Tenet v. Doe
The Does claim they were citizens of an Eastern bloc country who acted as spies for the CIA in exchange for resettlement in the United States and financial and personal security “for life” at the conclusion of their service. Upon the termination of their espionage activities, the CIA relocated the Does to the United States and provided Mr. Doe with a salary stipend. When Mr. Doe lost his job as a result of a corporate merger, he contacted the CIA seeking assistance in finding new employment and a renewal of the stipend. The CIA informed the Does that the benefits they had previously received had been adequate compensation for the services they rendered and that no further support would be provided. The Does appealed the decision to the Director of the CIA and the Helms Panel. The Director denied the appeal and the Helms Panel recommended payment of the stipend for one year.
The Does filed suit in federal district court asserting various federal statutory and constitutional claims. The United States moved to dismiss the case based on Totten v. United States, a Civil War era case, in which the Supreme Court held that a claim for breach of a contract for “secret services” could not be heard in federal district court. The district court held that Totten did not automatically prohibit the court from hearing the suit and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Totten did not require immediate dismissal of the Does’ claim, but instead, that the claim should be governed by the state secrets privilege. The court remanded the case so that the government could assert the privilege.
Question Presented:
Whether Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1875), bars a district court from considering respondents' due process and tort claims that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has
wrongfully refused to keep its alleged promise to provide them with life-time financial assistance in exchange for their alleged espionage services to the CIA.
