Lexplug logoLexplug

Webster v. Doe

Supreme Court of United States
486 U.S. 592 (1988)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

While a federal statute granting an agency head absolute discretion to terminate an employee for national security reasons precludes judicial review of the termination under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), it does not bar judicial review of colorable constitutional claims arising from that termination unless Congress provides a clear statement of its intent to do so.


Facts:

  • In 1973, John Doe began working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as a clerk-typist and, due to consistently excellent performance reviews, was promoted to a covert electronics technician by 1977.
  • In January 1982, Doe voluntarily informed a CIA security officer that he was a homosexual.
  • The CIA then placed Doe on administrative leave and subjected him to extensive polygraph questioning regarding his sexual orientation and potential security vulnerabilities.
  • The polygraph officer concluded that Doe had answered all questions truthfully and had not disclosed classified information or had sexual relations with foreign nationals.
  • On April 14, 1982, a CIA security agent informed Doe that his homosexuality posed a security threat and asked him to resign.
  • When Doe refused to resign, the Director of the CIA terminated his employment, stating the termination was 'necessary and advisable in the interests of the United States' pursuant to § 102(c) of the National Security Act.
  • Doe was advised that if he applied for future jobs requiring a security clearance, the CIA would inform the prospective employer that his homosexuality was considered a security threat.

Procedural Posture:

  • John Doe filed suit against the Director of the CIA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asserting statutory and constitutional claims.
  • The Director (petitioner) filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that § 102(c) of the National Security Act precluded judicial review.
  • The District Court (trial court) denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss and granted partial summary judgment for Doe.
  • The petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
  • A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
  • The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.

Locked

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 § 102(c) of the National Security Act of 1947, which grants the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) discretion to terminate employees when deemed 'necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States,' preclude judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act of a termination decision that an employee alleges was unconstitutional?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist

Yes, as to the statutory claim; No, as to the constitutional claim. Section 102(c) of the National Security Act commits employee termination decisions to the CIA Director's discretion, precluding judicial review of the merits of such decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act, but it does not preclude judicial review of colorable constitutional claims arising from those terminations. The statutory language granting the Director power to terminate whenever he 'shall deem' it necessary 'fairly exudes deference' and provides no meaningful standard for a court to apply, thus committing the action to agency discretion by law under § 701(a)(2) of the APA. However, where Congress intends to preclude judicial review of constitutional claims, its intent to do so must be clear. Section 102(c) contains no such clear statement. To construe the statute as denying any judicial forum for a colorable constitutional claim would raise serious constitutional questions, a result the Court seeks to avoid. Therefore, while Doe cannot challenge the Director's statutory discretion, he can proceed with his constitutional claims in the District Court.


Dissenting - Justice Scalia

Yes. The Director's decision to terminate a CIA employee is committed to agency discretion by law and is therefore unreviewable for any reason, including alleged constitutional defects. The majority's holding is practically and legally contradictory; a decision cannot be both unreviewable and reviewable for constitutional error. The 'committed to agency discretion' exception in the APA is not limited to situations with 'no law to apply' but also encompasses areas traditionally beyond judicial review, such as sensitive national security and foreign affairs matters. There is no constitutional mandate for a judicial remedy for every constitutional violation, and Congress permissibly gave the Director unreviewable discretion in this area. Allowing constitutional claims will inevitably lead to courts improperly 'rummaging around' in the CIA's secret affairs, damaging national security.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice O'Connor

Yes. The termination decision is unreviewable on both statutory and constitutional grounds. I agree with the majority that the Director's decision is 'committed to agency discretion by law' under the APA because § 102(c) provides no meaningful standard for judicial review. However, I disagree that a constitutional challenge may be brought in federal court. The functions of the CIA lie at the core of the President's exclusive constitutional power over foreign relations and national security. Congress has the authority to prevent lower federal courts from infringing on this power, and § 102(c) plainly indicates that it has done so in this context. Therefore, the entire lawsuit should be dismissed.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a significant principle of administrative law: the strong presumption of judicial review for constitutional claims. By bifurcating its analysis, the Court affirmed broad agency discretion in sensitive national security matters while carving out an essential exception for constitutional rights. The ruling requires Congress to use an explicit 'clear statement' to strip courts of jurisdiction over constitutional questions, protecting individual rights against otherwise unreviewable executive action. This creates a lasting tension, as it permits litigation that may require courts to navigate highly classified information, balancing the need for judicial oversight against the executive's national security concerns.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Webster v. Doe (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"