The State Secret Protection Act-H.R.984

The State Secret Protection Act would force the government to admit highly classified secrets, such as the identities of spies, in the course of litigation, putting national security at risk.
The State Secret Protection Act would give activists a "heckler's veto" over many national security programs created by the democratic branches of government.
The State Secret Protection Act attempts to transfer powers clearly assigned to the President to judges, in violation of the Constitution. It is unconstitutional.
The State Secret Protection Act is a cynical attempt by Congress to duck tough decisions in the national security arena--where bad decisions can have catastrophic consequences--by passing the buck to the courts.
The state secrets privilege is only one of several "immunities" that can bar litigation altogether. For example, courts have cited the Speech or Debate Clause to dismiss suits against Members of Congress and other legislators involving invasion of privacy, defamation, wiretapping, incitements to violence, age, race, and sex discrimination, retaliation for reporting sexual discrimination, and larceny and fraud.
The modern application of the privilege was defined in a 1953 case, U.S. v. Reynolds. The Reynolds framework carefully balance the sometimes harsh results of the state secrets privilege--the exclusion of relevant evidence or dismissal of a claim altogether--with the genuine needs of U.S. national security.
Seven separate requirements, including Department of Justice review and "personal consideration" by high-ranking federal officials, ensure that the state secrets privilege is used only when necessary to protect national security.