Legal Opinion

American Foreign Service Assn. v. Garfinkel

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided April 18, 1989No. 87-2127PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Per curiam

As a condition of obtaining access to classified information, employees in the Executive Branch are required to sign “nondisclosure agreements” that detail the employees’ obligation of confidentiality and provide for penalties in the event of unauthorized disclosure. Two such nondisclosure forms are at issue in this case. One, Standard Form 189, was devised by the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office (DISOO) (now appellee Garfinkel); the other, Form 4193, was created by the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) (now appellee Webster). Both of these forms forbade employees to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  2. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  3. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  4. Clark v. JeterSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. GaliotoSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Public Citizen v. United States Department of JusticeSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Suter v. Artist M.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. International Refugee Assistance Project v. TrumpCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2017
  4. State of Hawaii v. Donald TrumpCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  5. Committee in Solidarity With the People of El Salvador (Cispes) v. William F. Sessions, Director, Federal Bureau of InvestigationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1991

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API