This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
According to Richard A. Cordray, the petition by former Secretary of State Warren Christopher and others alleges denial of access to the courts by government officials.
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, the justices raised questions about the right of access, referencing the Bell v. Milwaukee case and the Bivens doctrine.
According to Justice, the Court also inquired whether statements were made with the intent to prevent a lawsuit, highlighting concerns about potential misuse of governmental information.
What each side argues
Warren Christopher (Petitioner)
According to Richard A. Cordray, counsel for the petitioners argued that government officials sued in their individual capacity were denied access to the courts and that qualified immunity should not shield them.
According to Mr. Cordray, the petitioners contended that seeking a particular remedy does not bar a cause of action and that no legitimate constitutional claim exists under existing precedents.
Jennifer K. Harbury (Respondent)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Richard A. Cordray, counsel for the petitioners opened by representing current and former government officials sued in their individual capacity over denial of court access and qualified immunity.
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, chief Justice Rehnquist announced that the Court would hear argument in No. 01‑394, Warren Christopher v. Jennifer K. Harbury.
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, justices questioned the right of access, referencing the Bell v. Milwaukee case and the Bivens doctrine.
According to Justice, the Court asked whether alleged statements were made to prevent a lawsuit, indicating concern over potential misuse of governmental information.
The Court noted that the government may legitimately provide false information in certain situations.
According to Ms. Harbury, harbury described the alleged conduct as intentional deceit, a common‑law tort where the deceiver knows the statement will be relied upon to the detriment of another.
Harbury explained that she filed a FOIA request in January 1995, received disclosures in March, and later obtained additional documentation in the fall.
The case was formally submitted to the Court at 11:59 a.m.
- [1] 9e704f6cc88bd240668d-r1-3adc3796d5fbe028.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 9e704f6cc88bd240668d-r1-3adc3796d5fbe028.pdf, p. 3
- [3] 9e704f6cc88bd240668d-r1-3adc3796d5fbe028.pdf, p. 4
- [4] 9e704f6cc88bd240668d-r1-3adc3796d5fbe028.pdf, p. 20
- [5] 9e704f6cc88bd240668d-r1-3adc3796d5fbe028.pdf, p. 24
- [6] 9e704f6cc88bd240668d-r1-3adc3796d5fbe028.pdf, p. 21
- [7] 9e704f6cc88bd240668d-r1-3adc3796d5fbe028.pdf, p. 35
- [8] 9e704f6cc88bd240668d-r1-3adc3796d5fbe028.pdf, p. 36
- [9] 9e704f6cc88bd240668d-r1-3adc3796d5fbe028.pdf, p. 51
- [10] 9e704f6cc88bd240668d-r1-3adc3796d5fbe028.pdf, p. 52
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Ms. Harbury, ms. Harbury alleges that the conduct at issue constitutes intentional deceit, a common‑law tort where the deceiver knows the statement will be relied upon to another's detriment.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9e704f6cc88bd240668d-r1-3adc3796d5fbe028.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.