The judge also criticized CIA Director Leon Panetta, saying he's given conflicting accounts about what should be revealed in the case. The ruling led to the unsealing Monday of more than 200 unclassified versions of classified filings in the 13-year-old case.
"The court does not give the government a high degree of deference because of its prior misrepresentations regarding the state secrets privilege in this case," Lamberth ruled.
The court case comes amid increased scrutiny and allegations of lying against the spy agency.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in May that she believes the CIA lied to her about its harsh interrogation program in 2002. Panetta said in June that the CIA had not notified Congress about a secret program to develop hit squads for al-Qaida terrorists. And Congress is investigating whether the agency broke the law by not informing lawmakers about that and other secret activities.
The eavesdropping lawsuit was brought by a former agent with the Drug Enforcement Agency, Richard Horn, who says his home in Rangoon, Burma, was illegally wiretapped by the CIA in 1993. He says Arthur Brown, the former CIA station chief in Burma, and Franklin Huddle Jr., the chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Burma, were trying to get him relocated because they disagreed with his work with Burmese officials on the country's drug trade.
The CIA would have to get a warrant to eavesdrop on an American overseas. No documents released by the court indicate that the agency sought such authority, and the agency has not said in court filings whether or not it monitored Horn.
Horn says he became suspicious when the coffee table in his apartment was replaced while he was out of town. He also points to a cable that Huddle sent to Washington quoting his private conversation.
Horn sued Brown and Huddle in 1994, seeking monetary damages for violations of his civil rights because of the alleged wiretapping.
Tenet filed an affidavit in 2000 asking that the case against Brown be dismissed because he was a covert agent whose identity must not be revealed in court. Lamberth granted the CIA's request and threw out the case against Brown in 2004.
But Lamberth found out last year that Brown's cover had been lifted in 2002, even though the CIA continued to file legal documents saying his status was covert. The judge found that the CIA intentionally misled the court and reinstated the case against Brown.
The former acting CIA general counsel, John Rizzo, said in a court filing that the CIA's office of general counsel did not know Brown's cover status changed until 2005, three years after the fact. Rizzo said that one CIA attorney, Yeates, knew about the change but did not tell the court or his supervisors.
Brown disputes Rizzo's account. In a statement to the court, Brown says that he met personally with two other CIA attorneys, Robert J. Eatinger and John Radsan, in 2002, within a few months of the CIA rolling back his covert status and notified them of the agency's action.
While Lamberth referred Yeates for disciplinary action, he delayed action until he determines if others, including Rizzo, Eatinger, Radsan, Tenant and Brown himself, should face contempt charges or sanctions for failing to notify the court of Brown's change in status.
CIA spokesman George Little offered a brief response to the case, saying that the agency takes its obligation to the U.S. courts seriously.
