Haig v. Agee
Headline: Upheld revocation of a passport, allowing the Secretary of State to cancel passports when an American’s overseas activities are likely to cause serious damage to U.S. national security or foreign policy, restricting international travel.
Holding: The Court held that the Secretary of State may revoke a U.S. passport under longstanding statute and regulations when the holder’s activities abroad cause or are likely to cause serious damage to national security or foreign policy.
- Authorizes passport cancellation for overseas activities that threaten national security or foreign policy.
- Allows revocation without a prerevocation hearing, with a prompt postrevocation hearing available.
- Limits travel for individuals who publicly disclose classified intelligence overseas.
Summary
Background
A former CIA officer, Philip Agee, who later lived in West Germany, publicly worked to expose and identify undercover U.S. intelligence personnel abroad. The Secretary of State revoked his passport under 22 CFR §51.70(b)(4), saying Agee’s overseas activities had caused or were likely to cause serious damage to national security and foreign policy. Agee sued, arguing the regulation lacked congressional authorization, was overbroad, and violated due process and free-speech protections; lower courts sided with Agee before the case reached this Court.
Reasoning
The Court examined the Passport Act of 1926, the long history of Executive rules and orders about passports, and later statutes and regulations. It concluded that longstanding administrative practice and subsequent congressional action supported the Secretary’s authority to deny or revoke passports when activities abroad threaten national security or foreign policy. The Court distinguished this case from earlier decisions that protected mere beliefs, noting Agee’s conduct disclosed classified intelligence and posed concrete dangers. The Court rejected Agee’s First and Fifth Amendment claims, holding international travel with a government passport is subject to national security limits and that a prompt postrevocation hearing and statement of reasons satisfied due process.
Real world impact
The ruling permits the Secretary to cancel passports for persons whose overseas actions demonstrably threaten security or foreign relations, and it allows revocation before a full hearing when serious damage is at issue. The decision reverses the Court of Appeals and sends the case back for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Blackmun concurred but noted tension with prior cases; Justice Brennan (joined by Justice Marshall) dissented, warning the Court departs from Kent and Zemel and risks excessive Executive authority over travel.
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?