Ex-spies sue CIA for lost salary

Abraham Lincoln offered money for spying during the US Civil War

Two Cold War-era spies who say the CIA reneged on a deal to pay them a salary for the rest of their lives have taken their case to the US Supreme Court.

The former eastern bloc diplomat and his wife agreed to spy for the CIA when they sought to defect to the US.

The agency promised a guaranteed annual salary of $27,000, but refused to pay out after the man lost his job in 1997.

US government lawyers insist spies can never expect protection under law and say the case cannot be heard.

The couple, who have been identified only as John and Jane Doe, were handed new identities and claimed they were promised personal and financial security for life when their spying ended.

The husband began a job at a bank, and the CIA stopped paying his salary when his regular earnings reached $27,000.

But when he lost his job in 1997 after a corporate merger, the CIA refused to pay out any further cash.

[In] an espionage relationship that you understand you have no protected status under law Paul Clement Acting US Solicitor General

Now the pair have taken their case to the US Supreme Court, where they are challenging an 1875 ruling that outlaws legal challenges aimed at recovering money promised for spying.

That ruling was issued after President Abraham Lincoln promised to pay a man named William Lloyd for spying on Confederate troops during the American Civil War.

In its 1875 judgement the Supreme Court has prevented US federal courts from hearing cases about alleged spy contracts, on the grounds of national security.

'Risk of retaliation'

In Washington on Tuesday, acting Solicitor General Paul Clement told the Supreme Court: "There is something inherent about an espionage relationship that you understand you have no protected status under the law."

The US Supreme Court is the guardian of the constitution

He recalled the case of Nathan Hale, who spied for the US during the Revolutionary War and was eventually executed by the British.

The spy relationship, Mr Clement said, is "a contract the law doesn't recognise".

David Burman, representing the former spies, disagreed.

"This is not about the protection of state secrets, but about the limits of executive power," he said.

The couple say their case could be heard without exposing state secrets, and they have cleared their complaint with the CIA before filing a lawsuit.

Mr Burman asserted that the couple were "pressured" into espionage and left at "lifelong risk of retaliation, including assassination".

"The executive claims that courts are institutionally incapable of dealing with cases that touch upon matters of national security," the couple wrote in their submission.

"History demonstrates the contrary."

A ruling is not expected until June.