Baker v. Central Intelligence Agency’s Empirical Analysis
580 F.2d 664 · 1978
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Goland v. Central Intelligence Agency (1978), Hayden v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service (1979)
22 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 50 U.S.C. § 403 (§ 102 of the National Security Act of 1947) · 50 U.S.C. § 403G (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act) · 50 U.S.C. § 403H (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Vaughn v. Rosen · Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. · Soucie v. David · Phillippi v. Central Intelligence Agency · Weissman v. Central Intelligence Agency
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“from the provisions of section 654 of Title 5, and the provisions of any other law which requires the publication or disclosure of the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the Agency . . . .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is nothing on the face of amended Exemption 3, or in its legislative history, to suggest that Congress in 1976 intended to upset the well-established Exemption 3 status of the CIA’s protective statutes. Both § 403(d)(3) and § 403g “refer[ ] [sic] to particular types of matters to be withheld” — namely, information respecting intelligence sources and methods. Rep. Abzug, the amendment’s primary sponsor in the House, explicitly stated on the floor that § 403g was one of the statutes intended to qualify under the new Exemption 3. The only courts to consider the issue have held that the amendment left the Exemption 3 status of §§ 403(d)(3) and 403g unimpaired. Scholarly commentators have reached the same conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“mere surplusage, since such a showing would necessarily bring the requested information within the purview of § 403(d)(3) (see note 46 Infra ) and thereby immunize it from disclosure without the need for a separate statutory exemption.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.