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:
Daniel Edward HENRY, etc., et al., Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, et al., Intervenors, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Honorable John E. WARNER, Individually and in his capacity as Secretary of the Navy, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 73-1694.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 27, 1974.
Joel Levine, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), John E. Nordin, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellants.
Nathan R. Zahm (argued), Sherman Oaks, Cal., A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, Laurence R. Sperber, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before ELY, HUFSTEDLER and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Under the compulsion of this court’s opinion in Daigle v. Warner (9th Cir. 1973), 490 F.2d 358, the orders and judgment are ordered vacated and the cause is remanded to the district court for reconsideration in the light of Daigle.
Judges Ely and Hufstedler disagree with the holding of Daigle in that both believe that, absent emergency circumstances, the due process clause requires the appointment of counsel or a counsel substitute in all summary courts martial, without the limitations placed upon that right by the majority of the Daigle panel. Judge Ely adds his thought that if, under Supreme Court authority, a civilian is entitled to the assistance of an attorney in a hearing wherein the risk is no more than minimal confinement, then one in the military service of his country, facing much graver consequences, should be entitled to the same consideration. Judge Trask adheres to his views expressed, concurring and dissenting, in Daigle. All members of this panel, however, follow Daigle because it is the law of this circuit.

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