tw (tecting the national security interests asserted. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (discharged CIA covert employee, Doe, was allowed to go for-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.06 Tw (ward with his constitutional challenge to the CIA's denial of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.73 Tw (his security clearance. 486 U.S. at 604-05. It is no accident) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (that the case was called ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster v. Doe) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, as here,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (the fact of the relationship with the CIA was secret. As the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (Court of Appeals in the case that became ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( explained,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .08 Tw (John Doe [was] proceeding under a pseudonym only because) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.41 Tw (his status as a CIA employee cannot be publicly acknowl-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (edged, not because of any embarrassment about his homosex-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.3 Tw (uality. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Doe v. Casey) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 796 F.2d 1508, 1512 n.2 \(D.C. Cir.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (1986\). So with regard to the secrecy of the relationship, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (circumstances were the same as those present here. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7020) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 99 0 obj 4300 endobj 97 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 98 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 30 30 101 0 obj << /Length 102 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 1 Tw 0 Tc (Noting that a ) Tj (serious constitutional question) Tj ( would arise) Tj -12 -13 Td 3.57 Tw (if consideration of Doe's constitutional claims were fore-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.32 Tw (closed, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( permitted the constitutional causes of action) Tj 0 -13 Td .23 Tw (to go forward despite the secrecy of the relationship. 486 U.S.) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.14 Tw (at 603-05 \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Bowen v. Michigan Acad. of Family Physi-) Tj 0 -13 Td .66 Tw (cians) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 476 U.S. 667, 681 n.12 \(1986\)\). In so doing, the Court) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.52 Tw (recognized that issues of national security could arise in the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.04 Tw (course of the litigation, necessitating special litigation proce-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (dures. Given the constitutional nature of the cause of action,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.12 Tw (however, the Court rejected the contention that the case) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (should be dismissed out of hand. Instead, the Court instructed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (that ) Tj (the District Court has the latitude to control any discov-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (ery process which may be instituted so as to balance respon-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.47 Tw (dent's need for access to proof which would support a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (colorable constitutional claim against the extraordinary needs) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (of the CIA for confidentiality and the protection of its meth-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.94 Tw (ods, sources, and mission[,]) Tj ( citing, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (inter alia) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 486 U.S. at 604. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26 Td 5.33 Tw (Webster ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (indicates that where constitutional issues are) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (raised, the courts must consider the full panoply of alternative) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .12 Tw (litigation methods outlined above ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in camera ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (review, sealed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (records, and, if necessary, secret proceedings before con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.33 Tw (cluding that the only alternative is to dismiss the case and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (thereby deny the plaintiff claimed constitutional rights. The) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (only obvious differences between ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and this case for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.9 Tw (present purposes is that the Doe in the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( case was a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (domestic employee while the Does in this case are foreigners) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (who were engaged to spy for the United States abroad. Absent) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (some reason nationality and location distinctions should mat-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (ter, and the government has suggested none, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( requires) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.85 Tw (that the constitutional nature of the Does' cause of action) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (weigh heavily in applying the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( state secrets privilege) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (standard. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.12 Tw (Applying that standard with the requisite care, we note) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (first, once again, that the Does have alleged both property and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .16 Tw (liberty interests, including the endangerment of their lives, the) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7021) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 102 0 obj 3997 endobj 100 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 87 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 101 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 31 31 104 0 obj << /Length 105 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .71 Tw 0 Tc (interference with their ability to pursue employment, the fail-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.7 Tw (ure to fulfill the obligations of the PL-110 program, and an) Tj 0 -13 Td .75 Tw (estoppel theory. If true, these interests could constitute legiti-) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.14 Tw (mate liberty and property rights for purposes of the Fifth) Tj 0 -13 Td 0 Tw (Amendment. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Board of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 408) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (U.S. 564, 573, 577 \(1972\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td .82 Tw (Further, unlike the plaintiff in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the Does primarily) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (seek due process within the agency, not before the courts. The) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.53 Tw (central constitutional issue in this case, the procedural due) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (process cause of action, therefore is one that, unlike some of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.62 Tw (the constitutional causes of action alluded to in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (should not require factual development in court of the details) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.58 Tw (underlying the dispute. Rather, to make out their procedural) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.22 Tw (due process claim, the Does will need to demonstrate only) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (that they had a relationship with the CIA that could poten-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (tially establish an entitlement to continued assistance or pay-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ments. ) Tj 12 -26 Td (For several reasons, it is not self-evident that the Does, in) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (order to establish such a relationship, will need to jeopardize) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (state secrets: ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.26 Tw (First, the relationship may not truly be secret. It is widely) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .43 Tw (known that the CIA contracts for spy services, and in particu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .42 Tw (lar that the CIA recruits foreign spies. It is also public knowl-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.75 Tw (edge that many of these foreign recruits are provided) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.66 Tw (permanent residency in the United States along with other) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.67 Tw (compensation for their services. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, Federal Govern-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (ment's Handling of Soviet and Communist Bloc Defectors:) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.05 Tw (Hearing Before the Permanent Subcomm. on Governmental) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.32 Tw (Affairs, U.S. Senate, 100th Cong., 100-02, 174-75 \(1987\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.62 Tw (\(describing support under Pub. L. No. 81-110 \(1949\) for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (defectors with information of great import to United States') Tj 0 -13.1 Td .91 Tw (interests\); 50 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .91 Tw (403h \(2002\) \(providing for the admis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.27 Tw (sion of aliens to this country when it is ) Tj (in the interest of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (national security or essential to the furtherance of the national) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.06 Tw (intelligence mission) Tj (\). Furthermore, the complaint alleges) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7022) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 105 0 obj 3544 endobj 103 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 104 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 32 32 108 0 obj << /Length 109 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .69 Tw 0 Tc (that the CIA sent a letter to the Does admitting a relationship) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .11 Tw (and stating that the Agency was unable to continue supporting) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.71 Tw (the Does because of ) Tj (budget constraints.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (Letter from) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .6 Tw (Nancy Clayborne \(June 5, 1997\). The existence of such a let-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .33 Tw (ter could be evidence that the Does' past relationship with the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (CIA is not now clandestine. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 1.14 Tw (Second, it is possible that, if a claim of privilege is made,) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .47 Tw (the district court might conclude that the Agency has not pro-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .18 Tw (vided ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (any) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( basis for concluding that national security would be) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .11 Tw (jeopardized by the revelation of the existence of a relationship) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .77 Tw (with the Does. A substantial time has passed since the agree-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.12 Tw (ment with the Does was formed, and we are no longer ) Tj (at) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.41 Tw (war, ) Tj (cold) Tj ( or otherwise, with the Does' country of origin.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .87 Tw (When evaluating the invocation of the state secrets privilege,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .27 Tw (the district court must give the ) Tj (utmost deference) Tj ( to the gov-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.5 Tw (ernment's evaluation of what constitutes a state secret that) Tj 0 -13.5 Td (will jeopardize national security. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at 1166.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .58 Tw (Such deference, however, does not entirely obviate the CIA's) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.58 Tw (need to make a minimally coherent explanation to the court) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2 Tw (concerning why simply admitting to a relationship with the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (Does could conceivably jeopardize national security. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 1.47 Tw (Finally, because of the limited nature of a procedural due) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.78 Tw (process inquiry, the specifics of the Does' relationship with) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .72 Tw (the CIA such as the place and manner in which they were) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.82 Tw (recruited, their contacts, and the nature of the espionage ) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .36 Tw (should not need to be revealed. Rather the evidentiary inquiry) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.16 Tw (can be tailored to determine whether the alleged relationship) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.11 Tw (with the CIA in fact existed and, if so, whether the resulting) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.07 Tw (relationship gave rise to a legally cognizable property or lib-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (erty interest. ) Tj 12 -26.6 Td .42 Tw (As to whether the CIA's procedures adequately protect any) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 3.27 Tw (such interest, it is not clear that the agency will claim a) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.26 Tw (secrecy interest in those internal procedures. If it does, the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.07 Tw (court may well be able to review the available procedure for) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7023) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 109 0 obj 3479 endobj 107 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 108 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 33 33 111 0 obj << /Length 112 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.88 Tw 0 Tc (consistency with constitutional standards in proceedings not) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (open to the public. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 2.83 Tw (It is worth emphasizing that the procedural due process) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 1.04 Tw (cause of action seeks an alternative, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (secret) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( way of adjudicat-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.62 Tw (ing the merits of the Does' claims. Assuming the plaintiffs') Tj 0 -13.5 Td .97 Tw (allegations are true, as we must when evaluating a motion to) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.03 Tw (dismiss, the outright dismissal of the Does' complaint would) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.22 Tw (assuredly deny them their constitutional right to procedural) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.1 Tw (due process, by foreclosing any review of the merits of their) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .07 Tw (claim. Before depriving the Does of all due process, the possi-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.92 Tw (ble availability of a truncated judicial inquiry, with the pri-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.71 Tw (mary merits adjudication relegated to the agency, is an) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (approach that merits careful scrutiny. ) Tj 12 -26.7 Td .85 Tw (It is therefore possible that, after the most careful, respect-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 1.33 Tw (ful, and deferential inquiry, the district court could conclude) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .5 Tw (that the Does' case may go forward in some manner, whether) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .03 Tw (in open court or closed, without jeopardizing any state secrets.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.37 Tw (Accordingly, this case should be remanded to the district) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.42 Tw (court for further proceedings consistent with the current law) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (on the state secrets privilege, and with this opinion.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (11) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.3 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .78 Tw (11) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Both the government and the dissent suggest that judges are not well) Tj -10 -11.3 Td .83 Tw (suited to make evaluations of national security even of the most deferen-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.03 Tw (tial sort. Once the government asserts the state secrets privilege, the dis-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.5 Tw (sent contends, a district court should go no further. That short-circuited) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.6 Tw (approach is not the law, as ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( makes clear. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Kasza) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .36 Tw (1169-70; ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj (also ) Tj (McDonnell Douglas Corp.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 323 F.3d at 1023 \(affirming) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .65 Tw (the trial court's dismissal of a claim under the state secrets privilege only) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.3 Td .28 Tw (after ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (the trial court had reviewed the material supporting the invocation of) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.26 Tw (the privilege\). Although a district court must almost always defer to the) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .5 Tw (government's evaluation of what constitutes a state secret and why, a dis-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (trict court cannot simply rubber stamp the government's conclusions. ) Tj 10 -16.4 Td .87 Tw (The dissent mistakenly relies on ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (CIA v. Sims) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 471 U.S. 159 \(1985\) for) Tj -10 -11.3 Td .66 Tw (its contrary proposition. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Sims) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( was a suit under FOIA in which a statutory) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 2.56 Tw (exemption applied and allowed the government to withhold requested) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.61 Tw (information. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( at 168. As discussed with regard to ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Weinberger) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, FOIA) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.45 Tw (cases require a different calculus than cases involving invocation of the) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -302.95 m 300 -302.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7024) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 112 0 obj 4380 endobj 110 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 111 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 34 34 114 0 obj << /Length 115 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .32 Tw 0 Tc ([17]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The national interest normally requires both protection) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 2.33 Tw (of state secrets and the protection of fundamental constitu-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.13 Tw (tional rights. Here, the CIA has not invoked the state secrets) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.44 Tw (privilege nor has the district court had the opportunity inde-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.07 Tw (pendently to review the invocation of such a privilege. We) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.16 Tw (should not precipitously close the courthouse doors to color-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.63 Tw (able claims of the denial of constitutional rights. The Does') Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.27 Tw (case must therefore be remanded to the district court to pro-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.06 Tw (vide the Agency the opportunity to formally invoke the state) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.07 Tw (secrets privilege. If the Agency chooses to do so, the district) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.78 Tw (court must then, after careful inquiry and consideration of) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .87 Tw (alternative modes of adjudication, and with the utmost defer-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.95 Tw (ence to the government's determination of national security) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.48 Tw (interests, evaluate whether any aspect of the Does' case can) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (go forward. ) Tj 12 -26.6 Td (Costs on appeal are awarded to the appellees. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26.6 Td 3.16 Tw (AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (REMANDED.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -51.7 Td (TALLMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: ) Tj 12 -26.5 Td 2.73 Tw (It is the prerogative of the Supreme Court, not ours, to) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.47 Tw (decide whether ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 92 U.S. 105 \(1875\),) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .47 Tw (continues to bar judicial review of actions arising from espio-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 4.33 Tw (nage services performed for the United States by secret) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .07 Tw (agents, or whether the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( doctrine has somehow been sup-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .08 Tw (planted by the modern state secrets evidentiary privilege artic-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.76 Tw (ulated in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345 U.S. 1 \(1953\). My) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26.2 Td .67 Tw (state secrets privilege, as the remedy sought is public disclosure. Further-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .9 Tw (more, the ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Sims) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( court did in fact conduct some, albeit minimal, review of) Tj 0 -11.3 Td (the documents at issue. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj ( id) Tj (.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( at 165, 173 \(discussing with approval the) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.94 Tw (district court's consideration of agency affidavits and evidence used to) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (support the decision to withhold documents under FOIA\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -287.55 m 300 -287.55 l s .5 w 0 -432.45 m 300 -432.45 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7025) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 115 0 obj 3445 endobj 113 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 114 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 35 35 117 0 obj << /Length 118 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.33 Tw 0 Tc (colleagues proclaim that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is ) Tj (applicable to the case) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.67 Tw (before us only as applied through the prism of current state) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.77 Tw (secrets doctrine.) Tj ( Maj. Op. at 7017. But ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( holds that) Tj 0 -13 Td 2 Tw (claims brought by secret agents against the government are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (non-justiciable. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, on the other hand, protects against) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (the unveiling of state secrets during the prosecution of an oth-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (erwise recognized cause of action. Far from modifying ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (the Court's opinion in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( reaffirms ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ('s jurisdic-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tional bar. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.47 Tw (Furthermore, the majority fails to recognize the jurisdic-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .84 Tw (tional limitation imposed on the Does' lawsuit by the Tucker) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.45 Tw (Act, which requires that this suit be brought in the Court of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (Federal Claims. Because the court's opinion is contrary to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (clear rule announced in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, and ignores the limitations on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (our jurisdiction imposed by the Tucker Act, I respectfully dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (sent. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 147.666 -26 Td (I) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -135.666 -26 Td 1.63 Tw (In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the estate of William A. Lloyd, a spy hired by) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .71 Tw (President Abraham Lincoln to gain information on Confeder-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (ate troop positions during the Civil War, sought to recover in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.32 Tw (the Court of Claims compensation Lloyd had allegedly been) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (promised under his secret agreement with the President. 92) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (U.S. at 105-06. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (dismissal of the suit, concluding that the very nature of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.77 Tw (contract foreclosed a suit for its enforcement. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 107. In) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (language directly applicable to the Does, the Court explained) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (why such cases are not justiciable: ) Tj 22 -26 Td 1.92 Tw (The service stipulated by the contract was a secret) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.94 Tw (service; the information sought was to be obtained) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.5 Tw (clandestinely, and was to be communicated pri-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (vately; the employment and the service were to be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.71 Tw (equally concealed. Both employer and agent must) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (have understood that the lips of the other were to be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .26 Tw (for ever sealed respecting the relation of either to the) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7026) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 118 0 obj 3595 endobj 116 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 117 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 36 36 120 0 obj << /Length 121 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td 6.05 Tw 0 Tc (matter. This condition of the engagement was) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.78 Tw (implied from the nature of the employment, and is) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .32 Tw (implied in all secret employments of the government) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .52 Tw (in time of war, or upon matters affecting our foreign) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.95 Tw (relations, where a disclosure of the service might) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .14 Tw (compromise or embarrass our government in its pub-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .81 Tw (lic duties, or endanger the person or injure the char-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .64 Tw (acter of the agent. If upon contracts of such a nature) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 3.18 Tw (an action against the government could be main-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.41 Tw (tained . . . whenever an agent should deem himself) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 3.45 Tw (entitled to greater or different compensation than) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.22 Tw (that awarded to him, the whole service in any case,) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.47 Tw (and the manner of its discharge, with the details of) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 4.5 Tw (dealings with individuals and officers, might be) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.2 Tw (exposed, to the serious detriment of the public. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -22 -25.3 Td (Id) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. at 106-07. ) Tj 12 -25.3 Td 3.33 Tw (The rule in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is not limited to breach of contract) Tj -12 -12.7 Td .85 Tw (claims brought by those providing secret services to the gov-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .9 Tw (ernment. Expanding its holding beyond the contract analysis,) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .83 Tw (the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Court reasoned that ) Tj (general principle[s] [of] pub-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.39 Tw (lic policy forbid[) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.39 Tw (] the maintenance of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (any) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( suit in a court of) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .76 Tw (justice, the trial of which would inevitably lead to the disclo-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.85 Tw (sure of matters which the law itself regards as confidential,) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.87 Tw (and respecting which it will not allow the confidence to be) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .44 Tw (violated. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 107 \(emphasis added\). Implicit in the Court's) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.42 Tw (public policy holding is an understanding that fundamental) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1 Tw (principles of separation of powers prohibit judicial review of) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.96 Tw (secret contracts entered into by the Executive Branch in its) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 0 Tw (role as guardian of national security. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 106 \(discussing) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 3.88 Tw (the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .81 Tw (Dept. of the Navy v. Egan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 484 U.S. 518, 527 \(1988\) \(stating) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .41 Tw (that the authority to protect national security information falls) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .08 Tw (to the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed services) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (and head of the Executive Branch of government.\). ) Tj 12 -25.3 Td .07 Tw (There is a key distinction between spy cases like ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and) Tj -12 -12.8 Td 4.83 Tw (other classes of cases where Congress has provided an) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7027) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 121 0 obj 3771 endobj 119 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 106 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 120 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 37 37 123 0 obj << /Length 124 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.22 Tw 0 Tc (express remedy for relief. In the latter, the evidentiary privi-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.7 Tw (lege known as ) Tj (state secrets) Tj ( may properly be invoked to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.67 Tw (block otherwise relevant discovery in a recognized cause of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .41 Tw (action. An example is ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .7 Tw (the Supreme Court consideredin the context of a tort claim) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.11 Tw (discovery disputethe protection afforded to discovery of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (evidence that would reveal state secrets. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 3 \(noting that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .16 Tw (an important question of the Government's privilege to resist) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (discovery [was] involved) Tj (\).) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td 2.83 Tw (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( arose from the unfortunate crash of a military) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.36 Tw (plane while it was testing secret electronic equipment. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.28 Tw (2-3. The plaintiffs were three widows of civilian observers) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .46 Tw (aboard the plane who died in the crash. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 3. In an attempt) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .93 Tw (to obtain discovery in support of their claim against the gov-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.03 Tw (ernment under the Federal Tort Claims Act \() Tj (FTCA) Tj (\),) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.06 Tw (plaintiffs moved pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.66 Tw (Civil Procedure for production of the Air Force accident) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.08 Tw (investigation report and the statements of the three surviving) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .41 Tw (crew members taken in connection with that investigation. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td .14 Tw (The government moved to quash, claiming that Air Force reg-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.55 Tw (ulations rendered the information privileged against disclo-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (sure. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 3-4. ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 1.04 Tw (The district court rejected the government's claim, finding) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (that the enactment of the FTCA waived the claimed privilege.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td .76 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 4. After the district court had already rendered its deci-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.4 Tw (sion, it received a letter from the Secretary of the Air Force) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .15 Tw (stating that the release of the information would ) Tj (not be in the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .37 Tw (public interest.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The district court reheard the matter, after) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.24 Tw (which the Secretary of the Air Force filed a formal claim of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.08 Tw (privilege asserting that the aircraft and its personnel were) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.3 Tw (engaged in a secret mission at the time of the crash. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.47 Tw (Because of the secret nature of the mission, the government) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.64 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.64 Tw (2674 \() Tj (The United States shall be liable, respecting the) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.06 Tw (provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.11 Tw (the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances . . . .) Tj (\).) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7028) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 124 0 obj 4295 endobj 122 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 125 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 123 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 38 38 127 0 obj << /Length 128 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.74 Tw 0 Tc (refused to produce the requested documents. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 5. The) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.42 Tw (court, unable to determine whether the documents contained) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 3.12 Tw (privileged matter, directed that the issue of negligence be) Tj 0 -12.9 Td .92 Tw (decided in the plaintiffs' favor. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The government appealed) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.2 Tw (and the court of appeals affirmed. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj 12 -25.6 Td 1.21 Tw (On certiorari, the Supreme Court viewed ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( as pre-) Tj -12 -12.9 Td .61 Tw (senting ) Tj (an important question of the Government's privilege) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 2.81 Tw (to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (resist discovery) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 3 \(emphasis added\). The Court) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 3.66 Tw (made clear that the ) Tj (essential question) Tj ( in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( was) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.91 Tw (whether the Government asserted a valid claim of privilege) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.16 Tw (releasing it of its obligation to produce documents otherwise) Tj 0 -12.9 Td .77 Tw (discoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.92 Tw (6. The Court held that before the government can withhold) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 0 Tw (relevant evidence under the state secrets privilege, it must first) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.75 Tw (file a ) Tj (formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 3.25 Tw (department which has control over the matter) Tj () Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and there) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.58 Tw (must be a judicial determination that ) Tj (the circumstances are) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.2 Tw (appropriate for the claim.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 7-8. ) Tj 12 -25.6 Td .28 Tw (Contrary to the majority's reasoning, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( did not alter) Tj -12 -12.9 Td 2.42 Tw (the long-standing rule announced in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( barring judicial) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 2.45 Tw (review where the very subject matter of the suit is a state) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 2.62 Tw (secret. The Supreme Court's opinion in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( refers to) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -12.9 Td 2.71 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( only twice. The most important reference occurs at) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 4.51 Tw (footnote 26 where the Court expressly distinguished the) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -12.9 Td 1.03 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (-type of case from the situation presented in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj 0 -12.9 Td .66 Tw (There, the Court acknowledged that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is a different kind) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.67 Tw (of case, one ) Tj (where the very subject matter of the action, a) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 1.37 Tw (contract to perform espionage, was a matter of state secret.) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -12.9 Td 2.13 Tw (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345 U.S. at 11 n.26. For ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( cases, the Court) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 2.58 Tw (observed that ) Tj ([t]he action [is] dismissed ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (on the pleadings) Tj 0 -12.9 Td 2.79 Tw (without ever reaching the question of evidence) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( . . . .) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -12.9 Td 1.2 Tw (\(emphasis added\). ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.5 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .87 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The majority overlooks the fact that in this case, like ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, the very) Tj -10 -11 Td .68 Tw (subject matter of the suit is the state secret, and therefore ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( is not) Tj 0 -11 Td .33 Tw (controlling authority and no formal invocation of the evidentiary privilege) Tj 0 -11 Td 1 Tw (is necessary. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -445.05 m 300 -445.05 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7029) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 128 0 obj 4810 endobj 126 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 125 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 127 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 39 39 130 0 obj << /Length 131 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .11 Tw 0 Tc (The only other reference ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( makes to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is found) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.07 Tw (at footnote 11. There, the Court cited ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( for the proposi-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.16 Tw (tion that public policy supports the invocation of evidentiary) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.08 Tw (privileges to exclude evidence in instances where the law) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (regards matters to be confidential. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 7 n.11. Footnote 11) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.75 Tw (does not suggest that the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( doctrine has somehow) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.66 Tw (evolved from a jurisdictional bar into an evidentiary rule of) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.57 Tw (privilege, as the majority reasons. Rather, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( expressly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (acknowledges that there is a higher need to protect the disclo-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.77 Tw (sure of a contract for secret services with the government) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (where the very existence of the arrangement is itself the secret) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (not to be disclosed. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 92 U.S. at 107. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.07 Tw (While ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( are closely related in that both) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (protect a state secret from disclosure, the rules announced in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.03 Tw (those cases differ in subtle but important respects. Most) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .12 Tw (importantly, the state secrets privilege in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( permits the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (government to withhold otherwise relevant discovery from a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.11 Tw (recognized cause of action \(e.g., an FTCA case\), while the) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( doctrine permits the dismissal of a lawsuit because it) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (is non-justiciable before such evidentiary questions are ever) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (reached. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .93 Tw (Our holding in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza v. Browner) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d 1159 \(9th Cir.) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (1998\), supports this conclusion. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( involved a recognized) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .92 Tw (cause of action under the Resource Conservation and Recov-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (ery Act of 1976 \() Tj (RCRA) Tj (\), 42 U.S.C. ) Tj ( ) Tj (6972. The appeal was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.62 Tw (consolidated from two closely related cases, one against the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (Environmental Protection Agency, and the other against the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.71 Tw (Air Force, seeking to compel compliance with hazardous) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (waste inventory, inspection, and disclosure responsibilities at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (a secret installation in Nevada. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at 1162. Dur-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (ing the discovery phase of the litigation, the Air Force refused) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.46 Tw (to furnish almost all of the information sought by the plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (tiffs, claiming it was privileged because enemies of the United) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.5 Tw (States could determine what secret activities the Air Force) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (was conducting if information associated with the operation) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (was disclosed. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1163. The district court granted summary) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7030) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 131 0 obj 4221 endobj 129 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 125 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 130 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 40 40 133 0 obj << /Length 134 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.97 Tw 0 Tc (judgment in favor of the Air Force, finding that the formal) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .5 Tw (invocation of the state secrets privilege blocked the discovery) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .52 Tw (requested and made trial impossible by effectively preventing) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.2 Tw (the plaintiffs from establishing a ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (prima ) Tj (facie) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( case for any of) Tj 0 -13.6 Td (their claims. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1162-63.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( We affirmed. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1163. ) Tj 12 -26.9 Td 2.5 Tw (In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, we relied on the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( rule that ) Tj (the state) Tj -12 -13.6 Td 1.66 Tw (secrets privilege is a common law evidentiary privilege that) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .53 Tw (allows the government to deny discovery of military secrets.) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td 1.11 Tw (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1165. After reviewing the applicable law, we reasoned) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .54 Tw (that the application of the state secrets privilege can have dif-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .44 Tw (ferent effects, depending on whether it is used to exclude evi-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.55 Tw (dence or to dismiss a cause of action. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1166. First, we) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.25 Tw (found that the government's invocation of the privilege over) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.33 Tw (particular evidence may completely remove the evidence) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.09 Tw (from the case. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( If a plaintiff cannot make out her ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (prima) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .88 Tw (facie) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( case without the secret evidence, the court may dismiss) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.11 Tw (her claim. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Second, the privilege may deprive a defendant) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.33 Tw (of information that would otherwise give the defendant a) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.51 Tw (valid defense to the claim. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In these cases, the court may) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (grant summary judgment to the defendant. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj 12 -26.8 Td .52 Tw (In the first two categories, before the state secrets privilege) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .77 Tw (can be applied in an otherwise justiciable case, there must be) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.63 Tw (a formal claim of privilege followed by judicial review to) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.14 Tw (determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for its) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.47 Tw (invocation. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1165-66. After the court has decided what) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.93 Tw (evidence is unavailable as a result of the application of the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.46 Tw (privilege, the court must determine whether the plaintiff is) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .51 Tw (still able to establish a ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (prima ) Tj (facie) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( case or whether the defen-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .81 Tw (dant can prove up a defense in light of the court's exclusion-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .63 Tw (ary ruling. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1166. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, we found that the plaintiffs') Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.75 Tw (RCRA claims could not be proven without the documents) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .85 Tw (withheld as privileged, and therefore summary judgment was) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.5 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.03 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The district court dismissed the second case as moot. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Kasza) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 133) Tj -10 -11.4 Td 1 Tw (F.3d at 1163. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -466.05 m 300 -466.05 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7031) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 134 0 obj 4427 endobj 132 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 125 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 133 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 41 41 136 0 obj << /Length 137 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.42 Tw 0 Tc (appropriate. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1170 \() Tj ([T]he state secrets privilege bar[s]) Tj 0 -13 Td .9 Tw ([the plaintiffs] from establishing [a] ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (prima ) Tj (facie) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( case . . . .) Tj (\).) Tj 12 -26 Td .52 Tw (Finally, we addressed the third category of cases where the) Tj -12 -13 Td 2.58 Tw (very subject matter of the action) Tj ( is a state secret. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at) Tj 0 -13 Td .75 Tw (1166. We found that in these cases there is no need to evalu-) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.04 Tw (ate a plaintiff's ability to produce nonprivileged evidence.) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.03 Tw (Instead, ) Tj (the court should dismiss [a] plaintiff's action based) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (solely on the invocation of the state secrets privilege.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.66 Tw (The third category recognized in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is controlled by) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. In defining this category of cases, we cited ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ('s) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (footnote 26, where, as discussed above, the Supreme Court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (expressly distinguished the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (-type cases from other cases) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (involving the state secrets privilege. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at 1166.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .92 Tw (We also cited ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ('s broader public policy holding. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (recognized that this category includes those cases where the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (subject matter of the suit is itself a state secret requiring dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .08 Tw (missal. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In these cases, as soon as it becomes obvious to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (court that the action is simply not justiciable, the case is dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.12 Tw (missed. Dismissal can occur even before the court resolves) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .42 Tw (evidentiary issues or discovery disputes implicating the plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.4 Tw (tiff's ability to establish a ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (prima ) Tj (facie) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( case. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (U.S. at 11 n.26; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at 1166 \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 92) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (U.S. at 107\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also ) Tj (In re United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 872 F.2d 472, 478) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.95 Tw (\(D.C. Cir. 1989\) \(noting with approval the district court's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (order distinguishing cases where the subject matter of the liti-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.47 Tw (gation is a state secret from those where the discovery) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (requested is the state secret\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.75 Tw (We concluded that the plaintiffs' discovery in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( was) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (not only barred by the state secrets privilege, which prevented) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (them from establishing their ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (prima ) Tj (facie) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( case justifying dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (missal, but also that the plaintiffs' claims fell into the third) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .26 Tw (category of cases represented by ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( because the Air Force) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (could neither ) Tj (confirm or disprove that any hazardous waste) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.26 Tw (had been generated, stored, or disposed of at the operating) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (location. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at 1163, 1170. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7032) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 137 0 obj 4538 endobj 135 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 125 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 136 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 42 42 139 0 obj << /Length 140 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .5 Tw 0 Tc (The majority stretches the court's holding in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( beyond) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .66 Tw (its logical bounds to find that ) Tj ([i]t is therefore the law of this) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.13 Tw (circuit that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( permits dismissal of cases in which it is) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .75 Tw (asserted that the very subject is a state secret only ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (after) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( com-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.61 Tw (plying with the formalities and court investigation require-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .5 Tw (ments that have developed since ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( within the framework) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.23 Tw (of the state secrets doctrine.) Tj ( Maj. Op. at 7015 \(emphasis in) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (original\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.7 Td .22 Tw (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( neither announced nor applied such a rule. While the) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.5 Td .66 Tw (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( court chose to rule on the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( issue after it ruled on) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .14 Tw (the state secrets privilege, nothing in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( suggests that judi-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.41 Tw (cial review of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (-type claims is mandated. Instead, the) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td .66 Tw (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( court specifically identified the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (-type of cases as) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .14 Tw (a separate type of case where dismissal may be appropriate on) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .7 Tw (the pleadings. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( makes clear that in the third category of) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.41 Tw (cases ) Tj (the court should dismiss the plaintiff's action based) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .33 Tw (solely on the invocation of the state secrets privilege) Tj ( without) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.57 Tw (the judicial balancing required in the discovery-type cases.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td .14 Tw (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at 1166. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ('s reliance on ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ('s foot-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.33 Tw (note 26 for support further compels the conclusion that no) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .08 Tw (judicial determination need be made before applying the juris-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.44 Tw (dictional bar announced in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133 F.3d at 1166.) Tj 12 -26.6 Td .97 Tw (After a careful review of Supreme Court case law, as well) Tj -12 -13.4 Td .18 Tw (as our own holding in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, I conclude the state secrets priv-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1 Tw (ilege announced in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( does not limit or modify ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td .51 Tw (or its bar on judicial review of cases where the subject matter) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .09 Tw (of the lawsuit is a state secret. Rather, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( continues to per-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.88 Tw (mit a court to determine that the subject matter of a suit is) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .25 Tw (beyond judicial scrutiny and may properly be dismissed at the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .26 Tw (pleading stage. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345 U.S. at 11 n.26; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kasza) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 133) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .37 Tw (F.3d at 1166. Other courts have come to the same conclusion.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td 1.4 Tw (See ) Tj (Guong v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 860 F.2d 1063, 1066 \(Fed. Cir.) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.33 Tw (1988\) \() Tj (A close reading of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( reveals that it does not) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.14 Tw (limit or modify the authority of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( or its rationale.) Tj (\).) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.1 Tw (While the Supreme Court certainly could have supplanted) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7033) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 140 0 obj 4740 endobj 138 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 125 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 139 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 43 43 142 0 obj << /Length 143 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.06 Tw 0 Tc (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( with ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, it did not, and the majority should not) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (do so in this case. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 145.332 -26 Td (II) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -133.332 -26 Td .25 Tw (The majority opinion also errs in limiting the application of) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( to contract claims. While such a limitation is necessary) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.13 Tw (to reach the result the majority is determined to announce in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (this case, the holding in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( belies such a confined applica-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.51 Tw (tion. Rather, the rule announced in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( extends to claims) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (for tort or constitutional violations arising from the secret) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (contractual relationship. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .58 Tw (The district court acknowledged that proof of the existence) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (of a contract for secret services between the Does and the CIA) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (was a fact under ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( that would have precluded the contin-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.23 Tw (uation of this litigation. In an attempt to narrow the applica-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (tion of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( bar, however, the district court declared that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw ([r]egardless of whether a secret contract does exist, there are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.03 Tw (substantial issues and claims remaining in this case that lie) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.11 Tw (outside the reach of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Doe v. Tenet) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 99 F. Supp. 2d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.78 Tw (1284, 1289 \(W.D. Wash. 2000\). The district court reasoned) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (that ) Tj 22 -26 Td 1.52 Tw ([the Does] may be able to base their entitlement to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.61 Tw (receipt of the CIA's monetary stipend on theories) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.18 Tw (other than contract. For example, if plaintiffs are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (able to prove that they had an entitlement to benefits) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.24 Tw (based on a promissory or equitable estoppel theory,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (or if there is a regulatory or statutory basis for their) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (entitlement, then they may be able to show a consti-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.54 Tw (tutionally protected property interest, regardless of) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -22 -26 Td (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1291 \(footnote omitted\). ) Tj 12 -26.1 Td 3.07 Tw (The district court's limitation of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( to contracts for) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (secret services finds no support in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( or its progeny. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See,) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7034) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 143 0 obj 3537 endobj 141 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 144 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 142 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 44 44 146 0 obj << /Length 147 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.9 Tw 0 Tc (e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Ed.) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.88 Tw (Project) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 454 U.S. 139, 146-47 \(1981\) \(applying ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( to a) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.28 Tw (National Environmental Policy Act claim\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Guong) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 860 F.2d) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.67 Tw (at 1065 \(applying ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( to bar claim for failure to rescue\);) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td 1.53 Tw (Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Int'l, Ltd.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 776 F.2d 1236, 1241-42,) Tj 0 -13 Td .83 Tw (1244 \(4th Cir. 1985\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( in support of dismissal of) Tj 0 -13 Td .43 Tw (libel action\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kielczynski v. CIA) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 128 F. Supp. 2d 151, 162-63) Tj 0 -13 Td 6.6 Tw (\(E.D.N.Y. 2001\) \(rejecting argument that constitutional) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (claims arising from contract for secret services fall outside of) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( doctrine\), ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (aff'd sub nom. ) Tj (Kielczynski v. Does 1-2) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, No.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.88 Tw (01-6103, 2003 WL 187164 \(2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2003\) \(unpub-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.13 Tw (lished disposition\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( itself did not limit its holding to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (those cases involving contracts for secret services. Instead, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (Court held that ) Tj (public policy forbids the maintenance of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (any) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.32 Tw (suit in a court of justice, the trial of which would inevitably) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (lead to the disclosure of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (matters) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( which the law itself regards) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (as confidential.) Tj ( 92 U.S. at 107 \(emphasis added\). The Court) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (did not limit its holding to those circumstances where a secret) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (contract) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( must be revealed. Rather, the Court held, much more) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (generally, that the maintenance of a suit is forbidden where) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (any ) Tj (matter ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (which the law regards as confidential would have) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (to be disclosed. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.03 Tw (The breadth of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( doctrine is demonstrated in its) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .18 Tw (application in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (Ed. Project) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 454 U.S. at 146-47. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Weinberger) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the Supreme) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (Court reversed our holding that the Navy could be required to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (prepare and release a ) Tj (hypothetical) Tj ( environmental impact) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (statement with regard to the operation of one of its Hawaiian) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.8 Tw (magazines capable of storing nuclear weapons. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 140,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.12 Tw (147. The Supreme Court observed that because the locations) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.71 Tw (of nuclear weapons storage facilities were classified for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (national security reasons, ) Tj (the Navy [could] neither admit nor) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.96 Tw (deny that it propose[d] to store nuclear weapons at [the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (Hawaiian facility].) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 146. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .67 Tw (In holding that the Navy was therefore not required to pre-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (pare a ) Tj (hypothetical) Tj ( environmental impact statement, since) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7035) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 147 0 obj 4510 endobj 145 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 144 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 146 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 45 45 149 0 obj << /Length 150 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .11 Tw 0 Tc (it would necessarily result in the disclosure of classified infor-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.36 Tw (mation, the Court concluded that the degree of the Navy's) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.81 Tw (compliance with the relevant environmental statutes was a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .37 Tw (matter ) Tj (beyond judicial scrutiny.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the Court) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.91 Tw (concluded that the maintenance of this suit was forbidden) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.14 Tw (since the case involved a matter which the law itself regards) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (as confidential. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Weinberger) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 454 U.S. at 146-47. ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td .47 Tw (These cases illustrate that the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( doctrine applies to the) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 2.4 Tw (facts of this case regardless of whether the Does' claim is) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.3 Tw (based on a secret contract with the CIA or on other theories) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.22 Tw (of relief that necessarily involve the disclosure of that secret) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .14 Tw (relationship. Clever pleading cannot evade a clear prohibition.) Tj 12 -26.2 Td .36 Tw (As with a claim sounding strictly in contract, a claim based) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 2.47 Tw (on theories of estoppel would require the Does to actually) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .36 Tw (demonstrate a relationship with the CIA. It would require that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.75 Tw (the Does prove, for instance, a binding representation made) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.77 Tw (by the CIA to the Does on which they relied to their detri-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .43 Tw (ment. But the very existence of such a relationship or implied) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.07 Tw (contract for secret services between the Does and the CIA is) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .9 Tw (a secret that cannot be disclosed, since disclosure of this fact) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.21 Tw (would inevitably ) Tj (compromise or embarrass our government) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .6 Tw (in its public duties, or endanger the person or injure the char-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (acter of the agent.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 92 U.S. at 106. ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 1.08 Tw (Any attempt to demonstrate a regulatory or statutory basis) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.24 Tw (for an entitlement to benefits from the CIA must fail for the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .53 Tw (same reason. Even assuming that the Does could demonstrate) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .96 Tw (that either the statutory language of Section 403h, the statute) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.33 Tw (from which the term ) Tj (PL-110) Tj ( is derived, or the regulations) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2 Tw (regarding the support provided to former PL-110 resettlees,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .52 Tw (actually mandate the relief requested, they would still have to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td -.12 Tw (prove that they were indeed individuals classified as PL-110s.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (In any event, it is unlikely that the Does would be able to demonstrate) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.82 Tw (that either Section 403h or the regulations regarding so-called PL-110s) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.11 Tw (mandate such relief. Section 403h simply provides that in his discretion,) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7036) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 150 0 obj 3882 endobj 148 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 144 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 149 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 46 46 152 0 obj << /Length 153 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.57 Tw 0 Tc (That is, the Does would have to show that a relationship or) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2.08 Tw (an agreement existed between themselves and the CIA that) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .85 Tw (would entitle them to seek relief under these specific statutes) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.2 Tw (and regulations for the benefits they now claim. ) Tj 12 -28.2 Td 2.85 Tw (The district court also found that the Does ) Tj (have suffi-) Tj -12 -14.3 Td 1 Tw (ciently stated a claim that the government violated their sub-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.5 Tw (stantive due process rights by creating a special relationship) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .2 Tw (with plaintiffs and then failing to provide for their basic needs) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.11 Tw (and protect them from deprivations of liberty, or by affirma-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .96 Tw (tively placing them in danger.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Doe v. Tenet) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 99 F. Supp. 2d) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.21 Tw (at 1293. The Does could, as a general matter, assert a viola-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .22 Tw (tion of their due process rights if \(1\) the CIA created a special) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .5 Tw (relationship with them and thereafter abused that special rela-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.9 Tw (tionship, or \(2\) if the CIA affirmatively placed the Does in) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 3.13 Tw (danger. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (L.W. v. Grubbs) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 974 F.2d 119, 121 \(9th Cir.) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .55 Tw (1992\). To succeed on their substantive due process claim, the) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.73 Tw (Does would have to establish either that a relationship with) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.6 Tw (the CIA in fact existed or that the CIA affirmatively placed) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .07 Tw (them in danger. This they cannot do, for ) Tj (the employment and) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1 Tw (the service were to be equally concealed.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 92 U.S. at) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.2 Tw (106. ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -27.9 Td 2.06 Tw (the Director of Central Intelligence \() Tj (DCI) Tj (\) may admit aliens into the) Tj 0 -12 Td .71 Tw (United States for permanent residence ) Tj (without regard to their inadmissi-) Tj 0 -12 Td .22 Tw (bility under the immigration or any other laws and regulations.) Tj ( 50 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -12 Td 1.43 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.43 Tw (403h. Nothing in the language of the statute itself even alludes to the) Tj 0 -12 Td .46 Tw (provision of support, financial or otherwise, by the CIA or any other gov-) Tj 0 -12 Td .21 Tw (ernmental agency. Further, the regulations provided to us demonstrate that) Tj 0 -12 Td 1.13 Tw (although the CIA may have granted some benefits and support to others) Tj 0 -12 Td .5 Tw (alleged to have been PL-110s, none of those regulations mandate the pro-) Tj 0 -12 Td 1.84 Tw (vision of such support. In fact, the regulations clearly indicate that the) Tj 0 -12 Td .88 Tw (amount and extent of support provided is wholly within the discretion of) Tj 0 -12 Td .4 Tw (the DCI and may be terminated at any time. To illustrate, a redacted 1990) Tj 0 -12 Td .33 Tw (internal CIA Regulation noted that the Agency's support ) Tj (normally termi-) Tj 0 -12 Td .48 Tw (nates when [an alien] acquires citizenship in our Country, but may be ter-) Tj 0 -12 Td 1 Tw (minated earlier.) Tj ( ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -320.75 m 300 -320.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7037) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 153 0 obj 3844 endobj 151 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 144 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 152 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 47 47 155 0 obj << /Length 156 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 142.998 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (III) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -130.998 -26.3 Td 2.25 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( bars judicial review of cases arising out of secret) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 4.24 Tw (contracts for espionage services even where the plaintiff) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .47 Tw (alleges national security is no longer at risk because there has) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 4.38 Tw (been public acknowledgment of the contract. Unlike the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.71 Tw (majority, I have no difficulty rejecting the plaintiffs' invita-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.58 Tw (tion to second-guess the DCI's determination of what infor-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.85 Tw (mation remains harmful to national security or otherwise) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (embarrassing to the federal government.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.2 Tw ( ) Tj 12 -26.3 Td 1.07 Tw (The highest judicial deference is owed to the DCI's deter-) Tj -12 -13.3 Td .75 Tw (mination that disclosure of the relationship between the Does) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.09 Tw (and the CIA would pose a threat to national security. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (50) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.53 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.53 Tw (403-3 \(providing that as part of its responsibilities,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .75 Tw (the DCI shall ) Tj (protect intelligence sources and methods from) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 7.38 Tw (unauthorized disclosure) Tj (\). As the Supreme Court has) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.37 Tw (declared, ) Tj (Congress intended to give the Director of Central) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.33 Tw (Intelligence broad power to protect the secrecy and integrity) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .1 Tw (of the intelligence process. The reasons are too obvious to call) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .9 Tw (for enlarged discussion; without such protections the Agency) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .53 Tw (would be virtually impotent.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (CIA v. Sims) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 471 U.S. 159, 170) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (\(1985\). ) Tj 12 -26.3 Td 1.03 Tw (In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Sims) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the Supreme Court aptly observed that judges are) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (ill-suited to evaluate these secrecy considerations: ) Tj 22 -26.2 Td 1.45 Tw (We seriously doubt whether a potential intelligence) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -12 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .83 Tw (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (I reject the majority's view that judicial review of secret contracts for) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.21 Tw (espionage services may actually enhance national security. According to) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .58 Tw (the majority, if suppliers of military and espionage-related goods and ser-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.03 Tw (vices come to expect that promises cannot be enforced, their willingness) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .27 Tw (to offer their services may in the long run dissipate. Maj. Op. at 7018. But) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.15 Tw (such a policy determination is not ours to make. Rather, that decision is) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .35 Tw (entrusted to the Executive Branch. The better rule is to dismiss such cases) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.18 Tw (at the outset of the litigation without forcing an acknowledgment by the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.56 Tw (government and before any of the forbidden details can inadvertently) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (come to light. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -376.95 m 300 -376.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7038) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 156 0 obj 3789 endobj 154 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 144 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 155 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 48 48 158 0 obj << /Length 159 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td 2.37 Tw 0 Tc (source will rest assured knowing that judges, who) Tj 0 -13 Td .83 Tw (have little or no background in the delicate business) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.83 Tw (of intelligence gathering, will order his identity) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .26 Tw (revealed only after examining the facts of the case to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (determine whether the Agency actually needed to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (promise confidentiality in order to obtain the infor-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .52 Tw (mation. . . . Moreover, a court's decision whether an) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (intelligence source will be harmed if his identity is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (revealed will often require complex political, histori-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (cal, and psychological judgments. ) Tj 114.8 -26 Td (* * *) Tj -114.8 -26 Td .4 Tw (And it is the responsibility of the Director of Central) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.91 Tw (Intelligence, not that of the judiciary, to weigh the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .61 Tw (variety of complex and subtle factors in determining) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.81 Tw (whether disclosure of information may lead to an) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.06 Tw (unacceptable risk of compromising the Agency's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (intelligence-gathering process. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -22 -26 Td (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 176, 180. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .03 Tw (The Does nevertheless assure the court that litigation of this) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (case would not involve disclosure of any matter that would) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.78 Tw (pose a threat to the nation's security interests, particularly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (where the espionage activities at issue occurred so long ago.) Tj 12 -26 Td .28 Tw (We should reject the Does' invitation to circumvent ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .72 Tw (a case that itself was not decided until ten years after the end) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.6 Tw (of the Civil War and, presumably, until after the need for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (secrecy had subsided. Instead, we would be well advised to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .36 Tw (adopt the rule set forth by the Federal Circuit in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Guong) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, hold-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .02 Tw (ing that ) Tj (it cannot be doubted that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( stands for the propo-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.73 Tw (sition that no action can be brought to enforce an alleged) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .06 Tw (contract with the government when, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (at the time of its creation) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.37 Tw (the contract was secret or covert.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Guong) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 860 F.2d at 1065) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (\(emphasis added\). The Does' argument must fail because, as) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.95 Tw (the Federal Circuit recognized, ) Tj (what may seem historical) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7039) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 159 0 obj 3303 endobj 157 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 144 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 158 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 49 49 161 0 obj << /Length 162 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .39 Tw 0 Tc (trivia to [the plaintiff] may be of great moment to the govern-) Tj 0 -13 Td .18 Tw (ment, which has a much broader view of the world scene.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (at 1066. ) Tj 12 -25.8 Td 1.81 Tw (Nor do I find persuasive the plaintiffs' argument that the) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.4 Tw (existence of ambiguous correspondence allegedly exchanged) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.08 Tw (between the parties transform their secret arrangement into a) Tj 0 -13 Td .73 Tw (public one. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also ) Tj (Mackowski v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 228) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.81 Tw (Ct. Cl. 717, 719 \(1981\) \(rejecting the same argument and) Tj 0 -13 Td .03 Tw (finding that speculation is not equivalent to public disclosure\).) Tj 0 -13 Td .66 Tw (To protect this country's legitimate interest in maintaining its) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.42 Tw (national security, the existence of the alleged relationship) Tj 0 -13 Td .94 Tw (between the Does and the United States is itself a fact not to) Tj 0 -13 Td .6 Tw (be disclosed, and without this fact the case may not proceed.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (6) Tj 0 Ts /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 143.334 -25.8 Td 1.2 Tw (IV) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -131.334 -25.9 Td 3.28 Tw (Also unpersuasive is the majority's reliance on modern) Tj -12 -13 Td .55 Tw (judicial proceedings designed to protect confidential informa-) Tj 0 -13 Td .43 Tw (tion from disclosure during the course of litigation, such as ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in) Tj 0 -13 Td .33 Tw (camera) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( proceedings, to save the Does' claims from dismissal.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.8 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.78 Tw (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (A broader reading of ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( is consistent with the Supreme Court's) Tj -10 -11 Td 2.65 Tw (recognition of the public policy interest in, and the critical need for,) Tj 0 -11 Td .55 Tw (secrecy in the intelligence field. Reviewing the congressional hearing tes-) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1.39 Tw (timony of Allen Dulles, the CIA's third DCI, and of Air Force General) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .57 Tw (Vandenberg in support of the National Security Act of 1947, the Court in) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.1 Td 2.64 Tw (Sims) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 471 U.S. at 171-172, 172 n.16 \(1985\), quoted none other than) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .12 Tw (George Washington on the need for complete secrecy in this sensitive area) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (of government operations: ) Tj 18 -16 Td .81 Tw (Secrecy is inherently a key to successful intelligence operations.) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 3.53 Tw (In the course of issuing orders for an intelligence mission,) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (George Washington wrote to his agent: ) Tj 0 -16 Td 1.92 Tw (The necessity of procuring good intelligence, is apparent and) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .63 Tw (need not be further urged. All that remains for me to add is, that) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 3.37 Tw (you keep the whole matter as secret as possible. For upon) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .46 Tw (secrecy, success depends in most Enterprises of the kind, and for) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .2 Tw (want of it they are generally defeated . . . .) Tj ( 8 Writings of George) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .15 Tw (Washington 478-479 \(J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1933\) \(letter from George) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (Washington to Colonel Elias Dayton, July 26, 1777\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -279.55 m 300 -279.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7040) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 162 0 obj 4004 endobj 160 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 163 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 161 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 50 50 165 0 obj << /Length 166 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.17 Tw 0 Tc (The district court quoted ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster v. Doe) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 486 U.S. 592, 604) Tj 0 -12.7 Td (\(1988\), to support its assertion that district courts have ) Tj (lati-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .33 Tw (tude to control any discovery process which may be instituted) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.6 Tw (so as to balance [plaintiffs'] need for access to proof which) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 3.18 Tw (would support a colorable constitutional claim against the) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.83 Tw (extraordinary needs of the CIA for confidentiality and the) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 4 Tw (protection of its methods, sources, and mission.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Doe v.) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.11 Tw (Tenet) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 99 F. Supp. 2d at 1290 \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 486 U.S. at) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .23 Tw (604\). The district court noted that the CIA could also ) Tj (request) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .81 Tw (leave to submit materials in this matter under seal or ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in cam-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.44 Tw (era) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, or may assert the state secrets privilege recognized in) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .83 Tw ([) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (]. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The district court and the majority's reliance) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.2 Tw (on ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is misplaced. ) Tj 12 -25.3 Td 4.5 Tw (In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( a discharged CIA employee filed a claim) Tj -12 -12.7 Td 2.93 Tw (against the CIA alleging that he was fired because of his) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.36 Tw (homosexuality. 486 U.S. at 595-96. In an opinion where the) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 3.16 Tw (majority never cited ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the Supreme Court held that,) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .61 Tw (although the Director's discretionary decision to discharge an) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 3.16 Tw (employee for national security reasons was not subject to) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .41 Tw (judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 3.16 Tw (601, the discharged employee's constitutional claims were) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.53 Tw (judicially reviewable. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 603-04. The ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Court rea-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.55 Tw (soned that in enacting the relevant statute, Congress did not) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.16 Tw (mean to impose restrictions denying courts the authority to) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1 Tw (resolve constitutional claims arising from the DCI's termina-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .88 Tw (tion decisions. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 604. The ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Court recognized that) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.82 Tw (claims attacking the hiring and promotion policies of the) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .97 Tw ([CIA] are routinely entertained in federal court. . . .) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .08 Tw (Court also reasoned that the employee's claims stemmed from) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .16 Tw (the existence of the employment relationship and the informa-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.06 Tw (tion sought involved the ) Tj (same sort of rummaging) Tj ( found in) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .62 Tw (employment cases. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In those circumstances, the Court con-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .57 Tw (cluded, the district court had the latitude to balance the plain-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .54 Tw (tiff's need for access to proof with the government's need for) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (confidentiality. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj 12 -25.3 Td .36 Tw (Unlike the case at hand, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( did not involve disclosure) Tj -12 -12.8 Td .77 Tw (of the type of secret agreement that would preclude litigation) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7041) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 166 0 obj 4539 endobj 164 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 163 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 165 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 51 51 168 0 obj << /Length 169 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.37 Tw 0 Tc (under ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. There is a difference between the domestic) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.3 Tw (employment of Agency workers and foreign spies. It is no) Tj 0 -13 Td .4 Tw (secret that federal employees work for the CIA in a variety of) Tj 0 -13 Td .65 Tw (sensitive positions. Terminating one for an alleged impermis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (sible reason is the grist of many labor and employment law-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.92 Tw (suits. To the contrary, the Does cannot even establish the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (existence of their secret employment without running afoul of) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 2.2 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. The ) Tj (sort of rummaging) Tj ( permissible in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Webster) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (intolerable in cases controlled by ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Weinberger) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 454) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (U.S. at 147 \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 92 U.S. at 107\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.75 Tw (The district court's reliance on ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( as authority to) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (conduct ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (in ) Tj (camera) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( proceedings after forcing the government) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (to answer the Complaint, thereby revealing the secret fact of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (employment, is likewise misplaced. The ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Court held) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (that when this is the case we should not jeopardize national) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.87 Tw (security by ) Tj (insisting upon an examination of the evidence,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (even by the judge alone, in chambers) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345 U.S. at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .46 Tw (10 \(emphasis added\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( recognized that in those situa-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.36 Tw (tions described by ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( as ) Tj (inevitably lead[ing] to the dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 8.16 Tw (closure of matters which the law itself regards as) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.84 Tw (confidential, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 92 U.S. at 147, no amount of judicial) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (oversight is sufficient to protect the national security interests) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (at stake. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 145.668 -26 Td (V) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -133.668 -26 Td .93 Tw (Although I do not think it is necessary to the resolution of) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .54 Tw (this case, I note that even if the Does' claims could somehow) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (overcome the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( bar \(which they cannot\), the Tucker Act,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.63 Tw (1491\(a\)\(1\), requires the Does to bring this case) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (in the Court of Federal Claims. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.66 Tw (The Tucker Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Court) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .03 Tw (of Federal Claims for suits against the United States whenever) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (an action seeks money damages or arises from an express or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.88 Tw (implied contract. 28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4.88 Tw (1491\(a\)\(1\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Demontiney v.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (United States ex rel. Dept. of Interior,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 255 F.3d 801, 810 \(9th) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7042) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 169 0 obj 4107 endobj 167 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 163 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 168 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 52 52 171 0 obj << /Length 172 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .98 Tw 0 Tc (Cir. 2001\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( This jurisdictional limitation extends to constitu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (tional claims against the United States that are dependent on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.04 Tw (rights provided under a government contract. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Tucson Airport) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.8 Tw (Auth. v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 136 F.3d 641, 647 \(9th Cir.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.42 Tw (1998\) \(holding when constitutional claims are premised on) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (the notion that the United States has some contractual obliga-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (tion to the plaintiff that it has failed to satisfy, the claims are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (contractually based and must be heard in the Court of Federal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.46 Tw (Claims\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (North Star Alaska v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 14 F.3d 36, 37) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.52 Tw (\(9th Cir. 1994\) \(holding if a plaintiff's claim is concerned) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .87 Tw (with rights created within the contractual relationship, it falls) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (within the Tucker Act\). ) Tj 12 -26.1 Td 4.51 Tw (The majority seeks to avoid this second jurisdictional) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (obstacle by cleverly dissecting the Does' claims and recasting) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (some of them as independent of the underlying contract. For) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .97 Tw (example, the majority finds that the Does may have a liberty) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (or due process claim outside of the Tucker Act because they) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.4 Tw (allege that the CIA placed them in danger by bringing them) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .77 Tw (to this country, providing them with false identities, and then) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.44 Tw (failing to take care of them when Mr. Doe lost his job. The) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .78 Tw (Does' ) Tj (intentional endangerment) Tj ( claim, however, is nothing) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .75 Tw (more than a claim that the United States failed to provide for) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (the Does as required by the parties' alleged agreement. ) Tj 12 -26.1 Td 1.77 Tw (In the absence of an agreement with the government, the) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .54 Tw (Does would have neither a false history nor an expectation of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .58 Tw (governmental aid. If the government owed the Does any duty) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.02 Tw (at all, the source of that duty must be the alleged contract.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td .36 Tw (Tucson Airport Auth.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 136 F.3d at 647 \(finding claim contrac-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.8 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 1 Tw (The Tucker Act grants jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims: ) Tj 8 -16.2 Td 2.44 Tw (to render judgment upon any claim against the United States) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .81 Tw (founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.12 Tw (any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.59 Tw (or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. ) Tj -18 -16.2 Td (28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (1491\(a\)\(1\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -400.65 m 300 -400.65 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7043) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 172 0 obj 3804 endobj 170 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 163 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 171 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 53 53 174 0 obj << /Length 175 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.67 Tw 0 Tc (tually based where ) Tj ([the] duty, if it exists, derives from the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (contract\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also ) Tj (Up State Federal Credit Union v. Walker) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .05 Tw (198 F.3d 372, 377 \(2d Cir. 1999\) \(finding that the parties' dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (pute was contractual in nature and subject to the Tucker Act) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.07 Tw (because, had the parties not entered into the contract, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (plaintiff would have no claim against the government\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kielc-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.97 Tw (zynski) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 128 F. Supp. 2d at 160 \(rejecting a former covert) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (employee's argument that the source of his rights was the due) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .13 Tw (process clause and finding instead that his cause of action was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ultimately based on his contract with the CIA\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.04 Tw (Likewise, the Does' due process claimdeclaring that the) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (Does seek only to compel ) Tj (a constitutionally adequate hearing) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.77 Tw (in which to adjudicate their rights) Tj (is based on the their) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (alleged secret contract with the CIA. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Kielczynski) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, a factu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.46 Tw (ally indistinguishable case, a district court rejected the same) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (due process argument the Does raise here. 128 F. Supp. 2d at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.64 Tw (160-61. There, the plaintiff, who had been a former spy for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (the CIA, argued that the CIA's failure to conduct an adequate) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (hearing in order to determine whether he was entitled to addi-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.23 Tw (tional benefits violated the due process clause. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 160. In) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.63 Tw (that case, the court had no problem holding that the Tucker) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.66 Tw (Act precluded it from exercising jurisdiction over the plain-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.48 Tw (tiff's claim because ) Tj (the very existence of the alleged due) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .26 Tw (process claim hinge[d] on the existence of [the] contract.) Tj () Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1 Tw (at 161, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (aff'd sub nom. ) Tj (Kielczynski v. Does 1-2) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 01-6103,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .58 Tw (2003 WL 187164 \(2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2003\) \(unpublished dispo-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (sition\). ) Tj 12 -26.1 Td .75 Tw (The Does' claim that CIA regulations and procedures enti-) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 3 Tw (tle them to continued support as persons brought into the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .33 Tw (United States pursuant to the PL-110 program is also contrac-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.1 Tw (tually based. The Tucker Act's jurisdictional grant includes) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .66 Tw (claims upon any implied contract with the United States. The) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.14 Tw (Does' PL-110 status claim is nothing more than an assertion) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .58 Tw (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Kielczynski) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( court specifically rejected the reasoning of the district) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (court in this case. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( at 161. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -466.55 m 300 -466.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7044) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 175 0 obj 4048 endobj 173 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 163 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 20 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 174 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 54 54 177 0 obj << /Length 178 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .62 Tw 0 Tc (that abstract CIA procedures, combined with the Does' status) Tj 0 -13 Td .58 Tw (as participants in the PL-110 program, create an implied con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.61 Tw (tractual obligation to pay them additional monetary support.) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.14 Tw (Finally, the Does' estoppel claim is contractually based) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.13 Tw (because it depends on their ability to prove that the CIA) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (entered into an agreement upon which it intended, or the Does) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .47 Tw (rightfully believed that it intended, the Does to rely. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Wat-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (kins v. United States Army) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 875 F.2d 699, 710 \(9th Cir. 1989\).) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.25 Tw (The Does' estoppel claim ultimately rests on their allegation) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (that they entered into an agreement with the CIA, the Does) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (satisfactorily performed their end of the bargain, and the CIA) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (thereafter failed to perform as promised. Under our case law,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (the Does' estoppel claim is contractually based and must be) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (heard in the Court of Federal Claims. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Tucson Airport Auth.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (136 F.3d at 647-48; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (North Star Alaska) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 14 F.3d at 37. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.83 Tw (We lack the power to exercise subject matter jurisdiction) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (when Congress has given it to another court. The Does should) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (not be permitted to evade the valid jurisdictional limitations) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (of the Tucker Act by labeling their action as something other) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (than what it truly is: a breach of contract claim. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 143.334 -26 Td (VI) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -131.334 -26 Td .58 Tw (There has been no change in the law of spy contracts since) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( was decided in 1875. The secret existence of the espio-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.83 Tw (nage relationship and a claim for greater compensation was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.09 Tw (not justiciable then; it is not justiciable now. Once it is clear) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.84 Tw (that the plaintiff's action is controlled by ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, no further) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (proceedings are required and we must dismiss the case. The) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (law for this class of cases has remained constant for 128) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (years. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.88 Tw (We cannot avoid our obligation to follow ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( by sug-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (gesting that somehow the law has evolved to a point where) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.17 Tw (the unequivocal rule announced therein is no longer neces-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.71 Tw (sary. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( has not been supplanted by procedural rules) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7045) Tj -158.4697 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 178 0 obj 3518 endobj 176 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 163 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 177 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 55 55 180 0 obj << /Length 181 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .5 Tw 0 Tc (enacted by Congress in order to protect confidentiality during) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.24 Tw (the discovery phase of litigation under congressionally cre-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .81 Tw (ated causes of action. Unless the Supreme Court revisits ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Tot-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.88 Tw (ten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( or Congress provides a new statutory remedy to further) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.88 Tw (compensate former spies, we are required to abide by the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .07 Tw (Court's holding that ) Tj (public policy forbids the maintenance of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .47 Tw (any suit in a court of justice, the trial of which would inevita-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.13 Tw (bly lead to the disclosure of matters which the law itself) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .44 Tw (regards as confidential. . . .) Tj ( 92 U.S. at 107; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see, e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Landri-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.36 Tw (gan v. Stewart) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 272 F.3d 1221, 1229 \(9th Cir. 2001\) \() Tj ([W]e) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (must leave it to the [Supreme] Court to overrule its own cases,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.05 Tw (if and when it decides to do so.) Tj (\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Hart v. Massanari) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 266) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .95 Tw (F.3d 1155, 1170 \(9th Cir. 2001\) \() Tj (Binding authority must be) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.58 Tw (followed unless and until overruled by a body competent to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (do so.) Tj (\). ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td .4 Tw (Proof of the existence of a contract for secret services or of) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.47 Tw (a secret espionage relationship with the CIA is ) Tj (itself a fact) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.18 Tw (not be disclosed.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 92 U.S. at 107. Because ) Tj ([t]he) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .5 Tw (secrecy which such contracts impose precludes any action for) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.46 Tw (their enforcement,) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the Does' lawsuit is not justiciable) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .54 Tw (under ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Totten) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. Even if the Does' suit could be heard in federal) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .47 Tw (court, the Tucker Act mandates that it be filed in the Court of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .44 Tw (Federal Claims. Because the court's opinion fails to adhere to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .14 Tw (the jurisdictional limitations announced by the Supreme Court) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (and enacted by Congress, I respectfully dissent.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7046) Tj 119.5303 0 Td (D) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. T) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (ENET) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 181 0 obj 2943 endobj 179 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 182 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 180 0 R >> endobj 1 0 obj [ /PDF /Text ] endobj 183 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 184 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Times-Bold /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 139.00 /StemH 69.50 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 676 /XHeight 461 /Ascent 676 /Descent -205 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 6 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F1 /BaseFont /Times-Bold /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300 250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500 930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778 611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500 333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500 556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400 722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722 667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667 500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556 667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500 500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333 1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000 389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722 722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ] /Encoding 183 0 R /FontDescriptor 184 0 R >> endobj 185 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 186 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Times-Roman /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 84.00 /StemH 42.00 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 662 /XHeight 450 /Ascent 683 /Descent -217 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 7 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F2 /BaseFont /Times-Roman /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300 250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444 921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722 556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500 333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500 500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400 667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722 611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611 444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556 611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444 500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333 1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980 333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722 722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ] /Encoding 185 0 R /FontDescriptor 186 0 R >> endobj 187 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 240 /apple ] >> endobj 188 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Symbol /Flags 4 /FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 85.00 /StemH 42.50 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 0 /XHeight 0 /Ascent 0 /Descent 0 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 8 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F3 /BaseFont /Symbol /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444 549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722 768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500 500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549 549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603 400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658 823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713 768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603 494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494 790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ] /Encoding 187 0 R /FontDescriptor 188 0 R >> endobj 189 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 190 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Times-Italic /Flags 98 /FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 76.00 /StemH 38.00 /ItalicAngle -15.50 /CapHeight 653 /XHeight 441 /Ascent 683 /Descent -205 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 9 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F4 /BaseFont /Times-Italic /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300 250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500 920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722 611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500 333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500 500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400 667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611 611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611 500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500 611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500 500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333 889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980 333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722 722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ] /Encoding 189 0 R /FontDescriptor 190 0 R >> endobj 191 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 192 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Helvetica-Bold /Flags 32 /FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 140.00 /StemH 70.00 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 718 /XHeight 532 /Ascent 718 /Descent -207 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 20 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F5 /BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333 278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611 975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778 667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556 278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611 611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400 722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722 667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667 556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611 667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611 611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333 1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000 278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722 722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ] /Encoding 191 0 R /FontDescriptor 192 0 R >> endobj 10 0 obj << /Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 17 0 R 21 0 R 24 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 193 0 R >> endobj 30 0 obj << /Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R 37 0 R 40 0 R 43 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 193 0 R >> endobj 49 0 obj << /Kids [46 0 R 50 0 R 53 0 R 56 0 R 59 0 R 62 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 193 0 R >> endobj 68 0 obj << /Kids [65 0 R 69 0 R 72 0 R 75 0 R 78 0 R 81 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 193 0 R >> endobj 87 0 obj << /Kids [84 0 R 88 0 R 91 0 R 94 0 R 97 0 R 100 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 193 0 R >> endobj 106 0 obj << /Kids [103 0 R 107 0 R 110 0 R 113 0 R 116 0 R 119 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 193 0 R >> endobj 125 0 obj << /Kids [122 0 R 126 0 R 129 0 R 132 0 R 135 0 R 138 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 194 0 R >> endobj 144 0 obj << /Kids [141 0 R 145 0 R 148 0 R 151 0 R 154 0 R 157 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 194 0 R >> endobj 163 0 obj << /Kids [160 0 R 164 0 R 167 0 R 170 0 R 173 0 R 176 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 194 0 R >> endobj 182 0 obj << /Kids [179 0 R] /Count 1 /Type /Pages /Parent 194 0 R >> endobj 193 0 obj << /Kids [10 0 R 30 0 R 49 0 R 68 0 R 87 0 R 106 0 R] /Count 36 /Type /Pages /Parent 195 0 R >> endobj 194 0 obj << /Kids [125 0 R 144 0 R 163 0 R 182 0 R] /Count 19 /Type /Pages /Parent 195 0 R >> endobj 195 0 obj << /Kids [193 0 R 194 0 R] /Count 55 /Type /Pages /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] >> endobj 2 0 obj << /Type /Catalog /Pages 195 0 R >> endobj 196 0 obj << /CreationDate (Wednesday May 28, 2003 11:30:16) /Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2) /Producer (ECMP5) >> endobj xref 0 197 0000000000 65535 f 0000231442 00000 n 0000245162 00000 n 0000003505 00000 n 0000000044 00000 n 0000003482 00000 n 0000232909 00000 n 0000235565 00000 n 0000237123 00000 n 0000239774 00000 n 0000243654 00000 n 0000004857 00000 n 0000003719 00000 n 0000004833 00000 n 0000008228 00000 n 0000005051 00000 n 0000008204 00000 n 0000012526 00000 n 0000008433 00000 n 0000012502 00000 n 0000242429 00000 n 0000016239 00000 n 0000012743 00000 n 0000016215 00000 n 0000019724 00000 n 0000016433 00000 n 0000019700 00000 n 0000023436 00000 n 0000019929 00000 n 0000023412 00000 n 0000243771 00000 n 0000027916 00000 n 0000023653 00000 n 0000027892 00000 n 0000031993 00000 n 0000028133 00000 n 0000031969 00000 n 0000036973 00000 n 0000032212 00000 n 0000036949 00000 n 0000040967 00000 n 0000037192 00000 n 0000040943 00000 n 0000045284 00000 n 0000041186 00000 n 0000045260 00000 n 0000049571 00000 n 0000045503 00000 n 0000049547 00000 n 0000243889 00000 n 0000053694 00000 n 0000049790 00000 n 0000053670 00000 n 0000058092 00000 n 0000053913 00000 n 0000058068 00000 n 0000061902 00000 n 0000058299 00000 n 0000061878 00000 n 0000065813 00000 n 0000062109 00000 n 0000065789 00000 n 0000069277 00000 n 0000066020 00000 n 0000069253 00000 n 0000073563 00000 n 0000069484 00000 n 0000073539 00000 n 0000244007 00000 n 0000077392 00000 n 0000073770 00000 n 0000077368 00000 n 0000083504 00000 n 0000077611 00000 n 0000083480 00000 n 0000087776 00000 n 0000083723 00000 n 0000087752 00000 n 0000092804 00000 n 0000087983 00000 n 0000092780 00000 n 0000098793 00000 n 0000093011 00000 n 0000098769 00000 n 0000103351 00000 n 0000099012 00000 n 0000103327 00000 n 0000244125 00000 n 0000107489 00000 n 0000103558 00000 n 0000107465 00000 n 0000111289 00000 n 0000107708 00000 n 0000111265 00000 n 0000115721 00000 n 0000111496 00000 n 0000115697 00000 n 0000120313 00000 n 0000115928 00000 n 0000120289 00000 n 0000124605 00000 n 0000120520 00000 n 0000124580 00000 n 0000128446 00000 n 0000124814 00000 n 0000128421 00000 n 0000244244 00000 n 0000132223 00000 n 0000128656 00000 n 0000132198 00000 n 0000136901 00000 n 0000132433 00000 n 0000136876 00000 n 0000140656 00000 n 0000137123 00000 n 0000140631 00000 n 0000144549 00000 n 0000140866 00000 n 0000144524 00000 n 0000148618 00000 n 0000144759 00000 n 0000148593 00000 n 0000153211 00000 n 0000148828 00000 n 0000153186 00000 n 0000244369 00000 n 0000158331 00000 n 0000153433 00000 n 0000158306 00000 n 0000162862 00000 n 0000158553 00000 n 0000162837 00000 n 0000167599 00000 n 0000163084 00000 n 0000167574 00000 n 0000172447 00000 n 0000167821 00000 n 0000172422 00000 n 0000177485 00000 n 0000172657 00000 n 0000177460 00000 n 0000181320 00000 n 0000177695 00000 n 0000181295 00000 n 0000244494 00000 n 0000186128 00000 n 0000181530 00000 n 0000186103 00000 n 0000190308 00000 n 0000186338 00000 n 0000190283 00000 n 0000194462 00000 n 0000190530 00000 n 0000194437 00000 n 0000198549 00000 n 0000194672 00000 n 0000198524 00000 n 0000202162 00000 n 0000198771 00000 n 0000202137 00000 n 0000206464 00000 n 0000202372 00000 n 0000206439 00000 n 0000244619 00000 n 0000211313 00000 n 0000206686 00000 n 0000211288 00000 n 0000215718 00000 n 0000211523 00000 n 0000215693 00000 n 0000219832 00000 n 0000215940 00000 n 0000219807 00000 n 0000224190 00000 n 0000220054 00000 n 0000224165 00000 n 0000228018 00000 n 0000224412 00000 n 0000227993 00000 n 0000231259 00000 n 0000228228 00000 n 0000231234 00000 n 0000244744 00000 n 0000231475 00000 n 0000232628 00000 n 0000234131 00000 n 0000235284 00000 n 0000236783 00000 n 0000236856 00000 n 0000238337 00000 n 0000239490 00000 n 0000240991 00000 n 0000242144 00000 n 0000244829 00000 n 0000244950 00000 n 0000245060 00000 n 0000245219 00000 n trailer << /Size 197 /Root 2 0 R /Info 196 0 R >> startxref 245357 %%EOF