George Washington University
Office of University Relations
Washington, DC 20052

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                   MEDIA CONTACT: NORA KELLEY
   Nov. 10, 1994                            (202) 994-3087


          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MOVES TO STRIKE ITS OWN
NATIONAL SECURITY DEFENSE IN GROOM LAKE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME CASE

Motion to Strike Rules out Military and State Secrets Privilege
at This Juncture in Cases Filed against 
EPA and Military and Intelligence Agencies 
By GW Law Professor Jonathan Turley


     Washington, D.C. -- At a hearing held in Las Vegas, NV, the
Department of Justice moved today to strike its own affirmative
defense under the Military and State Secrets Privilege in cases
filed against the Environmental Protection Agency and the three
principal military and intelligence figures with jurisdiction over
the Groom Lake top-secret Air Force base -- the Department of
Defense, The National Security Advisor and the Air Force. 

     The government's decision was made in response to a motion
filed by The George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan
Turley.  The Military and State Secrets Privilege is a common law
evidentiary rule that allows the government to object to specific
discovery or production requests on the basis of national security. 
In the past, courts have not permitted the Privilege to be used as
a general defense.  

     The filing of the Groom Lake case marks the first time a
"black program" has been sued.  The invocation of the Military and
State Secrets Privilege at this stage of the case is the first time
the government has tried to use the Privilege to dismiss an entire
case on jurisdictional grounds.  The decision on the part of the
government to yield to Turley's motion clears the way for a trial
and is considered a significant hurdle for the Plaintiffs. 

     "The government's argument failed to recognize that the
Privilege is an evidentiary rather than a jurisdictional
challenge," said Jonathan Turley, director of the Environmental
Crimes Project at GW in his motion opposing the use of the
invocation of the Privilege at this point in the case.  

     "The Privilege does not deny a court jurisdiction but rather
denies the use of specific access to specific items of evidence at
trial," stated Turley in the motion. 

     In today's hearing the Court also addressed the question of
the government's answering a complaint before being formally
served.  The issue was raised in Turley's Motion in which he states
that Counsel for the Air Force was not served with the Air Force
case complaint at the time of filing in August, due to the pending
approval of a verified petition for the appointment of local
counsel and approval of a Motion Pro Hoc Vice for Plaintiffs'
Counsel in Washington, D.C.  On October 19, 1994, however, Counsel
for the Air Force filed an answer to the complaint, without having
yet been served.

     By successfully challenging the use of the Privilege during
the jurisdictional phase of the case, Turley has established
precedent for restricting the use of Privilege to non-
jurisdictional evidentiary questions.  "Today's hearing removed the
final jurisdictional barriers to trial of these cases," said
Turley.  

     After acknowledging its mistake in invoking the Privilege,
Government Counsel asked the court to delay discovery so that it
could consider other possible grounds for staying this action. That
request was denied and the court ordered discovery to begin
immediately and set a trial schedule.

                            -- 30 --