American Foreign Service Assn. v. Garfinkel

Background

A federal employees’ union and other groups sued executive-branch agencies that required employees to sign nondisclosure forms (Standard Form 189 and DCI Form 4193). Those forms barred revealing classified or “classifiable” information without defining “classifiable.” Congress enacted a spending provision, § 630, forbidding use of funds to implement forms with certain features, including the word “classifiable.” The District Court held § 630 invalid as an improper intrusion on executive power and entered judgment for the agencies, and the case then went to this Court.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the nondisclosure forms violated § 630 and whether Congress impermissibly interfered with the Executive’s authority over national security information. The Supreme Court did not decide that constitutional dispute. Instead, it noted intervening events: a later District Court ruling found the word “classifiable” vague, agencies removed that word and adopted a regulatory definition, and agencies gave notice to current employees (though appellants say former employees were not notified). Because parts of the controversy had become moot and other issues remained (notice to former employees, whether the new definition fits § 630, and whether other subsections apply), the Court vacated the judgment and sent the case back to the District Court to sort out those factual and statutory questions first.

Real world impact

The ruling sends claims about enforceability of prior nondisclosure obligations and required notice back to the lower court. It does not change the law for all employees immediately and leaves the constitutional separation‑of‑powers question undecided unless the District Court finds it necessary to reach it.