It is a process. It is a delicate process of adjustment inescapably involving the exercise of judgment by those whom the Constitution entrusted with the unfolding of the process.'
In Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 462, 62 S. Ct. 1252, 1256, 86 L. Ed. 1595, the Court said:
'That which may, in one setting, constitute a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, may, in other circumstances, and in the light of other considerations, fall short of such denial.'
In addition to providing protection to the rights of individual citizens, the Constitution also recognizes interests of the Government and when conflicts arise, they can be resolved only by 'balancing the conflicting individual and national interests involved.' American Communications Ass'n, C.I.O. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 410, 70 S. Ct. 674, 690, 94 L. Ed. 925.
The essence of the plaintiff's claim is that he is entitled to confrontation of all witnesses and that denial of such confrontation constitutes a denial of due process.
This contention asserts for the plaintiff in an administrative proceeding a right of confrontation conferred only on defendants in criminal actions and is not supported by authority where the question has been raised in administrative proceedings. Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 53 S. Ct. 350, 77 L. Ed. 796; and Williams v. People of State of New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S. Ct. 1079, 93 L. Ed. 1337, are contrary to the plaintiff's contentions.
It seems to me that the Supreme Court disposed of the problem when, in Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc., v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111, 68 S. Ct. 431, 436, 92 L. Ed. 568, it said:
'The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation's organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret. Nor can courts sit in camera in order to be taken into executive confidences.'
In my opinion, the Court must accept the reasons advanced by the Secretary of State for not disclosing the source of the confidential information referred to and, under the circumstances of this case, the manner and use of confidential information accords with both procedural and substantive due process.
The defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment will be denied.
Counsel for defendant will submit an appropriate order.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.