# A Quaker Action Group v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of Interior

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · October 21, 1971 · 460 F.2d 854

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9458236

## Case

- **Full name:** A QUAKER ACTION GROUP Et Al., Appellants, v. Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary of Interior, Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** October 21, 1971
- **Citations:** 460 F.2d 854; 148 U.S. App. D.C. 346; 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7498
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by MaeKINNON
- **Judges:** Maekinnon, McGowan, Leventhal, MacKinnon
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9458236

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reversing another grant of summary judgment for Government and further remand

## Opinion text

MaeKINNON, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially):
Subject to the views expressed in my dissent in A Quaker Action Group v. Hickel, 139 U.S.App.D.C. 1 , 429 F.2d 185 (1970), I concur in the result set forth in the foregoing opinion. At oral argument of the appeal in this court it was brought out that the Government had intended to make the Director of the Secret Service available for cross examination at the administrative hearing on the proposed rules. Appellants did not avail themselves of this opportunity and they now say they did not realize that the opportunity existed. Regardless of the reason why the opportunity was not used, I consider it conducive to an early disposition of this matter to concur in the remand so the matter can finally be con-eluded. I express no opinion as to the extent of permissible cross examination of the Director of the Secret Service, who in many instances may be required to refuse to testify as to state secrets. It has never been doubted that this well recognized privilege extends to the disclosure of matters relating to public security, see 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2378 (McNaughton rev. 1961), and that is precisely the objective of subject rules.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9458236. Public record. Not legal advice.