Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General of the United States

Background

In 1973, several organizations sued the United States and federal officials, saying the FBI had for more than 40 years run a secret campaign to disrupt their lawful activities. During discovery, lawyers learned that over 1,300 unnamed informants had given the FBI information about the groups. The organizations asked the court for the FBI files about those informants. The FBI claimed an informant privilege, and the district judge reviewed files in private for 19 representative informants and ordered production of 18 files to the organizations’ lawyers.

Reasoning

The central question was whether orders to turn over informant files and related contempt findings can be reviewed by appeal or by a special writ called mandamus. The federal appeals court first said the discovery order could not be appealed and denied mandamus. After the Attorney General refused to obey and was held in civil contempt, another appeals court panel again said the contempt order was not appealable but nonetheless issued mandamus, vacated the contempt finding, and told the trial court to consider other sanctions. The Supreme Court declined to take the case; two Justices said they would hear it.

Real world impact

The high court’s refusal to review leaves the appeals court actions intact, at least for now. That outcome affects how and when lawyers and courts can force the Government to produce secret informant files and how contempt for disobeying discovery is handled. Because the decision is a denial of review, it is not a final ruling on the legal questions and could be revisited if the Justices take a later case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White wrote that he would grant review because he saw a serious conflict between the appeals court’s use of mandamus and prior Supreme Court decisions about when mandamus is appropriate.