What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "cabinet level department". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
Frank BURNS, Joseph Gizowsky, Mac Krieger, Robert McCruden, Joseph Serabonia, Henry D. Strube and John M. Tomchek, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Arthur A. McCRARY, Col., Commanding Officer, Signal Corps Pictorial Center, 35-11 35th Avenue, Long Island City, New York, William E. Leary, Major, Signal Corps Pictorial Center, 35-11 35th Avenue, Long Island City, New York, and Mary C. O’Connor, Chief Personnel Officer, Signal Corps Pictorial Center, 35-11 35th Avenue, Long Island City, New York, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 153, Docket 23762.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 21,1955.
Decided Jan. 11, 1956.
Samuel Resnicoff, New York City, for appellee.
Warren E. Burger, Washington, D. C., Leonard P. Moore, Brooklyn, N. Y., Paul A. Sweeney and John J. Cound, Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Before FRANK, HINCKS and LUM-BARD, Circuit Judges.
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs are civilians employed by the United States as Photographer Equipment Repairers at the Army Signal Corps Pictorial Center, in Long Island City, New York. Some of plaintiffs are veterans. On February 2, 1955, each of them received official notice that he would be reduced in grade on February 20,1955. Before that date, each of plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal. The appeals of those who were veterans will be finally decided by the Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C., and the appeals of those who were not veterans by the Secretary of the Army, Washington, D. C. While these appeals were pending and undecided, plaintiffs began this suit. They asked that the proposed reductions in grade be declared void and that the defendants be enjoined from carrying them out. On plaintiffs’ motion, the district court granted a preliminary injunction. Defendants have appealed.
When this suit began and when the preliminary injunction issued, plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies. Such exhaustion is essential to the maintenance of such a suit. The final administrative decisions will be made by officials residing in Washington, D. C., who have not been served. Accordingly, the district court had no jurisdiction to grant either a temporary or a final injunction.
Reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
. Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U.S. 752, 764, 67 S.Ct. 1493, 91 L.Ed. 1796; Macauley v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 327 U.S. 540, 66 S.Ct. 712, 90 L.Ed. 839; Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co., 303 U.S. 41, 58 S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. 638. Wettre v. Hague, 1 Cir., 168 E.2d 825 as interpreted in Fitzpatrick v. Snyder, 1 Cir., 220 F.2d 522, 525, holds that, where there is a “clear violation of some incontestable right,” administrative remedies need not be first exhausted. As here there is no “clear violation of some incontestable right,” we need not here decide whether or not to follow the Wettre doctrine; Cf. Young v. Higley, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 122, 220 F.2d 487.
. Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534; Reeber v. Rossell, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 334; Cf. United States ex rel. Vassel v. Durning, 2 Cir., 152 F.2d 455.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "cabinet level department". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense (includes War Department and Navy Department)
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Department of Health & Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Interior
Department of Justice (does not include FBI or parole boards; does include US Attorneys)
Department of Labor (except OSHA)
Post Office Department
Department of State
Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board
Department of the Treasury (except IRS)
Department of Veterans Affairs

Answer: 2