## Facts

- William A. Lloyd allegedly entered a secret agreement with President Abraham Lincoln in July 1861 to travel into Confederate territory, gather military intelligence (including troop strength and fortification plans), and report privately to the President.
- The agreement allegedly provided compensation of $200 per month.
- Lloyd allegedly performed these services throughout the Civil War, periodically transmitting information to the President.
- After the war, Lloyd was reimbursed for expenses but not paid the promised monthly compensation.
- Lloyd’s estate, through administrator Enoch Totten, sought to recover the unpaid compensation from the United States.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may entertain an action against the United States to enforce an alleged contract for secret wartime espionage services made with the President.
2. Whether the secrecy inherent in such an arrangement bars judicial proceedings even if the President had authority to employ and pay secret agents.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the estate’s claim.
- The Court held that an action cannot be maintained in the Court of Claims on a contract for secret services during wartime made between the President and an agent.
- The Court indicated it had no difficulty with the President’s wartime authority to employ secret agents and direct payment from contingent funds.
- The bar rested on the nature of the claim: adjudication would require public exposure of a secret relationship and its details, contrary to the implied condition of permanent secrecy.

## Legal Principles

- Contracts for secret espionage services inherently carry an implied term that the parties will not disclose the relationship or the operational details.
- Courts will not adjudicate claims whose success depends on proving a secret espionage relationship with the government, because litigation would risk disclosure harmful to public interests.
- The prohibition operates categorically against maintaining the suit; it is not merely a rule limiting particular evidence.

## Conclusion

The Court held that alleged wartime espionage contracts with the United States cannot be judicially enforced because the necessary secrecy of such engagements makes the claim nonjusticiable in a public court, even where executive authority to employ and pay the agent is assumed.


Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1875)