## Facts

- John Doe and his wife were former Cold War intelligence assets who alleged the CIA recruited Doe, a Soviet diplomat.
- They claimed the CIA promised resettlement in the United States and lifetime financial support.
- The couple relocated to the United States, and Doe later obtained private employment; he agreed to suspend CIA support while employed.
- After losing his job in 1997, Doe alleged CIA-imposed restrictions limited his employment options and sought reinstatement of support.
- The CIA declined and allegedly provided no internal review or appeal process.
- The Does sued, asserting equitable estoppel and Fifth Amendment due process claims based on the alleged espionage arrangement.

## Issues

1. Whether the Totten doctrine bars federal courts from adjudicating claims that arise from and depend on an alleged secret espionage relationship with the Government.
2. Whether plaintiffs may avoid Totten by pleading equitable or constitutional theories rather than a breach-of-contract claim.
3. Whether the case should proceed subject to case-by-case management through the state-secrets evidentiary privilege.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and ordered dismissal.
- The Court held the suit was barred by the Totten rule because success depended on establishing a secret espionage relationship with the Government.
- The Court rejected the view that Totten is limited to contract claims and held it applies regardless of how a claim is styled (contract, estoppel, or due process).
- The Court distinguished Totten’s categorical bar from the Reynolds state-secrets evidentiary privilege; Totten forecloses adjudication when the subject matter is the secret relationship itself.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may not entertain lawsuits premised on alleged espionage agreements; such actions are categorically barred.
- Totten precludes judicial review when a plaintiff’s success depends upon proving the existence of a secret espionage relationship with the Government.
- Plaintiffs cannot plead around Totten by relabeling the dispute as equitable estoppel, tort, or constitutional due process.
- The state-secrets privilege governs exclusion of evidence in otherwise justiciable cases; it does not displace Totten’s threshold bar where the action’s subject matter is the clandestine relationship.

## Conclusion

The Court held that claims requiring proof of a secret espionage relationship are nonjusticiable under Totten, requiring dismissal at the outset even when plaintiffs assert equitable or constitutional theories and even before any state-secrets evidentiary analysis.


Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1 (2005)