Document: 486 U.S. 592 108 S.Ct. 2047 100 L.Ed.2d 632 William H. WEBSTER, Director of Central Intelligence, Petitionerv.John DOE. No. 86-1294. Argued Jan. 12, 1988. Decided June 15, Syllabus Section 102(c) the National Security Act 1947 (NSA) authorizes Intelligence Agency (CIA), "in his discretion," to terminate employment any CIA employee "whenever he shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in interests United States." After respondent, a covert electronics technician CIA's employ, voluntarily informed agency that was homosexual, discharged by (petitioner's predecessor) under § 102(c). Respondent filed suit against petitioner Federal District Court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging violations Administrative Procedure (APA), rights property, liberty, privacy First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth Amendments, procedural due process equal protection laws Fifth Amendment. court granted respondent's motion partial summary judgment on APA claim, declining address constitutional claims, Appeals vacated remanded. The agreed with judicial review petitioner's decisions made NSA not precluded provision APA, 5 U.S.C. 701(a), which renders inapplicable whenever "(1) statutes preclude review; (2) action is committed discretion law." However, held had erred its ruling merits. Held: 1. Title 701(a)(2) precludes Director's NSA. applies where statute drawn broad terms given case there no law apply, would have meaningful standard judge agency's exercise discretion. In allowing "shall [it] advisable," simply when dismissal advisable, fairly exudes deference Director, forecloses application assessing decision short permitting cross-examination Director. That 102(c)'s implementation "committed law" also strongly suggested overall structure NSA, vests very authority protect intelligence sources methods from unauthorized disclosure. an integral part structure, because efficacy, Nation's security, depend large measure reliability trustworthiness employees. Pp. 599-601. 2. claims Petitioner's view all decisions, even those based policies normally repugnant Constitution, are over absolute discretion, supported required heightened showing clear congressional intent. Although does commit §§ 701(a)(1) (a)(2) remove only determinations specifically identified Congress Nothing demonstrates meant consideration colorable arising out actions pursuant section. contention will entail extensive "rummaging around" affairs detriment national security persuasive, since attacking VII Civil Rights 1964 routinely entertained federal court, has latitude control discovery order balance need access proof extraordinary confidentiality. Congress, interest may deny courts decide discharge reinstatement if upheld without merit, did mean impose restrictions it enacted Even prohibitory legislation, traditional equitable principles requiring balancing public private grant and, remand, should thus propriety remedies sought. 601-605. 254 U.S.App.D.C. 282, 796 F.2d 1508, affirmed part, reversed REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, JJ., joined, Parts I II O'CONNOR, J., joined. concurring dissenting post, p. ___. SCALIA, opinion, KENNEDY, took case. Sol. Gen. Charles Fried, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Mark Lynch, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 1947, 61 Stat. 498, as amended, provides that: 2 "[T]he may, officer States. . ." 50 403(c). 3 this we whether, what extent, judicially reviewable. 4 * John Doe first employed (CIA Agency) 1973 clerk-typist. He received periodic fitness reports consistently rated him excellent outstanding employee. By 1977, respondent been promoted position technician. January 1982, homosexual. Almost immediately, placed paid administrative leave pending investigation sexual orientation conduct. On February 12 again 17, extensively questioned polygraph concerning homosexuality possible violations. denied having relations foreign nationals maintained disclosed classified information partners. these interviews, told tests indicated truthfully answered questions. then prepared five-page interviews allowed attach two-page addendum. 6 April 14, agent Agency's Office determined posed threat but declined explain nature danger. asked resign. When refused do so, recommended be dismissed. reviewing records evaluations subordinates, "deemed States [respondent's] section Act. ."1 advised that, while give positive recommendation future job search, applied clearance inform prospective employer concluded presented threat. 7 Columbia. Respondent's amended complaint asserted variety statutory Director.2 alleged violated 706, arbitrary capricious, represented abuse reached observing procedures regulations.3 complained deprived constitutionally protected violation Amendments. Finally, transgressed guaranteed requested injunction ordering reinstate prior dismissal. As alternative remedy, returned ordered reevaluate provide statement reasons adverse final determination. sought monetary damages complaint. 8 Petitioner moved dismiss ground provisions set forth 701, 702, 706 (1982 ed., Supp. IV). 702 "person suffering legal wrong action, adversely affected aggrieved within meaning relevant statute." further instructs "[a]n seeking relief other than money stating claim thereof acted failed act official capacity color dismissed nor therein indispensable party." scope however, circumscribed see n. 3, supra, availability at predicated satisfying requirements provides: 9 "(a) This chapter applies, according thereof, except extent that— 10 11 "(2) dismiss, judgment. provided found unlawfully followed described own regulations. declined, claims. reinstated status, instructed reconsider using supply supporting opportunity respond. 13 A divided panel Columbia Circuit Court's remanded proceedings. decided (a)(2). Turning merits, must follow regulations, regulations cited limit making decisions. Moreover, themselves state respect terminations 102(c), procedures, direct "be separated immediately regard steps."4 majority independent source substantive protection. 14 went hold demonstrate capricious power employees 102(c).5 Because record below unclear certain points critical determination reason respondent.6 We certiorari question whether reviewable APA. 15 APA's comprehensive provisions, 701-706 ed. IV), allow person "adversely aggrieved" obtain so long challenged represents "final adequate remedy court." Typically, litigant contest (or failure act) neglected directives Congress. limits entire situations statute, 701(a)(1), law, 701(a)(2). 16 Citizens Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 402, 91 814, 28 136 (1971), explained distinction between Subsection (a)(1) concerned expressed intent prohibit subsection rare instances 'statutes apply.' " U.S., 410, S.Ct., 821 (citing S.Rep. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 26 (1945)). 17 means Heckler Chaney, 470 821, 105 1649, 84 714 (1985). determine Food Drug Administration's undertake enforcement proceeding use drugs administering death penalty subject review. noted 701(a)(2), affirmatively oversight, "review discretion." 830, 1655. Since conferring Administration unlawful misbranding misuse standards could base review, were complete FDA how they pursued. 18 Both Park emphasized requires careful examination illegality (the Federal-Aid Highway 1968 Food, Drug, Cosmetic ). present case, arise initial matter, allows States" (emphasis added), interests. appears us foreclose Short views inimical interests, basis properly assess decision. language suggests 19 So too Passed shortly after close Second World War, created gave responsibility "for protecting disclosure." See 403(d)(3); 239, 80th (1947); H.R.Rep. 961, 3-4 (1947). recognized Snepp States, 444 507, 510, 763, 765-66, 62 704 (1980), entails high degree trust perhaps unmatched Government service. 20 overriding ensuring integrity led uphold 102(d)(3) withhold identities Sims, 471 159, 1881, 85 173 denying Freedom Information requests Sims produce records, stated "[t]he plain language, well legislative history Act, .. indicates vested Id., 168-169, 1887-1888. portion parcel likewise exhibits Act's individual 21 find indicate discharges accordingly reverse courts. III 22 addition abide dictates number charged property liberty Due Process Clause Amendment, laws, unjustifiably burdened right privacy. asserts entitled, claimed violations.7 23 share confusion precise It difficult, impossible, ascertain contends termination, homosexuality, impermissible, more pervasive discrimination policy exists practices regarding homosexuals. ambiguity doubt attributable inconsistent explanations itself termination. Prior discharge, two officers homosexual activities contrast, Deputy General Counsel later merely concern inevitably result instead evaluated case-by-case basis. 24 maintains matter view, hence unreviewable think read exclude Johnson Robison, 415 361, 94 1160, 39 389 (1974), intends clear. 373-374, 1168-1169. Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 95 2457, 45 522 (1975), reaffirmed view. require avoid "serious question" construed forum claim. Bowen Michigan Academy Family Physicians, 476 667, 681, 106 2133, 2141-42 90 623 (1986). 25 Our convinces cannot bear preclusive weight support. detailed above, challenges upon complain "necessary States," assessment alone. Subsections persuades section; believe reviewed Court.8 agree proceedings issue. complains security. Tr. Oral Arg. 8-13. But acknowledges hiring promotion Reply Brief 13-14; 9, inquiry associated seem involve some same sort rummaging. Furthermore, instituted support needs confidentiality methods, sources, mission. Kerr 426 394, 405, 96 2119, 2125, 48 725 (1976); Reynolds, 345 1, 73 528, 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953). 27 raised upheld. For previously stated, legislation course, de claratory Romero-Barcelo, 456 305, 102 1798, 72 (1982); Hecht Co. Bowles, 321 321, 329-330, 64 587, 591-592, 88 754 (1944). consistent opinion. 29 ordered. 30 KENNEDY 31 part. 32 (APA) authorize referred 1947. clearly understand say exception necessarily fully defined reference "drawn apply." quoted ante, 599. Accordingly, join 33 disagree, conclusion challenging validity covered nonetheless brought district court. Whatever exact Congress' lower contexts, about here. functions performed lie core "the delicate, plenary exclusive President sole organ government field international relations." Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 304, 320, 57 216, 221, 81 255 (1936). sensitive discharging deemed untrustworthy flows primarily President, surely inferior used infringe President's authority. See, e.g., Department Navy Egan, 484 518, 526-530, 818, 824, 98 918 (1988); Totten 92 (2 Otto) 105, 605 (1876). plainly done exactly nothing purpose, suggest different conclusion. respectfully dissent lawsuit go forward. 34 dissenting. 35 apparent holding Part 600 601, can, either practically legally, both yet defect, essentially undoing II. therefore 36 Before error, discuss one significant element analysis Though subscribe most analysis, disagree description come unavailable "to law."* discussion, 599—600, correct triggered "no Casey, 291-293, 1517-1519 id., 305-307, F.2d, 1531-1533 (Buckley, dissenting). precedents amply show "commit[ment] includes, limited to, 37 relies apply" formulation our discussion (1985)—which, apply criterion 701(a)(2)'s applicability, contrary discussed action's "general unsuitability" adverted "tradition, sound reasoning." 831, test Chaney observation [§ ] applicable (1945)," 410. Perhaps factor nonreviewability arguably applicable. believed exclusive, contradict history, derived, full: "The basic matters outset [of Chapter]. If, example, course review." (1945) added). 38 can account issues, falls far explaining full areas excluded. fact governmental fair constraints enough susceptible application—beginning fundamental constraint taken purpose rather purely interest; many Attorney's prosecute, prompted personal animosity. Thus, much less answer applies. key understanding lies contrasting "statutes review" 701(a)(1). Why "statutes" preclusion, general term "law" commission discretion? is, implied latter intended refer 'common law' action," 832, 1656—a body jurisprudence marked out, precision, issues beyond range included ranging "political doctrine, sovereign immunity (including doctrines determining sovereign), immunity, prudential limitations courts' powers, precisely branches reflected Marbury Madison, Cranch 137, 170-171, 60 (1803), "[w]here head department acts executive exercised; mere will; repeated, control, respect, conduct, rejected hesitation." Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Waterman S.S. 333 103, 110-114, 68 431, 435-38, 568 (1948); Switchmen Mediation Board, 320 297, 301-306, 95, 97-100, 61, 196 (1943); George S. Bush Co., 310 371, 379-380, 944, 946-947, 1259 (1940); Reaves Ainsworth, 219 296, 306 (1911); Confiscation Cases, Wall. 454, 457-459, (1869); Martin Mott, Wheat. 19, 29-30 (1827). Only "common embraced true generally understood, 701(a) restate existing area action." Attorney General's Manual provision, continued take into purposes reviewability, post-APA before, text acts, factors involves "a inherently discretionary call," 527, (1988), traditionally nonreviewable, ICC Locomotive Engineers, 482 270, 107 2360, 2367, 222 (1987); 1656 "disruptive practical consequences," R. Seaboard Allied Milling 442 444, 457, 99 2388, 2395, 1017 (1979). explains seeming contradiction disallowance 706's aside constitutes "an Since, former "of unreviewable," operates keep categories courts; appropriately courts, grounds reversal. 40 All shaped centuries still developing new possibly contained phrase surprising, then, although recites really it. Like opinions relying it, announces test, declares victory moves on. 'that discretion,' 6, quoting 403(c), least excludes vindictiveness, wants cousin. Why, theory, entitled assert presence excesses, "abuse discretion" 706? 41 If consider reviewability regulations—a avoids today, 602, 7—the difference crucial. reviewed, makes possible. (though, soon appear, seems undone III), reasoning. 42 taking reader through terrain suit, like try underbrush, consisting ominous warning "[a] 'serious question' claim." Ante, 603, 2141-42, 43 response grave constitutionality "colorable claim" denial issue here, been, Article III, 2, Constitution extends "all Cases Constitution." supreme Courts time ordain establish ago create includes invest them power. 44 prescribed exercised Court; consequently, prescribe their jurisdiction, conflict unless confers powers enumerated therein." Sheldon Sill, How. 441, 449, 1147 (1850). truth proposition cognizance eliminated, most, eliminated appellate jurisdiction cases any) involving Narrowly viewed, therefore, shadow free not, lie. 46 argued, interpretation indirectly implicates cannot, interpreting here impute peculiar let unwilling review—or, alternatively, removal 1442(a)(1), original actions. turn, substance claims" required. What fear? Surely principle remediable refutes principle, "[e]ach House Judge Elections, Returns Qualifications Members," Art. I, 5, Speech Debate House, [the Senators Representatives] Place," 6. Claims contexts—for election stolen—cannot addressed Morgan 231, 801 445 apart strict questions." Coleman Miller, 307 433, 443-446, 59 972, 977-979, 83 1385 (1939); Ohio ex rel. Bryant Akron Metropolitan District, 281 74, 79-80, 228, 230-231, 74 710 (1930). doctrine immunity—not repealed partly Eleventh Amendment—is monument unheard. No passed Tucker 1491(a)(1), able disbursements Treasury pay lawful (and subsequently destroyed) just compensation. Schillinger 155 163, 166-169, 85, 85-87, (1894). And finally, permits refuse available, unduly impair interest, stand sum, untenable every violation. Members supervising Executive Branch oath do, sometimes left perform unreviewed, always are. 47 Perhaps, appeal denied, fixed tradition, enactment counter-intuitive especially reality principal determiner waiver pre-existing immunity. merits point, however: me entertain, backpay Secretary State claiming lost religious views—surely First am confident choice question." similar State? Or Under Secretaries? Assistant Secretary? European Desk? Is line immutable point another offices unreviewability cuts in, altered prescription? not. prescribe, limits, jobs unreviewable—that Once acknowledged, be, (1) identification narrow feared illusion. Indeed, mood worry serious questions enacting firing agents employs gather military intelligence, permit wanted to. acknowledged intervene textually demonstratable commitment coordinate political department." Baker Carr, 369 186, 217, 82 691, 710, 663 (1962). insistence (evident Clauses devoted subject) Army, Navy, militia branches." Stanley, 483 669, 682, 3054, 3063, 550 (1987). relations—a Congress." "[i]t impossible wisely make defense benefit dependable intelligence." 512, 7, 767 (1980) (per curiam "authority classify bearing sufficiently trustworthy occupy investment quite explicit grant." 824 49 entirely intended, (through Intelligence) Agency, disposition permissible. My brief, compellingly obvious. states: 51 "Notwithstanding 403(c) 52 Further, declares, "integral part" throughout "extraordinary Director." 601. Given text, (as above) pertains predominant abstention, difficult conceive scheme reflects refers. 53 baffling observe foregoing assessment, Ibid.. Nevertheless, explanation reaches Court." 603—604. attempting feat cake eating too. states 'necessary States,' alone." Ibid. sentences says "[n]othing section." Which believe? former, end. alone," conceivable (which about) never contended he. Not counsel formally advised, letter May 11, your client's 102(c)," App. 37, affidavit dated September "[a]fter Mr. Doe's exercising my terminated employment." 56. connection irrational unconstitutional one, alone" litigate about. imagine expects "further Court" commands, consist of, academic seminar relationship risk. persuaded exists, "that 54 contradicts assurances, assume longer alone colorably unconstitutional." comes from. length earlier, assuredly Nor statute. True, gives "[n]otwithstanding hardly expected directly addresses him. implication manifestation weaker nonconstitutional accepts unacceptable committal 55 important claimant so. announced—and good reason, premise true. An individual's reneged $100,000 debt owing contract him—both financially suspect, sense injustice feels—than particular licensing $100 license denies tax violates Commerce Clause. citizen entitlement correctly inadequate hearing, incorrectly fulfills kind regardless trivial real-life importance hand, legislature itself, whereas (no significant) cannot. distinction, conducted above. relevance Constitution—both equally unlawful, neither said, priori, harmful unfair plaintiff—one category favored presumption exclusion 56 assume, ipso facto worthy, writing preference two. rewriting appealing situation applications desirable raise "grave doubts." That, adopt permissible reading altering terms, ignore adjudication." Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n Schor, 478 833, 841, 3245, 3252, 675 There textual barring worth $1 million. Neither sustain limitation remotely supports proposition. considered precluding 'the Administrator administered Veterans' Administration.' 367, 1164 (quoting 211(a)). bar challenge "constitutional exception. 405(h), depriving federal-question "any under" Social embrace challenges, "quite different" Johnson, "extend[ed] 'action' 'to recover [Social Security] claim'— irrespective resort processes necessitated allegedly restrictions." 762, 2465. sure, available enable observed, justify drawing supra. seeks downplay harm produced today's "petitioner 604, citing 9. Assuming suits statutorily authorized, willing accept assertion tolerable, knowledge that—especially obvious thinks genuinely promotion, 58 knows preferable, brings decision-making services belong. common agent. valid meritorious meritorious, denies, resolve dispute knowing good, intelligence-related might been? "latitude process," refusal inquiry, camera. Presumably evaluate fail secret documents needed interesting judges others) country. Of seek ultimately, authorized privilege, Nixon, 418 683, 3090, 1039 invoked extremis, central feature extreme. would, event, who nations, cooperate, subjected notoriously because, spies, somewhat uncertain known invoke damage often entails. Today's result, ramifications creation world's agents. highly context, hard assumption hauled valid. Also obsolete capable preserving sensible dissent. Letter counsel, 37. Amended Complaint, 12-13. pertinent part: "Scope "To presented, interpret applicability action. shall— compel withheld unreasonably delayed; findings, conclusions be— "(A) arbitrary, otherwise accordance law; "(B) right, power, immunity; "(C) excess authority, limitations, right; "(D) observance procedure 293, 41, 1519, (1986) Regulation HR 20-27m). "arbitrary capricious" derived 706(2)(A), argued creating concedes Appellant 85-5291 (CADC), (Doe 1508 (1986)); Service Dulles, 354 363, 77 1152, 1403 (1957) (recognizing ensure followed); Sampson Murray, 71, 937, 166 (1974) (stating "federal effectuating regulations"). Appeals, "provid[e] protections." 294, 1520. prevailed reach asserts, 27-28, 23, fails employing Bowers Hardwick, 2841, 140 (1986), petition certiorari, decline stage litigation. Technically, Chapter Code. entities Chapter's definition "agency," 701(b), all. (originally APA) umbrella governing While separate once becomes excluded, 559. To knowledge, specific exists.

Category: 2