## Facts

- Samuel Loring Morison was a civilian employee of the Naval Intelligence Support Center with a Top Secret–Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance and worked in a restricted secure area.
- Morison signed a nondisclosure agreement acknowledging security training, warning of harm from unauthorized disclosure/retention, and identifying potential criminal liability under federal secrecy statutes.
- Morison also worked off-duty for a defense publication; approval was conditioned on compliance with his nondisclosure obligations and avoidance of classified disclosures.
- In 1984, Morison obtained classified KH-11 satellite photographs and related intelligence materials depicting Soviet naval facilities and vessels; the materials were marked “secret” with intelligence warnings.
- He mailed the photographs to the publication, which printed them as U.S. intelligence imagery.
- Investigators linked the disclosures to Morison through forensic and circumstantial evidence, including a fingerprint on a copy and classified reports located in his apartment.
- A federal jury convicted Morison of two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) and (e) for willfully transmitting and retaining national defense information and two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 641 for theft/conversion of government property.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) and (e) applies to an insider’s willful disclosure of national defense information to the press, or only to traditional espionage for foreign powers.
2. Whether § 793(d) and (e), as applied, is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad and violates the First Amendment when the recipient is a media outlet.
3. Whether copies of classified photographs and intelligence reports are “property” or “things of value” of the United States covered by 18 U.S.C. § 641.
4. Whether the district court committed reversible error in its evidentiary and trial-management rulings.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed Morison’s convictions on all counts.
- The court held that § 793(d) and (e) reaches willful communication or retention of national defense information by a cleared insider and is not limited to transfers to foreign agents.
- The court rejected vagueness, overbreadth, and First Amendment challenges, concluding Morison had adequate notice and the prosecution imposed criminal liability for unauthorized disclosure and misuse of protected information, not a restraint on publication.
- The court held that the classified photographs and reports, including copies, constituted government property or things of value, and Morison’s removal and dissemination supported § 641 theft/conversion convictions.
- The court found no reversible evidentiary error and concluded the challenged rulings were within the trial court’s discretion or harmless.

## Legal Principles

- 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) criminalizes a person who lawfully possesses national defense information and willfully communicates it to a person not entitled to receive it.
- 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) criminalizes unauthorized obtaining and willful retention or transmission of national defense information to a person not entitled to receive it.
- The phrase “information relating to the national defense” can be sufficiently definite as applied to highly classified intelligence materials, particularly where markings, training, and written agreements provide clear notice.
- The First Amendment does not provide immunity to an insider from generally applicable criminal laws for unauthorized disclosure of classified national defense information to the press; the focus may be on the leaker’s misconduct rather than on restricting publication.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 641, classified intelligence materials—including copies—may qualify as government property or things of value, and unauthorized removal and provision to others can constitute knowing conversion.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld convictions for leaking classified satellite imagery and related intelligence to a media outlet, holding that the Espionage Act provisions apply to press disclosures by cleared insiders, are constitutional as applied where notice is clear, and that the materials also support theft/conversion liability under § 641.


United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1988)