Snepp, Iii v. United States United States v. Snepp, Iii
| Decision Date | 19 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 78-1871,79-265,s. 78-1871 |
| Citation | 100 S.Ct. 763,62 L.Ed.2d 704,444 U.S. 507 |
| Parties | Frank W. SNEPP, III v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. Frank W. SNEPP, III |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 445 U.S. 972, 100 S.Ct. 1668.
In No. 78-1871, Frank W. Snepp III seeks review of a judgment enforcing an agreement that he signed when he accepted employment with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He also contends that punitive damages are an inappropriate remedy for the breach of his promise to submit all writings about the Agency for prepublication review. In No. 79-265, the United States conditionally cross petitions from a judgment refusing to find that profits attributable to Snepp's breach are impressed with a constructive trust. We grant the petitions for certiorari in order to correct the judgment from which both parties seek relief.
Based on his experiences as a CIA agent, Snepp published a book about certain CIA activities in South Vietnam. Snepp published the account without submitting it to the Agency for prepublication review. As an express condition of his employment with the CIA in 1968, however, Snepp had executed an agreement promising that he would "not . . . publish . . . any information or material relating to the Agency, its activities or intelligence activities generally, either during or after the term of [his] employment . . . without specific prior approval by the Agency." App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 78-1871, p. 59a. The promise was an integral part of Snepp's concurrent undertaking "not to disclose any classified information relating to the Agency without proper authorization." Id., at 58a.1 Thus, Snepp had pledged not to divulge classified information and not to publish any information without prepublication clearance. The Government brought this suit to enforce Snepp's agreement. It sought a declaration that Snepp had breached the contract, an injunction requiring Snepp to submit future writings for prepublication review, and an order imposing a constructive trust for the Government's benefit on all profits that Snepp might earn from publishing the book in violation of his fiduciary obligations to the Agency.2
The District Court found that Snepp had "willfully, deliberately and surreptitiously breached his position of trust with the CIA and the [1968] secrecy agreement" by publishing his book without submitting it for prepublication review. 456 F.Supp. 176, 179 (E.D.Va.1978). The court also found that Snepp deliberately misled CIA officials into believing that he would submit the book for prepublication clearance. Finally, the court determined as a fact that publication of the book had "caused the United States irreparable harm and loss." Id., at 180. The District Court therefore enjoined future breaches of Snepp's agreement and imposed a constructive trust on Snepp's profits.
The Court of Appeals accepted the findings of the District Court and agreed that Snepp had breached a valid contract.3 It specifically affirmed the finding that Snepp's failure to submit his manuscript for prepublication review had inflicted "irreparable harm" on intelligence activities vital to our national security. 595 F.2d 926, 935 (CA4 1979). Thus, the court upheld the injunction against future violations of Snepp's prepublication obligation. The court, however, concluded that the record did not support imposition of a constructive trust. The conclusion rested on the court's percep- tion that Snepp had a First Amendment right to publish unclassified information and the Government's concession—for the purposes of this litigation—that Snepp's book divulged no classified intelligence. Id., at 935-936.4 In other words, the court thought that Snepp's fiduciary obligation extended only to preserving the confidentiality of classified material. It therefore limited recovery to nominal damages and to the possibility of punitive damages if the Government—in a jury trial could prove tortious conduct.
Judge Hoffman, sitting by designation, dissented from the refusal to find a constructive trust. The 1968 agreement, he wrote, "was no ordinary contract; it gave life to a fiduciary relationship and invested in Snepp the trust of the CIA." Id., at 938. Prepublication clearance was part of Snepp's undertaking to protect confidences associated with his trust. Punitive damages, Judge Hoffman argued, were both a speculative and inappropriate remedy for Snepp's breach. We agree with Judge Hoffman that Snepp breached a fiduciary obligation and that the proceeds of his breach are impressed with a constructive trust.
Snepp's employment with the CIA involved an extremely high degree of trust. In the opening sentence of the agreement that he signed, Snepp explicitly recognized that he was entering a trust relationship.5 The trust agreement specifi- cally imposed the obligation not to publish any information relating to the Agency without submitting the information for clearance. Snepp stipulated at trial that—after undertaking this obligation—he had been "assigned to various positions of trust" and that he had been granted "frequent access to classified information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods." 456 F.Supp., at 178.6 Snepp published his book about CIA activities on the basis of this background and exposure. He deliberately and surreptitiously violated his obligation to submit all material for prepublication review. Thus, he exposed the classified information with which he had been entrusted to the risk of disclosure.
Whether Snepp violated his trust does not depend upon whether his book actually contained classified information. The Government does not deny—as a general principle—Snepp's right to publish unclassified information. Nor does it contend—at this stage of the litigation—that Snepp's book contains classified material. The Government simply claims that, in light of the special trust reposed in him and the agreement that he signed, Snepp should have given the CIA an opportunity to determine whether the material he proposed to publish would compromise classified information or sources. Neither of the Government's concessions undercuts its claim that Snepp's failure to submit to prepublication review was a breach of his trust.
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals found that a former intelligence agent's publication of unreviewed material relating to intelligence activities can be detrimental to vital national interests even if the published information is unclassified. When a former agent relies on his own judgment about what information is detrimental, he may reveal information that the CIA—with its broader understanding of what may expose classified information and confidential sources—could have identified as harmful. In addition to receiving intelligence from domestically based or controlled sources, the CIA obtains information from the intelligence services of friendly nations 7 and from agents operating in foreign countries. The continued availability of these foreign sources depends upon the CIA's ability to guarantee the security of information that might compromise them and even endanger the personal safety of foreign agents.
Undisputed evidence in this case shows that a CIA agent's violation of his obligation to submit writings about the Agency for prepublication review impairs the CIA's ability to perform its statutory duties. Admiral Turner, Director of the CIA, testified without contradiction that Snepp's book and others like it have seriously impaired the effectiveness of American intelligence operations. He said, 456 F.Supp., at 179-180.8
In view of this and other evidence in the record, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals recognized that Snepp's breach of his explicit obligation to submit his material classified or not—for prepublication clearance has irreparably harmed the United States Government. 595 F.2d, at 935; 456 F.Supp., at 180.9
The decision of the Court of Appeals denies the Government the most appropriate remedy for Snepp's acknowledged wrong. Indeed, as a practical matter, the decision may well leave the Government with no reliable deterrent against similar breaches of security. No one disputes that the actual damages attributable to a publication such as Snepp's generally are unquantifiable. Nominal damages are a hollow alternative, certain to deter no one. The punitive damages recoverable after a jury trial are speculative and unusual. Even if recovered, they may bear no relation to either the Government's irreparable loss or Snepp's unjust gain.
The Government could not pursue the only remedy that the Court of Appeals left it 10 without losing the benefit of the bargain it seeks to enforce. Proof of the tortious conduct necessary to sustain an award of punitive damages might force the Government to disclose some of the very confidences that Snepp promised to protect. The trial of such a suit, before a jury if the defendant so elects, would subject the CIA and its officials to probing discovery into the Agency's highly confidential affairs. Rarely would the Government run this risk. In a letter introduced at Snepp's trial, former CIA Director Colby noted the analogous problem in criminal cases. Existing law, he stated, "requires the revelation in open court of confirming or additional information of such a nature that the potential...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rushton v. Meijer, Inc.
...that of forum selection, i.e., constitutional rights themselves, may be prospectively waived. 8 See, e.g., Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 763, 62 L.Ed.2d 704 (1980) (First Amendment right to speak or right about information gained in course of employment with government may......
-
US v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.
...although it has found United States v. Snepp, 595 F.2d 926, 933 (4th Cir.1979), rev'd in part on other grounds, 444 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 763, 62 L.Ed.2d 704 (1980), wherein the Fourth Circuit questioned the extension of the defense to civil actions. Following oral argument at which the Court......
-
University of Colorado Through Regents of University of Colorado v. Derdeyn
...103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (upholding discharge of employee for expressing labor grievance); Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 763, 62 L.Ed.2d 704 (1980) aff'd per curiam (upholding sanctions against CIA agent for breaching an agreement to submit all writings about ......
-
Stillman v. Department of Defense, Civ. No. 01-1342 (EGS) [23-1] (D. D.C. 6/7/2002)
...Court. See, e.g, Egan, 484 U.S. at 527 (discussing history of United States' information classification); Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 509 n. 3, 100 S.Ct. 763 (1980); United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 267, 88 S.Ct. 419 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10, 73 S.Ct.......
-
Filth, filtering, and the First Amendment: ruminations on public libraries' use of Internet filtering software.
...Loudoun II, 24 F. Supp. 2d 552, 570 (E.D. Va. 1998); Loudoun I, 2 F. Supp. 2d 783, 797 (E.D. Va. 1998). (93.) 509 U.S. 544 (1993). (94.) 444 U.S. 507 (95.) 501 U.S. 1030 (1991). (96.) Pub. L. No. 91-452, Title IX, [sections] 901(a), 84 Stat. 941 (codified at 18 U.S.C. [subsections] 1961-68 ......
-
Table of Cases
...U.S. 283, 12 L.Ed. 702 (1849), 716, 864 Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 18 S.Ct. 418, 42 L.Ed. 819 (1898), 1249, 1291 Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 100 S.Ct. 763, 62 L.Ed.2d 704 (1980), 1394-95 Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1......
-
The Constitution and the rights not to procreate.
...Sullivan, supra, at 1488-89 (emphasis omitted), I find it to be a less useful analogy. (217.) Rubin, supra note 28, at 521-22. (218.) 444 U.S. 507, 510-11 (1980) (per (219.) Id. at 507. (220.) Id. at 508-16. (221.) Id. at 510 & n.3. (222.) Id. at 510. (223.) Id.; see also G. Richard She......
-
IMPOSING SILENCE THROUGH SETTLEMENT: A FIRST-AMENDMENT CASE STUDY OF THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL.
...v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 931 F.2d 177 (2d Cir. 1991); Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (114) See Teamsters, 931 F.2d at 188. (115) See Leonard, 12 F.3d at 885. (116) See id. at 886. (117) See id. at 888. (118) See id. at 890. (119)......
-
Part 1905. Production of Official Records Or Disclosure of Official Information In Proceedings Before Federal, State Or Local Governmental Entities of Competent Jurisdiction [Details]
...50 U.S.C. 403g; United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462(1951); E.O. 12333 §§1.8(i), 1.5(h), 3.2; E.O. 12356; U.S. v. Snepp, 444 U.S. 507(1980)....