Snepp v. United States
**Overview of Snepp v. United States**
Snepp v. United States is a significant legal case concerning the balance between national security and freedom of expression, originating from the actions of former CIA employee Frank W. Snepp III. In 1977, Snepp published a book titled *Decent Interval* without obtaining the required prepublication clearance from the CIA, which led the government to sue him for breach of contract. The case was primarily rooted in the CIA's policy that mandates agents to submit any writings related to their work for review to prevent the unauthorized release of sensitive information. The federal courts, including the Supreme Court, ultimately upheld the CIA's prepublication requirements, asserting that these agreements are justified to protect national security and the confidentiality of agency operations.
This ruling has sparked ongoing debates about the implications for free speech, particularly as critics argue that such prepublication agreements can create a chilling effect on authors wishing to address government actions. The case is often referenced in discussions about the limits of censorship versus the right to criticize government activities, highlighting the complex intersection of contractual obligations and constitutional rights. The decision reaffirmed earlier court rulings that prioritized national security considerations in the context of government employment, marking a pivotal moment in the legal landscape surrounding freedom of expression and governmental oversight.
Snepp v. United States
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Decided: February 19, 1980
Significance: This decision held that agreements requiring government employees to submit their writings for review prior to publication did not violate their First Amendment rights
As a condition of employment, agents of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are required to sign an agreement that they will not publish any information during or after employment without prepublication clearance by the agency. In 1977 former CIA employee Frank W. Snepp III published a book, Decent Interval, that described CIA activities in Vietnam, without first submitting his manuscript for prepublication review. The government then sued him for breach of contract, requesting that an injunction be imposed requiring him to submit all future publications for prepublication review. The government also sought to control all profits earned from the sale of Snepp’s book. A federal district court in Virginia sided with the government in 1978. Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the district court ruling in Snepp v. United States.
Snepp argued that the prepublication agreement constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint upon his freedom of expression. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that such agreements are reasonable and appropriate to prevent unauthorized disclosure of CIA sources and methods, because the government has a “compelling interest” in protecting both national security secrets and the appearance of agency confidentiality. This ruling reaffirmed a previous decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Marchetti (1972), which had enjoined publication of The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence (1974) by Victor Marchetti and John Marks, until the manuscript was purged of classified information. A federal appeals court subsequently ruled that both secrecy agreements and prepublication agreements did not violate the First Amendment in McGehee v. Casey (1983).
The CIA cases involved government efforts to impose censorship upon massive quantities of information regarding government activities because of potential danger to national security. The government and the courts have routinely viewed these cases as matters of contract law. To defenders of free speech, however, these attempts to censor writings critical of the government raise several concerns. First, questions of whether material might endanger national security is left entirely to government agencies; the courts have been reluctant to intercede in these determinations. Therefore, the authority to weigh the arguments for and against censorship has been delegated to the censor. Second, because the information is relevant to government policies and decisions, opponents of censorship fear that both the right of authors to criticize the government and the people’s right to know may be jeopardized by agency decisions. Third, these regulations constitute prior restraints upon publication. With few exceptions, the courts have overturned prior restraints because they impose direct burdens upon authors and publishers and because they deter critics from engaging in expression that might be deemed seditious. However, the CIA prepublication and secrecy agreements constitute one area where prior restraints have been upheld by the courts.