50 U.S.C. § 401
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013).
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013). “5, 3 CFR 202, 210–212 (1981), reprinted as amended, note following 50 U. S. C. §401 , pp. 543, 547–548. Even if respondents could demonstrate that their foreign contacts will imminently be targeted—indeed, even if they could show that interception of their own communications…”
Susan D. Goland & Patricia B. Skidmore v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “339 (1974), 50 U.S.C. § 401 (Supp. IV 1974). This court reversed, emphasizing that plaintiff had also filed an affidavit, as provided for by Rule 56(f), Fed.”
Van Z. Krikorian v. Dep't of State, 984 F.2d 461 (D.C. Cir. 1993). “Exemption 3 permits agencies to withhold documents if they are “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute,” provided the statute “(A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes…”
United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. v. Ronald Wilson Reagan, President of the United States, 738 F.2d 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “200 (1982), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. § 401 note (Supp. V 1981). That is the most recent in a series of executive orders, dating back to the Ford Administration, designed to specify the organization, procedures and limitations applicable to the foreign intelligence and…”
Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980). “12065, 3 CFR 190 (1979), note following 50 U. S. C. § 401 (1976 ed., Supp. II), which provides administrative sanctions, including discharge, against employees who publish classified information.”
Wolf v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “As noted earlier, Exemption 3 permits an agency to withhold information “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(3). In this regard, the CIA maintains that the existence or nonexistence of records about a foreign national is protected from…”
United States v. Samuel Loring Morison, the Washington Post Cbs, Inc., Amici Curiae, 844 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1988). “166 (1982), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. § 401 note (1982). Those Regulations were well known to the defendant and he had agreed in writing to abide by them.”
Ellen L. Ray & William H. Schaap v. Stansfield Turner, Dir. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 587 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “678 (1971-1975 Compilation), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. § 401 (Supp. V 1975); National Security Directive of May 17, 1972, 37 Fed.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Just., 681 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2012). “Section 102A(i)(l) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., requires the Director of National Intelligence to "protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.”
Nat'l Sec. Counselors v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 931 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D.D.C. 2013). “Policy or Practice of Invokiny FOIA Exemption 3 Without Authorization The final alleged CIA policy or practice challenged by the plaintiffs has to do with the CIA’s authority to invoke the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq., as a withholding statute under FOIA…”
Javier Sanchez-Espinoza v. Ronald Wilson Reagan, President of the United States, 770 F.2d 202 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “§ 1541 (a) (War Powers Act); 50 U.S.C. § 401 (National Security Act), as does the Senate committee report on the third, see S.”
John Cary Sims v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 642 F.2d 562 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “National Security Act of 1947 § 2, 50 U.S.C. § 401 (1976). . National Security Act § 102(d), 50 U.”
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.