United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987)
node
A sergeant was secretly dosed with LSD four times, and the Supreme Court ruled he couldn't sue because he was a soldier.
Who they are
Master Sergeant James B. Stanley, who in February 1958 volunteered for what he was told was a test of protective clothing.
What they do
He was sent to the Army's Chemical Warfare Laboratories at Aberdeen Proving Ground and given LSD four times without being told.
How it works
The Supreme Court held 5-4 that a rule barring soldiers from suing over anything 'incident to service' blocked his claim. Justice Brennan dissented, writing that 'The medical trials at Nuremberg in 1947 deeply impressed upon the world that experimentation with unknowing human subjects is morally and legally unacceptable', and quoting the Nuremberg Code's first principle: 'The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.' He called the majority's decision 'abdication, not hesitation'.
Why it matters
The experiments were not only a CIA matter, and the courts were not a reliable route to redress even when the facts were accepted.
The engine's record — word for word
[Report #191] Per the opinion: 'In February, 1958, James B. Stanley, a master sergeant in the Army stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky, volunteered to participate in a program ostensibly designed to test the effectiveness of protective clothing and equipment as defenses against chemical warfare. He was released from his then-current duties and went to the Army's Chemical Warfare Laboratories at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Four times that month, Stanley was secretly administered doses of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), pursuant to an Army plan to study the effects of the drug on human subjects.' The Court held 5-4 that the Feres doctrine barred the claim; Scalia delivered the opinion joined by Rehnquist, White, Blackmun and Powell, with Brennan (joined by Marshall, and by Stevens in part) and O'Connor concurring in part and dissenting in part. Brennan, dissenting, verbatim: 'The medical trials at Nuremberg in 1947 deeply impressed upon the world that experimentation with unknowing human subjects is morally and legally unacceptable. The United States Military Tribunal established the Nuremberg Code as a standard against which to judge German scientists who experimented with human subjects. Its first principle was: "1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential."' And: 'This is abdication, not hesitation.' NOTE for citation hygiene: the Nuremberg Code reasoning belongs to THIS case. It does not appear in Orlikow — the word occurs zero times in that decision.
Follow the trail
Walk this on the live map →