Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Halkin v. Helms

United States Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia
690 F.2d 977 (1982)


Facts

In 1975, both the press and the President’s Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States (the Rockefeller Commission) disclosed that government agencies had collected information on U.S. citizens who opposed the Vietnam war through various intelligence-gathering programs. Operation CHAOS, carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at the request of the president, aimed to determine how much influence and support foreign governments and organizations had on domestic critics of the war, and it did so by making use of the resources of other functioning CIA surveillance programs. Operation CHAOS produced many reports for the White House, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other agencies, and files were developed and maintained on the individual and organizational plaintiffs. In addition to CHAOS, the CIA acquired the contents of international conversations by submitting “watchlists” comprised of thousands of subjects’ names to the National Security Agency (NSA). Based on these intelligence-gathering programs, 21 individuals and five organizations (plaintiffs) who were involved in different kinds of protests against U.S. involvement in Vietnam filed suit against seven CIA and government officials (defendants) for damages, and against the heads of the CIA, FBI, Department of Defense, and Secret Service (defendants) for injunctive and declaratory relief. The claims were based on First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendment violations, as well as the violation of the National Security Act of 1947, 50 U.S.C. § 403-4a. The district court dismissed the complaint based on the CIA director’s invocation of the state secret privilege during discovery, in response to the plaintiffs’ request for production of various documents concerning CHAOS and NSA operations. The plaintiffs appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (MacKinnon, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 173,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.