Hayden v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service’s Empirical Analysis
608 F.2d 1381 · 1979
Citation profile
99 federal appellate · 161 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 329 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Military Audit Project v. Casey (1981), Campbell v. United States Department of Justice (1998)
99 federal appellate · 161 district · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 798 · 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 50 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 101 of the National Security Act of 1947) · 50 U.S.C. § 403 (§ 102 of the National Security Act of 1947) · 50 U.S.C. § 403G (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on United States v. Nixon · Vaughn v. Rosen · Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. · Goland v. Central Intelligence Agency · Phillippi 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 329 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[i]f the affidavits provide specific information sufficient to place the documents within the exemption category, if this information is not contradicted in the record, and if there is no evidence in the record of agency bad faith, then summary judgment is appropriate without in camera review of the documents.'”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ N]othing in this Act or any other law ... shall be construed to require the disclosure of the organization or any function of the National Security Agency, of any information with respect to the activities thereof, or of the names, titles, salaries, or number of the persons employed by such agency.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The trial court must make a de novo review of the agency's classification decision, with the burden on the agency to justify nondisclosure. (2) In conducting this review, the court is to give "substantial weight" to the affidavits from the agency. (3) The court is to require the agency to create as full a public record as possible, concerning the nature of the documents and the justification for nondisclosure. (4) If step (3) does not create a sufficient basis for making a decision, the court may accept classified affidavits in camera, or it may inspect the documents in camera. This step is at the court's discretion, with certain guidelines discussed below. (5) The court should require release of reasonably segregable part of documents that do not fall within FOIA exemptions.”
5 later decisions 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.