"As a former Director of the FBI and United States Attorney, I fully understand and support our government's need to protect sensitive national security information," said Judge Sessions, who submitted a formal statement to the Subcommittee. "But granting executive branch officials unchecked discretion to determine whether evidence should be subject to the state secrets privilege provides too great a temptation for abuse. The reforms contained in the State Secrets Protections Act will help preserve our constitutional system of checks and balances."

"Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the executive branch has repeatedly asserted the state secrets privilege in cases challenging the government's national security policies," said Sharon Bradford Franklin, senior counsel at the Constitution Project and primary author of the Constitution Project's statement to the Subcommittee. "While there is a proper role for the state secrets privilege to protect actual national security secrets from public disclosure, the executive branch should not be able to hide behind this privilege on the basis of its own unchecked authority. The State Secrets Protection Act would provide critical safeguards that are needed to ensure a proper balance of the interests of private parties, constitutional liberties, and national security."

The Constitution Project's bipartisan Liberty and Security Committee previously issued a report calling for legislative reform of the privilege. The statement recognized that the executive branch must have some ability to restrict the public disclosure of sensitive information, but criticized the breadth of the assertions of the privilege, as well as the executive branch's opposition to any review by an independent judge.

###