Rubin v. United States ex rel. Independent Counsel

1998-11-09

Headline: Court declines to review whether Secret Service agents protecting the President can refuse to testify, leaving the appeals court’s rejection in place and keeping the national safety question unsettled.

Holding: The Court declined to review whether federal law recognizes a special Secret Service evidentiary privilege, leaving the appeals court’s rejection intact and not resolving the substantive question.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the appeals court’s rejection of the Secret Service privilege in place for now.
Keeps uncertainty over whether agents can refuse testimony in presidential protection cases.
No Supreme Court rule issued; lower-court rules continue to apply pending future review.

Topics: presidential security, Secret Service testimony, evidence privilege, witness testimony

Summary

Background

The Secretary of the Treasury asked the Court to review a Court of Appeals decision that refused to recognize a special evidentiary privilege for Secret Service agents who protect the President. The core dispute is whether agents who work physically close to the President can lawfully refuse to testify about what they observed, except in clear criminal cases.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case and did not decide the legal question on the merits. Two Justices—Ginsburg and Breyer—dissented from that denial and said the Court itself should settle the matter. Justice Breyer explained why presidential safety and federal evidence rules could support a new protective privilege, citing historical examples, sworn statements from former agents, and Rule 501’s direction that courts develop testimonial privileges over time.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to review the issue, the Court of Appeals’ rejection of the claimed Secret Service privilege remains controlling in that case, and no national, Supreme Court rule was announced. The question of whether agents may decline to testify in presidential protection situations therefore remains legally unsettled at the highest level and could be revisited in future cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Ginsburg joined Justice Breyer’s view that the Supreme Court should decide the dispute; both emphasized the gravity of the issue and noted that the denial does not resolve the underlying legal question.