In the interests of the security of the foreign intelligence activities of the United States and in order further to implement section 3024(h) of this title that the Director of National Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure, the Agency shall be exempted from the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Act of August 28, 1935 (49 Stat. 956, 957; 5 U.S.C. 654), and the provisions of any other law which require the publication or disclosure of the organization or functions of the Agency, or of the names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency: Provided, That in furtherance of this section, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall make no reports to the Congress in connection with the Agency under section 607 of the Act of June 30, 1945, as amended (5 U.S.C. 947(b)).
Notes of Decisions
Aron Dibacco v. The United States Dep't, 926 F.3d 827 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
· cites it 4× “§ 3024 (i)(1), and the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, 50 U.S.C. § 3507 . The former states that "[t]he Director of National Intelligence shall protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.”
Florez v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 829 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Here, the CIA invokes Section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, 50 U.S.C. § 3507 (exempting the CIA from any law that “require[s] the publication or disclosure of the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency”), and Section…”
Dibacco v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 234 F. Supp. 3d 255 (D.D.C. 2017).
· cites it 4× “§ 3024 (i)(l), and the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, 50 U.S.C. § 3507 (“CIA Act”). The National Security Act provides that “[t]he Director of National Intelligence shall protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.”
Sack v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 53 F. Supp. 3d 154 (D.D.C. 2014).
· cites it 3× “§ 3024 (i)(l); and Section 6 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, 50 U.S.C. § 3507 . These provisions “plainly are statutes contemplated by Exemption 3.”
Leopold v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 380 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “The CIA justifies its withholding of an agency username and of the e-mail address and telephone number for an agency employee under Exemption 3, arguing that the CIA Act of 1949, 50 U.S.C. § 3507 , allows the agency to protect from disclosure "information that would reveal the…”
Sack v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 49 F. Supp. 3d 15 (D.D.C. 2014).
· cites it 3× “The CIA’s withholdings under Exemption 3 rely on Section 102(A)(i)(1) of the National Security Act and Section 6 of the Central Intelligence Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3507 . The National Security Act requires the Director of National Intelligence to “protect intelligence sources and…”
Leopold v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 106 F. Supp. 3d 51 (D.D.C. 2015).
· cites it 2× “The CIA has also invoked Section 6 of the CIA Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3507 , see Lutz Decl., ¶ 20, which Plaintiff does not dispute is a qualifying exemption statute.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.