The state secrets privilege is a legal rule that allows the government to withhold evidence in court cases if it could compromise national security. The privilege applies to both criminal and civil lawsuits.
How it works
The government submits an affidavit stating that the evidence could endanger national security
The court may exclude the evidence from the case
The court must decide how the unavailability of the evidence affects the case
Examples of consequences
The court may deny a discovery request
The court may dismiss the case
History
The Supreme Court first recognized the privilege in United States v. Reynolds in 1953
The Bush administration expanded the use of the privilege after 9/11
Why it's controversial
The privilege can limit the ability of the judiciary to check the executive branch
The privilege can make it difficult to determine if the government's claims are valid
The state secrets privilege (SSP) is a common law privilege that allows the government to withhold evidence from court cases to protect national security. The SSP is based on the Crown Privilege, a British law that gave the monarch the right to withhold information from Parliament and the courts.
Explanation
Crown Privilege
The Crown Privilege was the right of the monarch to withhold information from the courts and Parliament.
State Secrets Privilege
The SSP is a common law privilege that allows the government to withhold evidence in court cases. It's used to protect national security information.
United States v. Reynolds
The Supreme Court recognized the SSP in the 1953 case United States v. Reynolds. The case involved alleged military secrets.
How it works
The government invokes the SSP by submitting an affidavit to the court.
The court may dismiss the case or deny a discovery request.
The court may not conduct an in-camera examination of the evidence.
The court must determine how the unavailability of the evidence affects the case.
Concerns
The SSP can be abused by the executive branch to protect activities and personnel from judicial scrutiny.
The SSP can lead to court rulings where the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.
The extended interaction for supporters. Thank you all!
I sat down with a Kamala Harris voter. In this extended video we also debate trans vs women's rights.
I cannot thank you all enough for your support. It is making a huge difference. I am going to start making more and more content in the coming weeks.
Sneak peek of the next YouTube video: A movie pitch for Matt Walsh (What is a Teacher)
Its a bit tongue in cheek - but at the same time I am serious. I have an idea that would be hilarious and also add value.
Thank you all!
