In the 2004 case, George J. Tenet et al v. John Doe et ux., a former spy and his wife sued the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for allegedly breaking an oral contract to provide them with lifetime support after their espionage activities on behalf of the United States had compromised their livelihoods. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the CIA, citing that U.S law prohibits lawsuits against it regarding its intelligence sources or methods. This ruling upheld a "state secrets" privilege which allows courts to prevent disclosure of information when there is potential harm to national security interests. The court held that even if all facts were assumed true as alleged by plaintiffs, they could not proceed without revealing state secrets about intelligence work.

In the dissenting opinion for Tenet v. Doe, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to extend a statutory privilege of non-disclosure to intelligence relationships was inconsistent with previous court rulings and Congressional intent. He contended that Congress had not explicitly provided such a privilege in the National Security Act or any other legislation, and therefore it should not be inferred by the Court. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that allowing lawsuits like this one would inevitably lead to harmful disclosures about U.S. intelligence operations; instead, he believed courts could manage these cases using established procedures for handling sensitive information without compromising national security interests.