- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: March 3, 2022
- Case #: 20–827
- Judge(s)/Court Below: BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Parts II– B–2 and III. ROBERTS, C. J., joined that opinion in full, KAVANAUGH and BARRETT, JJ., joined as to all but Part II–B–2, KAGAN, J., joined as to all but Parts III and IV and the judgment of dismissal, and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined Part IV. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which ALITO, J., joined. KA- VANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which BARRETT, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.
- Full Text Opinion
Respondent, a detainee at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Respondent asked the District Court to order testimony from two former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contractors regarding Respondent’s treatment at a CIA detention site that may or may not have been in Poland. Petitioner intervened and moved to quash the subpoenas because the location information would violate the state secrets privilege. The District Court granted Petitioner’s motion to quash, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part, ruling that the location of the site was “not covered by the state secrets privilege.” On appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision, holding that the location information was covered by the state secrets privilege. The state secrets privilege bars the disclosure of information upon showing that disclosure would have a “reasonable probability” to harm national security. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 6–7, 11 (1953). The Supreme Court reasoned that official confirmation that the CIA detention site was in Poland would harm national security due to a diminished willingness of foreign intelligence services to cooperate with US intelligence services in the future. Therefore, Petitioner demonstrated a “reasonable probability” of harm to national security. REVERSED and REMANDED.