The federal government is entitled to the former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden’s proceeds from his new memoir and from several of his paid speeches because he did not submit the material, which referenced intelligence activities, to federal agencies in advance, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.
Judge Liam O’Grady of the United States District Court in Alexandria, Va., said in his ruling that Mr. Snowden, who disclosed top-secret documents in 2013 about National Security Agency surveillance programs, had previously signed agreements with the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. allowing them to review disclosures about certain intelligence-related work before he made them public.
In his memoir published in September, “Permanent Record,” Mr. Snowden recounts how he came to be alarmed by the growth of the security agency’s surveillance capabilities — including its then-secret systematic collection of logs of Americans’ domestic phone calls — and how he copied documents and provided them to the news media.
He did not submit the book for review, and the Justice Department sued Mr. Snowden, seeking to seize his proceeds from it, the same day it was published.
Mr. Snowden had argued that the government had said it would not review his materials in good faith and within a reasonable time. He also argued that he should be allowed to find out whether the federal government was singling him out and had “resolved not to permit him to earn a living by speaking or writing,” according to an earlier legal filing.
But Judge O’Grady disagreed, saying in a 14-page opinion on Tuesday that the memoir “contains information which both the C.I.A. and N.S.A. Secrecy Agreements obligated Snowden to submit for prepublication review.” Judge O’Grady said visual aids used by Mr. Snowden in speeches also should have been submitted for review — Mr. Snowden had used them at a TED Conference, an internet security trade fair and two universities, the judge noted.
Brett Max Kaufman, a lawyer for Mr. Snowden, said in an emailed statement on Wednesday that it was “far-fetched to believe that the government would have reviewed Mr. Snowden’s book or anything else he submitted in good faith.”
“For that reason, Mr. Snowden preferred to risk his future royalties than to subject his experiences to improper government censorship,” Mr. Kaufman said.
It was not immediately clear if Mr. Snowden would appeal the ruling, but Mr. Kaufman said “we disagree with the court’s decision and will review our options.”
The United States attorney’s office in Alexandria, Va., referred questions to the Justice Department in Washington. The department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.
The ruling on Tuesday addressed only Mr. Snowden’s liability for breaching his agreements with the intelligence agencies, not how much the government would seek to recover or how it would do so. The lawsuit against Mr. Snowden also named his publisher, Macmillan, as a defendant, but prosecutors have said they were only seeking to prevent the company from paying royalties to Mr. Snowden that should instead be turned over to the federal government.
Mr. Snowden has been celebrated as a whistle-blower by advocates for privacy and civil liberties but denounced as a traitor by some national security officials. His disclosure in 2013 prompted a worldwide debate about the reach of modern government-surveillance programs.
It also prompted reforms. In 2015, Congress ended the N.S.A.’s collection of logs of Americans’ phone records. The Trump administration asked Congress in August to reauthorize an alternative surveillance system.
In 2013, federal prosecutors charged Mr. Snowden with violations of the Espionage Act, which outlaws the disclosure of potentially harmful national security information to someone not authorized to receive it.
Mr. Snowden, however, has been living as a fugitive in Russia and the case has not proceeded. He has said that paid lectures are one of his main forms of income there.
Consenting to prepublication review is a routine part of gaining a security clearance.
But Tuesday’s ruling came as groups, including the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and American Civil Liberties Union, are challenging the process, arguing in a lawsuit filed in April by former military and intelligence officials that it is “dysfunctional” and unjustifiably restrictive of free-speech and due-process rights.
The lawsuit said reviewing officials can delay or discriminate against lower-ranking people who criticize government actions while quickly clearing favorable memoirs and other writings by retired senior officials.
Federal officials have said they are working on a new policy for the reviews.