Snepp v. United States
Headline: Court imposes constructive trust on profits of a former CIA agent who published a book without required prepublication review, and orders an injunction on future writings, strengthening intelligence secrecy enforcement.
Holding: The Court reversed the appeals court, held that a former CIA agent breached a trust by publishing without prepublication review, and ordered a constructive trust on his book profits and an injunction on future publications.
- Allows the government to seize profits from unauthorized publications by former agents.
- Requires former CIA agents to submit future writings for prepublication review.
- Reduces reliance on punitive damages as the primary remedy for breaches.
Summary
Background
A former CIA agent wrote and published a book called Decent Interval without submitting the manuscript to the Agency for prepublication review, even though he had signed secrecy agreements when he joined and when he left the CIA. The Government sued, saying the agent broke his promise, that the breach harmed intelligence operations, and asking for an injunction and an order that the agent’s book profits be turned over to the Government.
Reasoning
The lower courts found the agent breached his agreement and that publication without review had harmed national intelligence work. The Court of Appeals refused to make the agent disgorge profits because the Government had said, for this lawsuit, the book contained no classified material. The Supreme Court, however, held that the agent had breached a special trust and that a constructive trust on his profits and an injunction against future publications were appropriate to protect intelligence interests and to deter similar breaches.
Real world impact
As a result, former intelligence officers who agree to prepublication review must follow that obligation or risk losing profits from unauthorized works. The ruling makes disgorgement of book proceeds an available, swift remedy in these contract-and-trust cases and reduces reliance on punitive damages, which the Court found speculative and risky for national security. Publishers and former agents will face stronger pressures to use the review process before publishing material about intelligence work.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens (joined by Brennan and Marshall) dissented, arguing the constructive trust remedy lacked statutory or common-law support, that punitive damages could suffice, and that the new remedy risked enforcing an improper prior restraint on speech.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?