50 U.S.C. § 403
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 274
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Susan D. Goland & Patricia B. Skidmore v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
Susan D. Goland & Patricia B. Skidmore v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “A proviso to 50 U.S.C. § 403 (d)(3) states that “the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.”
Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988). “" 50 U. S. C. § 403 (c). In this case we decide whether, and to what extent, the termination decisions of the Director under § 102(c) are judicially reviewable.”
Harriet Ann Phillippi v. Cent. Intelligence Agency & George H. Bush, Dir., Cent. Intelligence Agency, 546 F.2d 1009 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “2 Second, the Agency stated that the fact of the existence or non-existence of the records you request would relate to information pertaining to intelligence sources and methods which the Director of Central Intelligence has the responsibility to protect from unauthorized…”
Cent. Intelligence Agency v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (1985). “498 , 50 U. S. C. § 403 (d)(3), which states that "the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.”
Alan L. Fitzgibbon v. Cent. Intelligence Agency Alan L. Fitzgibbon v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 911 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “The District Court read Sims as allowing the Director of Central Intelligence very broad authority to protect intelligence sources, as refuting this Court’s earlier “crabbed reading” of 50 U.S.C. § 403 (d)(3), 3 and as doing so in quite sweeping language; it therefore concluded…”
Beatrice Maynard v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, Beatrice Maynard v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 986 F.2d 547 (1st Cir. 1993). “With respect to Exemption 3, which protects information exempted from disclosure by statute, Strieker explained that, similar to Executive Order 12356, the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. § 403 (d)(3), requires the Director of the CIA to protect intelligence sources and methods…”
Nat'l Sec. Counselors v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 960 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2013). “Rather, those words are included in § 403g solely to reference the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. § 403 — l(i). To the extent that the Schoenman court construed § 403g, rather than 50 U.”
Bernardo Ex Rel. M & K Eng'g, Inc. v. Johnson, 814 F.3d 481 (1st Cir. 2016). “at 594 (alterations in original) (quoting 50 U.S.C. § 403 (c) (1947)).14 The Court read that statute to remove judicial review under APA § 701(a)(2), which precludes judicial review where agency action is "committed to agency discretion by law.”
Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2009). “2047 (quoting 50 U.S.C. § 403 (d)(3) (1982)); and (2) “Section 102(c) is an integral part of that statute, because the Agency’s efficacy, and the Nation’s security, depend in large measure on the reliability and trustworthiness of the Agency’s employees,” id.”
Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980). “We agree with the Court of Appeals that Snepp's agreement is an "entirely appropriate" exercise of the CIA Director's statutory mandate to "protec[t] intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure," 50 U.”
Wolf v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “” 50 U.S.C. § 403 — 3(c)(6) (2000). 6 Indeed, information is exempt under section 403-3(c)(6) if the Agency “demonstrates that an answer to the query can reasonably be expected to lead to unauthorized disclosure.”
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Just., 681 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2012). “Here, the Government contends that the records and photograph pertain to an “intelligence method” under section 102A(i)(l) of the *73 National Security Act of 1947 (“NSA”) and CIA “functions” under section 6 of the Central Intelligence Act of 1949, which include the collection…”
— 50 U.S.C. § 403(g) — 1 case
Earth Pledge Found. v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 988 F. Supp. 623 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
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.