Editing Area 51 (section)

===Environmental lawsuit===

In 1994, five unnamed civilian contractors and the widows of contractors Walter Kasza and Robert Frost sued the Air Force and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. They alleged that they had been present when large quantities of unknown chemicals had been burned in open pits and trenches at Groom. [[Rutgers University]] biochemists analyzed biopsies from the complainants and found high levels of [[Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins|dioxin]], [[dibenzofuran]], and [[trichloroethylene]] in their body fat. The complainants alleged that they had sustained skin, liver, and respiratory injuries due to their work at Groom and that this had contributed to the deaths of Frost and Kasza. The suit sought compensation for the injuries, claiming that the Air Force had illegally handled toxic materials and that the EPA had failed in its duty to enforce the [[Resource Conservation and Recovery Act]] which governs the handling of dangerous materials. They also sought detailed information about the chemicals, hoping that this would facilitate the medical treatment of survivors.<ref name="Lawsuit"/> Congressman [[Lee H. Hamilton]], former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told ''60 Minutes'' reporter [[Lesley Stahl]], "The Air Force is classifying all information about Area 51 in order to protect themselves from a lawsuit."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ufomind.com/area51/articles/1996/60min_960317.html |title=60 Minutes Transcript an Area 51 |website=ufomind.com |date=17 March 1996 |access-date=31 December 2020}}</ref>

The government invoked the [[State Secrets Privilege]] and petitioned U.S. District Judge Philip Pro to disallow disclosure of classified documents or examination of secret witnesses, claiming that this would expose classified information and threaten national security.<ref name=lvrj_jun2002>{{cite news |url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jun-04-Tue-2002/news/18894771.html |title=Federal judges to hear case involving Area 51 |first=Keith |last=Rogers |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100214093647/http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jun-04-Tue-2002/news/18894771.html |archive-date=14 February 2010 |newspaper=Las Vegas Review-Journal |date=4 June 2002 |access-date=10 June 2013}}</ref> Judge Pro rejected the government's argument, so President [[Bill Clinton]] issued a [[Presidential Determination]] exempting what it called "the Air Force's Operating Location Near Groom Lake, Nevada" from environmental disclosure laws. Consequently, Pro dismissed the suit due to lack of evidence. [[Jonathan Turley]], the attorney who was handling the lawsuit, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the grounds that the government was abusing its power to classify material. Secretary of the Air Force [[Sheila E. Widnall]] filed a brief which stated that disclosures of the materials present in the air and water near Groom "can reveal military operational capabilities or the nature and scope of classified operations." The Ninth Circuit rejected Turley's appeal<ref>{{cite web |title=Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding. Argued and Submitted June 14, 2002 |url=http://archive.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/77F9FB6C3552927E88256D05007AE266/$file/0016378.pdf?openelement |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120314151234/http://archive.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/77F9FB6C3552927E88256D05007AE266/$file/0016378.pdf?openelement |archive-date=14 March 2012 |date=14 March 2012}}</ref> and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear it, putting an end to the complainants' case.<ref name="Lawsuit">{{cite web |url=https://www.rcfp.org/high-court-wont-review-state-secrets-privilege-area-51-case/ |title=High court won't review "state secrets" privilege in 'Area 51' case |publisher=RCFP.org |date=16 November 1998 |access-date=31 December 2020}}</ref>

The President annually issues a determination continuing the Groom exception<ref>{{cite web |url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_cfr_3v1&docid=3CFRSep19 |title=2000 Presidential Determination |access-date=10 June 2010 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120604211107/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_cfr_3v1&docid=3CFRSep19 |archive-date=4 June 2012 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020918-9.html |title=2002 Presidential Determination |publisher=Georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov |date=18 September 2002 |access-date=10 June 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110615103519/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020918-9.html |archive-date=15 June 2011 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030916-4.html |title=2003 Presidential Determination |publisher=Georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov |date=16 September 2003 |access-date=10 June 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100510015728/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030916-4.html |archive-date=10 May 2010 |url-status=live}}</ref> which is the only formal recognition that the government has ever given that Groom Lake is more than simply another part of the Nellis complex. An unclassified memo on the safe handling of [[F-117 Nighthawk]] material was posted on an Air Force web site in 2005. This discussed the same materials for which the complainants had requested information, which the government had claimed was classified. The memo was removed shortly after journalists became aware of it.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/May-21-Sun-2006/news/7488359.html |url-status=dead |title=Warnings for emergency responders kept from Area 51 workers |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100214093550/http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/May-21-Sun-2006/news/7488359.html |archive-date=14 February 2010 |newspaper=Las Vegas Review-Journal |date=21 May 2006 |access-date=10 June 2013}}</ref>