Tenet v. Doe

544 U.S. 1 (2005)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps, alleged former Cold War spies, filed suit against D asserting estoppel and due process claims for the CIA's alleged failure to provide Ps with the assistance it had promised in return for their espionage services. The District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the case could proceed. Ps, a husband and wife who use the fictitious names John and Jane Doe, were formerly citizens of a foreign country that at the time was considered to be an enemy of the United States. John was a high-ranking diplomat for the country. CIA agents persuaded them to remain at their posts and conduct espionage for the United States for a specified period of time, promising in return that D 'would arrange for travel to the United States and ensure financial and personal security for life.' Ps 'carried out their end of the bargain' by completing years of purportedly high-risk, valuable espionage services. Ps defected (under new names and false backgrounds) and became United States citizens, with D's help. The CIA designated Ps with 'PL-110' status and began providing financial assistance and personal security. P obtained employment in the State of Washington. As his salary increased, D decreased his living stipend until, at some point, he agreed to a discontinuation of benefits while he was working. In 1997, P was laid off after a corporate merger. P was unable to find new employment as a result of D's restrictions on the type of jobs he could hold, Ps contacted D for financial assistance. Ps claim they are unable to properly provide for themselves. They must either return to their home country (where they say they face extreme sanctions) or remain in the United States in their present circumstances. Ps claim D violated their procedural and substantive due process rights by denying them support and by failing to provide them with a fair internal process for reviewing their claims. They seek injunctive relief ordering D to resume monthly financial support pending further agency review. D moved to dismiss the complaint under 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), on the ground that Totten bars the suit. The District Court denied D's Totten objection, ruling that the due process claims could proceed. The District Court denied D's motions, ruled again that Totten did not bar Ps' claims, and found there were genuine issues of material fact warranting a trial. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed. It ruled that Totten posed no bar and that the case could proceed to trial, subject to D's asserting the evidentiary state secrets privilege and the District Court's resolving that issue. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.