It may be based, to be sure, upon past or present conduct, but it also may be based upon concerns completely unrelated to conduct, such as having close relatives residing in a country hostile to the United States. "[T] o be denied [clearance] on unspecified grounds in no way implies disloyalty or any other repugnant characteristic."

The state secrets privilege permits the Government to prevent disclosure of information when that disclosure would harm national security interests.

Nevertheless, as an appellate court, we can "affirm the District Court on any valid ground, and need not follow the same mode of analysis."

Similarly, if the information is essential to the defense, then summary judgment against the plaintiff may be appropriate.

Some courts have held that denying a security clearance based on the presence of family members in a foreign country hostile to the United States is not discrimination.

Most courts that have discussed the state secret privilege have adopted the position that, if privileged information would establish a valid defense, then the court ought to dismiss the plaintiffs' case.

—the FBI denied the plaintiff employment as a special agent after he failed a "top secret" security clearance.

Courts have upheld the assertion of the state secrets privilege over the general subject matter of a suit without the need for review of individual records where assertion of the privilege "did not relate to particular documents, but to all documents."

This cause of action under [§§ 552a (g)(1)(C) and (g)(4)(A)] requires, however, not merely an intentional or willful failure to maintain accurate records, but also `actual damages sustained'as a result of such failure

In Molerio v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, a job seeker alleged that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had disqualified him based upon his father' s political ties to socialist organizations in violation of the applicant' s and his father' s First Amendment rights