Alan Jules Weberman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 668 F.2d 676 (2d Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Alan Jules Weberman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 668 F.2d 676 (2d Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Adams v. Quigley (nyed, 2019-11-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Adams v. Quigley
E.D.N.Y · 2019 · confidence medium
Agency, 668 F.2d 676, 677 (2d Cir. 1982) (affirming the propriety of in camera review of documents concerning state secrets and national security).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tabbaa v. Chertoff
2d Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Agency, 668 F.2d 676, 678 (2d Cir.1982) (in order to "create[] a more complete record,” the court may view "top secret” material ex parte and in camera).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doe v. Gonzales (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.N.Y. · 2007 · confidence medium
See Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 , 509 n. 3, 100 S.Ct. 763 , 62 L.Ed.2d 704 (1980); Weberman v. NSA, 668 F.2d 676, 678 (2d Cir.1982); National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Dep’t of State, 251 F.3d 192, 207 (D.C.Cir.2001).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stillman v. Department of Defense (2×)
D.D.C. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Ellsberg v. Mitchell, 709 F.2d 51, 61 (D.C.Cir.1983); Weberman v. National Security Agency, 668 F.2d 676, 677-78 (2d Cir.1982); Colby v. Halperin, 656 F.2d 70, 72 (4th Cir.1981); Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. v. Colby, 509 F.2d 1362 (4th Cir.1975); Tilden v. Tenet, 140 F.Supp.2d 623, 626 (E.D.Va.2000).
discussed Cited "see" Earth Pledge Foundation v. Central Intelligence Agency
S.D.N.Y. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Weberman v. National Security Agency, 668 F.2d 676 (2d Cir.1982) (rejection of the CIA’s right to refuse to neither confirm nor deny the existence of information, without examining in camera affidavits, is an abuse of discretion); Daily Orange Corp. v. Central Intelligence Agency, 532 F.Supp. 122, 127-28 (N.D.N.Y.1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Harrison E. Salisbury v. United States of America
D.C. Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Weberman v. NSA, 668 F.2d 676, 678 (2d Cir. 1982), (“The risk presented by participation of counsel ... outweighs the utility of counsel, or adversary process, in construing a [classified affidavit].”) (citation omitted). 4 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Daily Orange Corp. v. Central Intelligence Agency
N.D.N.Y. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Weberman v. National Security Agency, 668 F.2d 676 (2d Cir. 1982) *128 (upholding district court’s ex parte inspection of in camera affidavit); Allen v. Central Intelligence Agency, 516 F.Supp. 653, 654 (D.D.C.1981); Jaffe v. Central Intelligence Agency, 516 F.Supp. 576, 583-84 (D.D.C.1981); Moon v. Central Intelligence Agency, 514 F.Supp. 836, 839 (S.D.N.Y.1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alan Jules WEBERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee
483, Docket 81-6163.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jan 12, 1982.
668 F.2d 676
1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22660
Mark H. Lynch, Washington, D. C. (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Washington, D. C., Susan W. Shaffer, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant., John S. Martin, Jr., U. S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, New York City (Stuart M. Bernstein, Peter C. Salerno, Asst. U. S. Attys., for the Southern District of New York, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Lumbard, Waterman, Van Graafeiland.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
LUMBARD, Circuit Judge:

Investigation and speculation about the assassination of President Kennedy continues unabated. Lee Harvey Oswald shot the President on November 22, 1963. Oswald was killed the next day in Police Headquarters, Dallas, Texas, by Jack Ruby. Jack Ruby’s brother Earl had, according to appellant Weberman, sent a telegram to Havana, Cuba, on April 1, 1962. Weberman alleged that the telegram had been intercepted by the National Security Agency (NSA) and sought disclosure of the telegram for a book he was writing on the Kennedy assassination, “Coup d’Etat”. When his request was rebuffed, Weberman brought this suit in the Southern District on October 17, 1977, against the NSA under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). The NSA contended that whether the telegram was or was not intercepted is a matter of national security exempt from disclosure under the FOIA, § 552(b)(1) & (3). In support of its- contention, the NSA submitted a top secret affidavit by Michie F. Tillie, assistant director for policy and liaison. Judge Brieant originally refused to consider the Tillie affidavit and granted summary judgment to Weberman, 490 F.Supp. 9 (S.D.N.Y.1980). After this court held such refusal an abuse of discretion, 646 F.2d 563 (2d Cir. 1980), Judge Brieant viewed the affidavit in camera and ex parte, and granted summary judgment to the NSA on June 5, 1981.

■ On this appeal, Weberman challenges Judge Brieant’s decision to exclude his counsel and view the affidavit ex parte, 507[*678] F.Supp. 117 (S.D.N.Y.1981). Immediately following argument of the appeal, the United States Attorney submitted to us the top secret Tillie affidavit. We have examined the affidavit and we agree with the district court that, under the circumstances, it was not error to deny to plaintiff’s counsel the right to be present at the in camera inspection of the affidavit. We also conclude from our reading of the Tillie affidavit that there was no error in granting summary judgment for NSA on the basis of the affidavit’s disclosures.

When the NSA moved for summary judgment in December, 1979, it offered two affidavits of John R. Harney, Tillie’s predecessor. Both affidavits set forth why the existence or non-existence of the Ruby intercept was classified, and why the fact of interception fell under either § 552(b)(1), exempting from FOIA matters “specifically authorized.... by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national security,” or under § 552(b)(3), concerning matters “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute” which “requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue.”

Mr. Harney’s second affidavit explained that he had disclosed as much as possible without violating national security. He offered to furnish an in camera affidavit, if the court required further information. We directed the district court to view the proffered affidavit in camera, which the district court construed to mean an ex parte proceeding, i.e., without counsel present. There is no dispute that all Judge Brieant did was to go to the United States Attorney’s office immediately adjacent to the courthouse, and read the Tillie affidavit alone, without argument from the United States Attorney. As Judge Brieant wrote in his grant of summary judgment, the Tillie affidavit sets forth specifically the damage to national security that might well result from disclosing whether or not the Ruby message was intercepted. That is, the Tillie affidavit simply creates a more complete record. Phillippi v. CIA, 546 F.2d 1009,1013 (D.C.Cir.1976). Disclosure of the details of this affidavit might result in serious consequences to the nation’s security operations. The risk presented by participation of counsel, Hayden v. NSA, 608 F.2d 1381, 1385-86 (D.C.Cir.1979), outweighs the utility of counsel, or adversary process, in construing a supplement to the record. Given these circumstances, Judge Brieant was correct in following our directions and excluding counsel from the in camera viewing. We also find no error in his grant of summary judgment.

Affirmed.