## Facts

- Individuals and organizations active in anti–Vietnam War protests alleged that, from about 1967 to 1974, federal intelligence agencies collected information on them through domestic surveillance and intelligence-gathering programs, including a CIA program known as Operation CHAOS and NSA interception of international communications based on CIA “watchlists.”
- Plaintiffs claimed violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments and § 102(d)(3) of the National Security Act of 1947 (then codified at 50 U.S.C. § 403(d)(3).
- Plaintiffs sought damages against certain federal officials in their individual capacities and injunctive and declaratory relief against agency heads in their official capacities.
- In discovery, plaintiffs sought documents concerning the intelligence programs and whether plaintiffs were targeted or intercepted.
- The Director of Central Intelligence invoked the state secrets privilege, asserting that disclosure would reveal sensitive foreign-intelligence capabilities and methods, including NSA collection and analysis capabilities.
- The district court sustained the privilege, limited discovery, and dismissed the action because the claims could not be proven without privileged information.

## Issues

1. Whether the state secrets privilege was properly invoked and sustained to bar discovery into the challenged intelligence activities.
2. Whether, after exclusion of privileged evidence, plaintiffs could establish Article III standing for injunctive and declaratory relief by proving injury in fact or a non-speculative threat of future injury.
3. Whether dismissal of damages claims was proper where litigating the claims would require disclosure of privileged information.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal.
- The court held that the state secrets privilege was properly invoked and sustained because compelled disclosure posed a reasonable danger to national security by exposing foreign-intelligence capabilities and related activities.
- The court concluded that, without access to privileged information, plaintiffs could not prove they were personally subjected to surveillance or interception and therefore could not establish injury in fact for prospective equitable relief.
- The court rejected claims of standing based on generalized allegations and speculative fear of future surveillance.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the damages claims to the extent they depended on privileged information essential to litigating liability.

## Legal Principles

- The state secrets privilege bars compelled disclosure of evidence when there is a reasonable danger that disclosure would harm national security, including by revealing intelligence methods or capabilities.
- If privileged information is essential to proving standing or establishing a prima facie case, dismissal may be required because the court cannot adjudicate the claim without risking disclosure of protected secrets.
- Article III standing requires a concrete, particularized injury; generalized allegations about government programs, or speculative fear of future surveillance, are insufficient.
- Courts may defer to the Executive’s national-security assessment supporting the privilege where the formal claim is properly made and the asserted harms are plausible.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld the Government’s state secrets assertion and affirmed dismissal because excluding the privileged information prevented plaintiffs from proving individualized surveillance or a non-speculative threat of future harm, defeating standing for equitable relief and foreclosing damages claims dependent on the protected evidence.


Halkin v. Helms, 690 F.2d 977 (D.C. Cir. 1982)