Indian-American expert Ashley Tellis espionage case dismissed by US judge
Washington, May 7 (IANS/WISHAVWARTA) A federal judge in Virginia has dismissed without prejudice an Espionage Act case against Indian-American strategic affairs scholar Ashley J. Tellis, ruling in favour of a defence argument that prosecutors used the wrong statutory provision in charging him with unlawful retention of classified documents.
US District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff granted Tellis’ motion to dismiss on April 16 after hearing arguments from both sides in Alexandria, Virginia. The brief court order said the motion was “GRANTED” and that the case was “DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Tellis, a well-known scholar of international security and US foreign policy, had been charged under Section 793(e) of the Espionage Act with wilful retention of national defence information. Prosecutors alleged he removed and stored classified documents at his residence while serving in senior positions linked to the US State Department and the Department of War.
The superseding indictment accused Tellis of retaining 11 classified documents containing national defence information. The government alleged that he “exploited his access to classified information related to the national defence by secreting NDI from his secure workplaces and storing said NDI at his personal residence in hard copy and digital form.”
But Tellis’ legal team argued that the government charged him under the wrong subsection of the Espionage Act. In a detailed filing, his lawyers said Section 793(e) applies only to people in “unauthorised possession” of classified information, while the indictment itself acknowledged that Tellis held a high-level security clearance and had been “entrusted” with access to sensitive material.
The defence argued that Tellis “was entrusted with the relevant documents” and therefore could not legally fall under the subsection prosecutors chose.
His lawyers also noted that the government had not accused him of disseminating classified information or accessing files beyond his clearance authority.
The filing said prosecutors could have pursued other statutes, including Section 793(d) or Section 1924, which deals with unauthorised removal and retention of classified material by government employees, but “deliberately chose to limit its indictment to the wrong provision.”
Federal prosecutors had opposed attempts to relax Tellis’ strict bail conditions earlier in the case. In one filing, the government argued that Tellis remained both a flight risk and a danger to national security because he allegedly possessed “tens of thousands of pages of classified material, including over 1,000 pages of hard-copy TOP SECRET material.”
The government also alleged that some material involved information related to China’s nuclear and military capabilities and said Tellis retained “decades’ worth of sensitive national defence information in his head.”
After the dismissal order, Tellis filed an unopposed motion seeking release of his secured bond, which prosecutors did not contest. A separate court order later directed the government to respond to Tellis’ motion seeking the return of property seized during the investigation.
The case drew attention in Washington’s national security and strategic affairs circles because of Tellis’ long career advising the US government on defence and Indo-Pacific policy.
Cases involving alleged mishandling of classified information have intensified in recent years amid broader scrutiny of retention of sensitive national security material by current and former government officials.
—
