CAUS v. NSA: The 1980 Court Fight Over NSA's UFO Files
A UFO group sued NSA in 1980 for all its UFO records. NSA's sworn affidavit and the judge's order show why the agency won: the withheld files were intercepted foreign communications that would expose intelligence sources.
What this record is
This page covers the two court documents in the NSA series from Citizens Against UFO Secrecy v. National Security Agency, Civil Action No. 80-1562, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The first is the public affidavit of Eugene F. Yeates, the NSA official responsible for the agency’s initial Freedom of Information Act decisions, sworn on 30 September 1980 (14 pages, catalog 596347887). The second is the court’s Memorandum and Order of 18 November 1980 (3 pages, catalog 596347933), signed by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell.
What it says
The Yeates affidavit sets out how the case began. In 1978 the CIA, defending a separate FOIA suit brought by Ground Saucer Watch, found NSA documents in its own UFO files. It referred fifteen of them to NSA on 9 November 1978 and three more on 4 December. Peter A. Gersten, the lawyer in the CIA case, asked NSA for those eighteen documents on 22 December 1978. On 9 January 1979 NSA refused, saying they were classified in their entirety and protected by statute. Gersten appealed on 29 January and lost. On 16 February 1979, Citizens Against UFO Secrecy, through its counsel, asked NSA for every document it held relating to UFOs. NSA released some material with deletions and withheld the rest. It referred seventy-nine documents that had originated elsewhere to the agencies concerned. A fourth CIA referral followed in July 1979. The group’s appeal was rejected on 24 March 1980, and it sued.
Most of the affidavit explains, in general terms, why NSA would not release its communications intelligence (COMINT) reports. It says the reports were all based on intercepted foreign communications, almost all from “government net” systems, and that nearly all of those messages had been enciphered. Releasing any part, even dates, times or routing details, would show which foreign channels NSA could intercept and read. The affidavit states that no meaningful portion could be separated out and released. It adds that the classification rested on what the reports revealed about sources and methods, “not based only on the substantive content.” A separate Top Secret affidavit, submitted for the judge alone, identified the individual records.
The affidavit then describes the four records that were not COMINT reports. The first was the draft “UFO Hypothesis and Survival Questions,” released except for the author’s name and organization (covered here). The second was a memorandum on how UFO phenomena might relate to the intelligence community. It was released with deletions covering COMINT references and the author’s opinions (covered here). The third was an assignee’s memorandum about “an incident that occurred during his attendance at a UFO symposium.” Having now reviewed it, Yeates said, he had found it did not deal with UFOs at all and was not responsive. The fourth was a report whose responsive portion had been released on 15 September 1980.
Judge Gesell’s order is brief. He read the public affidavit and then “examined personally” the 21-page in camera affidavit, which he called “extremely detailed.” He found that the COMINT reports “clearly relate to the most sensitive activities of the defendant” and fell within Public Law 86-36, following the D.C. Circuit’s 1979 decision in Hayden v. National Security Agency. The exemptions claimed for the four non-COMINT documents were proper. The court had been “aware of the public interest in the issue of UFOs,” but found that interest “far outweighed by the sensitive nature of the materials and the obvious effect on national security their release may well entail.” He declined to inspect the documents themselves, granted summary judgment and dismissed the case.
Context
The case is why NSA’s UFO holdings are so often cited, and so seldom seen. The affidavit confirms that the agency held intercepted foreign reports that mentioned UFOs. It says nothing about what those reports contained, and the in camera affidavit that did describe them is not in this series. Some readers take the refusal as proof of hidden knowledge. The affidavit’s own argument is narrower. Its concern is protecting which communications NSA could read, whatever the reports said. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal in November 1981.
Status
Closed litigation. The two filings were long available through NSA’s FOIA releases before the 2025 transfer to the National Archives.
Sources
- National Archives catalog entry, Yeates affidavit: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/596347887
- PDF of the affidavit: https://catalog.archives.gov/medialz/electronic-records/rg-615/580103959/457UAP00001_released.pdf
- National Archives catalog entry, Memorandum and Order: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/596347933
- PDF of the order: https://catalog.archives.gov/medialz/electronic-records/rg-615/580103959/457UAP00024_released.pdf
- Series: Records from the National Security Agency Relating to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/580103959
- Citizens Against UFO Secrecy v. National Security Agency, 672 F.2d 893 (D.C. Cir. 1981): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/672/893/331316/