Louisiana v. Mississippi
102 L. Ed. 2d 395, 109 S. Ct. 407 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statutes authorizing summary removal of federal employees for national security reasons, such as 5 U.S.C. § 7532, are permissive and supplementary, not mandatory. They do not preempt an agency's authority to terminate an employee for national security-related cause under its own established personnel regulations.
Facts:
- John Doe was a cryptographic material control technician who had been employed by the National Security Agency (NSA) for 16 years.
- In 1982, Doe disclosed to NSA officials that he had engaged in homosexual relationships with foreign nationals.
- Following this disclosure, the NSA notified Doe that his "indiscriminate personal conduct" made it impossible for him to retain the security clearance essential for his employment.
- An internal NSA board of appraisal concluded that Doe's continued access to classified information was "clearly inconsistent with the national security."
- The Director of the NSA subsequently revoked Doe's security clearance.
- Because maintaining a security clearance was a condition of his employment, the NSA Director terminated Doe's employment for cause under the agency's internal personnel regulations.
- Doe requested a hearing before the Secretary of Defense pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7532, but the NSA maintained his removal was not under that statute but under its own 'for cause' procedures.
Procedural Posture:
- John Doe filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of Defense in the U.S. District Court, challenging his termination.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, holding the NSA Director acted within his authority under the 1959 NSA Act.
- Doe, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that 5 U.S.C. § 7532 provided the mandatory and exclusive procedure for removals on national security grounds.
- The Secretary of Defense and the NSA Director, as petitioners, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does 5 U.S.C. § 7532 provide the exclusive procedure for terminating a National Security Agency (NSA) employee on national security grounds, thereby precluding the agency from using its own 'for cause' removal procedures derived from the National Security Agency Act of 1959?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. Section 7532 does not provide the exclusive procedure for removing an NSA employee on national security grounds; the statute is a permissive and supplementary authority that does not preclude the NSA from utilizing its own for-cause removal procedures. The court's reasoning is based on several principles of statutory interpretation. First, the power of removal from office is inherently incident to the power of appointment, and the 1959 NSA Act grants the NSA Director the power to appoint employees. Second, the plain language of both 5 U.S.C. § 7532 and a similar statute, 50 U.S.C. § 833, uses the permissive term "may," indicating that these summary procedures are an alternative, not the sole means, for removal. Third, the legislative history shows Congress intended § 7532 to supplement, not supplant, existing agency removal mechanisms, providing an extraordinary tool for urgent situations where normal procedures would pose a threat to national security. Finally, forcing the NSA to use § 7532 in all national security cases would create a statutory conflict, as § 7532 requires a higher standard for removal than the standard used for revoking the security clearance upon which NSA employment depends.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the relationship between general agency personnel authority and specific national security statutes, establishing that summary dismissal laws are tools of last resort rather than mandatory procedures. By affirming that the power to remove is incident to the power to appoint, the Court reinforced the NSA Director's administrative authority over personnel matters. This ruling provides federal agencies with significant flexibility, allowing them to use their standard 'for cause' removal processes (often triggered by security clearance revocation) without having to meet the more stringent requirements for invoking emergency summary dismissal statutes. It prevents an interpretation that would have centralized all national security-related firings under the direct authority of an agency head, preserving the agency's internal disciplinary and security structures.
Unlock the full brief for Louisiana v. Mississippi