WASHINGTON -- They're known only as John and Jane Doe. Even the lawyer who argued their case against the Central Intelligence Agency yesterday in the Supreme Court doesn't know who they are, what country they're from, or what exactly they did for the United States during the Cold War.
But many security analysts fear that the mere fact that the Does' case, which accuses the CIA of reneging on a secret agreement to support them for life, is in court may do incalculable damage to the country's ability to recruit spies.
''This is the worst possible thing that can happen," said Ray McGovern, a retired 27-year CIA veteran. ''Most of our most lucrative sources over the past few decades were people who walked in and had some reasonable assurance that they would be taken care of. Now those assurances will be eroded and they'll think twice."
The case of Tenet v. Doe involves an important Cold War informant who spied for the United States for years in exchange for a promise that he and his wife would receive new identities and lifetime support in the United States. The defectors say that promise was not kept -- and sued.
The government appears to have allowed the case to go forward to prevent other secret informants from going to court -- or threatening to do so and obliging the CIA to pay extra compensation.
Yesterday, Acting US Solicitor General Paul Clement urged the court to hold that no secret contracts between spies and the government can be heard because revealing the deals threatens national security.
''It's important to send a clear message to espionage agents that they have no incentive to file lawsuits in the first place because such cases will just be dismissed," Clement said.
According to court documents, John Doe was a top diplomat for a Soviet bloc country. He and his wife approached the CIA about defecting. They contend they did not want to spy, but gave in after US agents held them at a safe house for 12 hours, promising lifetime support if they cooperated.
After the Does spied for an undisclosed period, the CIA set them up with new identities in Seattle. Using fake CIA-supplied references, John Doe got a job in a Seattle bank. The agency kicked in a small yearly stipend that dwindled as his salary rose.
A few years ago, however, the defector's job was downsized after a bank merger. The couple went back to the CIA to try to retrieve the $27,000 annual stipend, but were allegedly told that for ''budgetary reasons" no further assistance would be offered.
Believing that the CIA had violated its procedures for handling claims from former spies, the Does sued. They took the precaution of submitting their filings to the CIA to be scrubbed of classified secrets before filing them in the court system.
But the CIA said that even to confirm or deny that the agency had an agreement with the Does would violate national security. The government cited a precedent involving a Civil War spy hired by President Lincoln whose estate eventually sued the government for more money.
The Supreme Court threw out the case in 1875, holding that secret spy contracts could not be enforced because revealing their existence violated an implicit provision that both sides would never talk about them.
But at yesterday's hearing Justice Antonin Scalia noted that courts are more flexible in handling classified materials now than in the 19th century.
''We have procedures now for matters to be kept in confidence by the courts," Scalia said. ''If the idea was to keep these matters secret, why not proceed with the case that way?"
Clement replied that even a hearing behind closed doors would risk revealing a state secret because court personnel would know it.
David Burman, the lawyer representing the Does, argued that the Civil War case did not apply because the Does did not sue in their own name. He also said the basis for their case was not a broken contract but a constitutional right to due process -- the CIA, he said, violated the Does' rights by failing to follow its own procedures.
All that was necessary for the case to proceed, Burman argued, was an acknowledgment by the government that the Does were ''resettlees" under a law that allows the United States to waive immigration requirements for certain defectors. These are not always spies, he noted. Sometimes, for example, they are important scientists.
But many justices seemed troubled by that argument, saying that it was difficult to see how the espionage would not be revealed. ''If the government claims the matter is privileged, and the judge says 'Was your client a spy?' do you respond yes or no?" asked Justice David Souter. ''In order to defeat privilege, you've got to say 'Yes, I am a spy,' or 'No, I am not.' "
The Supreme Court is expected to rule before its term ends in June. But in the eyes of some intelligence specialists, damage has already been done.
Former director of central intelligence William H. Webster said the publicity generated by Tenet v. Doe harms the agency's reputation among potential defectors.
''You don't want a general reputation for not honoring your commitments, and that's what these kinds of cases can potentially do," Webster said. ''It's important when you're dealing with people who have to trust you with their lives and their safety that they can really count on you to be there."