Albright v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
631 F.2d 915, 203 U.S. App. D.C. 333 (1980)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
A federal government agency (defendant) was considering several analysts (plaintiffs) for promotions. However, agency officials reclassified certain positions, which resulted in the promotions being denied. An official responsible for that decision held a meeting with the analysts. There was a heated exchange between the official and the analysts during the meeting. Unknown to the analysts, the meeting was recorded using a concealed videotape system. The videotape was labeled without the analysts’ names and placed in a locked file. The videotape was marked confidential. The analysts later sued the agency, alleging a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibited government agencies that maintained records systems from maintaining a record of the exercise of an individual’s First Amendment rights. The district court held that incorporation of such First Amendment records into an agency’s system of records was necessary to trigger the act’s protections. Because the videotape was not indexed according to the analysts’ identifying information, the court concluded that the record was not incorporated into the agency’s system of records. The analysts appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mikva, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.