Jeffrey Alexander Sterling v. George Tenet, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, and John Does 1-10

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that when “no amount of effort and care” could safeguard state secrets from divulgence during litigation, dismissal is warranted
• explaining that a court is \neither authorized nor qualified to inquire further\ into privileged matters -- \even in camera\
• explaining that a full airing of the plaintiff’s claim against the agency “would require disclosure of highly classified information concerning the identity, location, and assignments of CIA operatives”
• affirming dismissal at the pleading stage when the facts central to the action's litigation consisted of state secrets, noting that \the very methods by which evidence would be gathered in this case are themselves problematic\
• “We recognize that our decision places, on behalf of the entire country, a burden on Sterling that he alone must bear.”
• “We recognize that our decision places, on behalf of the entire country, a burden on Sterling that he alone must bear.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).