United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), is a landmark legal case in 1953 that saw the formal recognition[1] of the state secrets privilege, a judicially recognized extension of presidential power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds

page 9:

"For that and other reasons, the delay of the government’s criminal investigation constitutes its own irreparable harm. The government and the public unquestionably have an interest in the timely enforcement of criminal laws, particularly those involving the protection of highly sensitive information, and especially where, as here, there may have been efforts to obstruct its investigation. The government’s ability to perform other investigative tasks that do not require its review or use of the records marked as classified does not “refute[]” this irreparable harm. D.E. 84 at 18. These records are at the core of the government’s investigation, and the government’s inability to review and use them significantly constrains its investigation. The compelled disclosure of records marked as classified to a special master further harms the Executive Branch’s interest in limiting access to such materials absent any valid purpose served by their review. See United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1952)(courts should be cautious before requiring judicial review, even ex parte and in camera, of documents whose disclosure would jeopardize national security)."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.88.0_5.pdf

Q # 14 / What is 'State Secrets' and how upheld in the SC?

Q # 1944 / Define 'State Secrets'.

Q # 1945 / Define 'State Secrets'.

https://qaggregator.news/?q=%23%2314%2C1944%2C1945

https://qaggregator.news/?q=state+secret

The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security.[1][2][3][4][5][6] United States v. Reynolds,[7] which involved alleged military secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.

Following a claim of "state secrets privilege", the court rarely conducts an in camera examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[1] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege

The privilege was first officially recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953). A military airplane, a B-29 Super Fortress bomber, crashed. The widows of three civilian crew members sought accident reports on the crash but were told that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret mission.[1][2][3][4][5][6][10][11] The court held that only the government can claim or waive the privilege, but that it “is not to be lightly invoked” and that there “must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer.”[1] The court stressed that the decision to withhold evidence is to be made by the presiding judge and not the executive.[1]

In 2000, the accident reports were declassified and released, and it was found that the assertion that they contained secret information was fraudulent. The reports did, however, contain information about the poor condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many commentators have alleged government misuse of secrecy in this landmark case.[12]

Despite this ruling, a case might still be subject to judicial review since the privilege was intended to prevent certain, but not all, information to be precluded.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege#Supreme_Court_recognition_in_United_States_v._Reynolds

"Dec. 3, 1627"

"It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has done what he has done."

"RICHELIEU"

"In fact," said Aramis, "it is an absolution according to rule."

"That paper must be torn to pieces," said d'Artagnan, who fancied he read in it his sentence of death.

The Three Musketeers / Chapter 47 / Alexandre Dumas /