Replies

Sharply criticized!!!! Wow, that will teach him to not leak national secrets!!!

No, the the below portion of court’s order will get Bolton’s attention. It states that Bolton likely published classified materials and that the government is likely to succeed on the merits. It states that Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States and he has exposed his country to harm and himself to civil (and potentially criminal) liability. The government is likely to win a civil and criminal case.

That is not what was before the court. As far as enjoining publication, the court found that “the horse is already out of the barn.” It is too late to stop publication. But it is not too late to sue for any and all profits from the publication and to bring a criminal case for publishing classified material.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.219024/gov.uscourts.dcd.219024.27.0_6_1.pdf “>

United States v. Bolton, MEMORANDUM ORDER (20 Jun 2020)

III. DISCUSSION
a. Is the government likely to succeed on the merits?
Yes. Bolton disputes that his book contains any such classified information and emphasizes his months-long compliance with the prepublication review process. He bristles at the mixed messages sent by prepublication review personnel and questions the motives of intelligence officers. Bolton could have sued the government and sought relief in court. Instead, he opted out of the review process before its conclusion. Unilateral fast-tracking carried the benefit of publicity and sales, and the cost of substantial risk exposure. This was Bolton's bet: If he is right and the book does not contain classified information, he keeps the upside mentioned above; but if he is wrong, he stands to lose his profits from the book deal, exposes himself to criminal liability, and imperils national security. Bolton was wrong.
The government submitted classified declarations for the Court's ex parte review in camera. ECF No. 4. On June 19, 2020, the Court held a sealed ex parte hearing for further in camera review with the government. ECF 6/19/20. Upon reviewing the classified materials, as well as the declarations filed on the public docket, ECF No. 3-1-5, the Court is persuaded that Defendant Bolton likely jeopardized national security by disclosing classified information in violation of his nondisclosure agreement obligations.
Bolton was the National Security Advisor to the President. He was entrusted with countless national secrets and privy to countless sensitive dealings. To Bolton, this is a selling point: His book is entitled The Room Where It Happened. He rushed to write an account of his behind-closed-doors experiences and produced over 500 pages of manuscript for review. Not four months later, Bolton pulled the plug on the process and sent the still-under-review manuscript to the publisher for printing. Many Americans are unable to renew their passports within four months, but Bolton complains that reviewing hundreds of pages of a National Security Advisor's tell-all deserves a swifter timetable. Access to sensitive intelligence is rarely consolidated in individuals, and it comes as no surprise to the Court that the government requested several iterations of review headed by multiple officers. But what is reasonable to the Court was intolerable to Bolton, and he proceeded to publication without so much as an email notifying the government.
It is well-settled that a mandated prepublication review process is not an unconstitutional prior restraint. This Circuit upheld the Central Intelligence Agency's prepublication review scheme in McGehee v. Casey, 718 F.2d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 1983). There, the Circuit held that “the government has a substantial interest in assuring secrecy in the conduct of foreign intelligence operations.” McGehee, 718 F.2d at 1140. First Amendment rights are preserved so long as restrictions “protect a substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of free speech,” and “the restriction [is] narrowly drawn to ‘restrict speech no more than is necessary to protect the substantial government interest.’” Id. at 1142-43 (quoting Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S.348, 354-55 (1980)). The Supreme Court agrees: “[T]his Court's cases make clear that—even in the absence of an express agreement—the CIA [can] act[] to protect substantial government interests by imposing reasonable restrictions on employee activities that in other contexts might be protected by the First Amendment.” Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 510 n.3 (1980). For the purposes of resolving this motion, the Court is satisfied that the government's prepublication review of Bolton's book fell within these bounds.
The NDAs barred publication of classified materials. Bolton likely published classified materials. The government is likely to succeed on the merits. But a single factor is not sufficient for an injunction to issue—the Court now proceeds to the second.