United States v. Morison
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
844 F.2d 1057 (1988)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Samuel Morison (defendant) worked at the Naval Intelligence Support Center and was given top-secret security clearance. Morison signed a nondisclosure agreement as part of the clearance process. Morison was given clear instructions about what types of documents were prohibited from disclosure and to whom disclosures could and could not be made. Morison also worked with the publication Jane’s Fighting Ships (Jane’s), which reported on international naval operations. The Navy approved this arrangement under the condition that Morison would adhere to the nondisclosure agreement. Morison saw satellite photographs of a Soviet ship on the desk of another high-clearance employee of the Navy. The photographs were marked “secret” and included a warning that the images involved intelligence. Morison recognized that the photographs were taken using a secret naval-intelligence method. Morison stole the photographs and mailed them to Jane’s. The photographs were widely published. Morison was arrested and convicted of violating §§ 793(d) and (e) of the federal Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 793–98. Morison appealed his conviction. Morison challenged whether his conduct fell within the scope of the Espionage Act and whether the statute was constitutional.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Russell, J.)
Concurrence (Phillips, J.)
Concurrence (Wilkinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.