United States v. Reynolds

This article is about the 1953 U.S. Supreme Court case about the State Secrets Privilege. For the 1878 case about polygamy and religious duty as a defense to criminal prosecution, see Reynolds v. United States .

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), is a landmark legal case decided in 1953, which saw the formal recognition of the state secrets privilege , a judicially recognized extension of presidential power. The US Supreme Court confirmed that "the privilege against revealing military secrets ... is well established in the law of evidence".

English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

**United States v. Reynolds (345 U.S. 1) **

Contents

• 1 Overview

• 2 Issues

• 3 Holdings

• 4 Facts and background

• 5 Opinion

  • 5.1 Majority opinion by Justice Vinson

  • 5.2 Dissenting opinion

• 6 Subsequent declassification of documents

• 7 Discussion and criticism of privilege in Reynolds

  • 7.1 Prosser and Keaton

  • 7.2 Judiciary Hearing, 2008

    • 7.2.1 Carl J. Nichols

    • 7.2.2 Patricia M. Wald

    • 7.2.3 Louis Fisher

    • 7.2.4 Michael A. Vatis

• 8 See also

• 9 References

• 10 Further reading

• 11 External links

Overview

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Reynolds&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Overview")

Three employees of the Radio Corporation of America , an Air Force contractor, were killed when a B-29 Superfortress crashed in 1948 in Waycross, Georgia . Their widows brought an action in tort seeking damages in federal court, under the Federal Tort Claims Act . As part of this action, they requested production of accident reports concerning the crash, but were told by the Air Force that the release of such details would threaten national security. Because of the failure of the government to produce the documents, a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiffs was granted by the trial court. The judgment was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision, and remanded it to the trial court. After this, a settlement was reached with the widows, who received an aggregate sum of $170,000 in exchange for a release of liability to the Government. : See pages 3–10 

Issues

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Reynolds&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Issues")

1. Are the Judge Advocate General of the United States Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force allowed to assert privilege in the face of a suit brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the application for production of documents under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ?
2. Does the doctrine in federal criminal cases of letting the defendant go free by dismissing the criminal charges in cases where evidence is not produced by the government apply to federal civil (tort) cases brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act ?
3. Was the judgment entered by the District Court under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the United States Government and in favor of the plaintiffs for failure to produce the documents in question proper?
4. Was the affirmation of the judgment of the Third Court of Appeals proper?

Holdings

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Reynolds&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Holdings")

In this case, there was a valid claim of privilege under Rule 34 ; and a judgment based under Rule 37 on refusal to produce the documents subjected the United States to liability which Congress did not consent by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

1. As used in Rule 34, which compels production only of matters "not privileged," the term "not privileged" refers to "privileges" as that term is understood in the law of evidence.

2. When the Secretary lodged his formal claim of privilege, he invoked a privilege against revealing military secrets – one which is well established in the law of evidence.

3. When a claim of privilege against revealing military secrets is invoked, the courts must decide whether the occasion for invoking the privilege is appropriate, and yet do so without jeopardizing the security which the privilege was meant to protect.

4. When the formal claim of privilege was filed by the Secretary, under the circumstances indicating a reasonable possibility that military secrets were involved, there was a sufficient showing of privilege to cut off further demand for the documents on the showing of necessity for its compulsion that had been made.

5. In this case, the showing of necessity was greatly minimized by plaintiffs' rejection of the Judge Advocate General's offer to make the surviving crew member available for examination.

6. The doctrine in the criminal field that the Government can invoke its evidence privileges only at the price of letting the defendant go free has no application in a civil forum, where the Government is not the moving party, but is a defendant only on terms to which it has consented.

In a suit under the Tort Claims Act, the District Court entered a judgment against the Government. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Facts and background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Reynolds&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Facts and background")

The case United States v. Reynolds involved the refusal of the Government to release reports concerning a B-29 Superfortress crash in 1948.

See also: 1948 Waycross B-29 crash

A military aircraft on a flight to test secret electronic equipment crashed, and certain civilian observers aboard were killed. Their widows sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and moved under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for production of the Air Force's accident investigation report and statements made by surviving crew members during the investigation. The Secretary of the Air Force filed a formal claim of privilege, stating that the matters were privileged against disclosure under the Air Force regulations issued under R. S. section 161, and that the aircr

…