Legal Document

376 U.S. 149 84 Supreme Court Reporter 615 11 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 576 William L. GREENE, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 84. Argued Nov. 21, 1963. Decided Feb. 17, 1964. Eugene Gressman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Judge Doolittle, respondent. Mr. Justice GOLDBERG delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner, prevailing party in Greene versus McElroy, 360 474, 79 1400, 3 1377, comes to this a second time. Prior April 23, 1953, petitioner was employed by private corporation producing mechanical and electrical parts military agencies States. On that date discharged him because revocation his security clearance Department Navy. Following challenge revocation, held 1959 supra, 'in absence explicit authorization from either President or Congress respondents were not empowered deprive job proceeding which he afforded safeguards confrontation cross-examination.' Id., at 508, 1419, 1377. remand District Court, declaring petitioner's 'not validly authorized,' ordered all rulings denying be 'expunged records Government States.'1 2 In interim between order, had found it necessary take less remunerative nonsecurity employment.2 When, after prolonged litigation, obtained judicial relief 1959, current employmen did require seek access authorization. He then sought only recover compensation unauthorized governmental action, end, shortly entry court formally requested Defense provide monetary restitution loss earnings. Petitioner based claim on 1955 regulation providing where there has been 'a final determination * favorable contractor employee,' employee will reimbursed an equitable amount any earnings during resulting directly suspension clearance.'3 The refused grant under but offered consider 1960 regulations4 issued arisen asserted. Pursuant terms new regulation, indicated that, as condition restitution, would have administrative 'would be' currently entitled clearance. thereupon instituted present action Claims obtain Fifth Amendment Constitution pass merits and, applying doctrine exhaustion remedies, proceedings 'suspended pending pursuit remedies (made available) Defense.'5 For reasons stated below, we hold is circumstances, error remit further regulation. I. facts comprising background are fully set forth 476—491, 1403—1411, need brief restatement here. aeronautical engineer, serving vice president general manager Engineering Research Corporation (ERCO), firm various Armed Services. ERCO 1937 except leave absence, continued with firm. connection employment, involved classified work Forces, clearances.6 Indeed, before clearance, Industrial Employment Review Board, January 29, 1952, reversed inferior board granted secret contract work. 4 however, Secretary Navy notified 'continued information (was) inconsistent best interests National Security.'7 No hearing preceded notification. exclude 'from part your plants, factories sites projects being carried out bar information.' no choice comply request so, week later, discharged. promptly asked reconsideration. A year later given 'hearing' denied opportunity confront cross-examine allegedly adverse witnesses. basis appropriate boards approved Secretary's 5 filed complaint Columbia asking injunctive declaration unlawful void. relief, Wilson, 150 F.Supp. 958, Appeals affirmed, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 87, 254 Federal Reporter, 2nd 944. Then, noted above, June reversing decisions ex licit remand, December 14, consent Government, entered order declaring: (1) 'that subordinates finally revoking plaintiff's (2) rulings, orders, determinations wherein whereby revoked hereby annulled expunged States.'8 6 issuance initiated legal steps immediately leading action. His employment information; indeed, plainly says does now 'need want' such sole objective authorized. 28, made formal demand General Counsel 'for and/or pursuant Section 26 Personnel Security Regulation, 20 Fed.Reg. 1553.' This 1955, provides follows: 7 'In cases employee, department whose activity originally forwarded case Director reimburse clearance.'9 8 acknowledged certain dates financial data supplied. statement position respecting applicability also requested. 20, 1960, supplied position.10 9 While thus processed, July Access Authorization superseding pertinent claimed compensation.11 language 'monetary restitution' provision clearly indicates significantly substantially altered. Thus, instead simply providing, earlier did, upon employee' shall earnings, inter alia, subjects claimant's recovery discretion; requires 'at time' claimant qualify receive equivalent sought; (3) 'favorable determination' 'administrative' determination; (4) contrary 'unjustified.' 10 4, 1961, advised Office Policy determination. then, letter addressed Director, reiterated After communication, prepared newly 'to may reach whether national interest March 2, again submitted concerning pointed occasion therefore, seeking expressly declined consideration responded reemphasizing Department's 'willingness process question Greene's eligibility provisions Regulation.' Finally, 1, nearly half Court's decision compensation, Deputy '(i)n accordance policy, determined provisions' conclusion coupled another expression willingness undertake processing Regulation *.' 12 commenced Claims, alleging equal salary pay earned rate receiving other employment.' Just Compensation Clause Constitution. moved suspend completion remedy available Defense.' reasserting 'July application (this) *'; desire authorization; bound exhaust making bringing suit.' Commissioner sustained Government's ordering 'further suspended Defense.'12 subsequently review, certiorari, 372 974, 83 1111, 141. II. 13 contends right must liability follows employee.' concludes constitute required maintains expunging reinstated effect 1952—'at least period discharge expungement 1959.' Furthermore, argues, when McElroy act deprived job, became matter damages employment. 14 responds rather than applies pursuan establish Alternatively,13 assuming governs, allowed showing, level, challenged procedurally incorrect, substantively wrong.' Specifically, states, meet requirements 'must show claims reason denial clearance.' even if applicable, possibility 15 Whatever rights are, can doubt they matured asserted directive. Not until six months presented issue new, revised, restitution.' Thus argument necessarily retroactive application. As said Union Pac. R. company Laramie Stock Yards Co., 231 190, 199, 34 101, 102, 58 L.Ed. 179, 'the first rule construction legislation considered future, past (and) retrospective operation statute interferes antecedent unless unequivocal inflexible import terms, manifest intention legislature."14 Since regulations type viewed statutes, 'first rule' statutory appropriately unjustifiable give effect. 16 Our interpretation makes clear requisite final, acted without authority traditional cross-examination. voiding result intervening proceedings, legally cognizable determination—for 1953 order—was 1952 ruling granting effectively last valid determination, By virtue regarded having obtained, mandate, 'final' 'favorable' 17 read applicable equitably designed15 compensate employees improperly wrongly denied. directive's reasonably warrant implication claimant, who burden demonstrating i fair procedures, additional showing time procedures instance able demonstrate successfully contrary, should interpreted mean establishes its failure liable clearance.'16 18 present, causing adequate procedural safeguards, reluctant conclude explicitly so requiring, conditions validity substantive rebut discharge. principle analogous reflected state recognizing privateassociation's afford imposition damage inquiry into association's lacked See authorities cited Silver New York Exchange, 373 341, 365, n. 18, 1246, 1261, 389. 19 Having proper, here held, Defense, considering following specifically 'Mr. Petitioner's legitimate rejected, exhausted reasonable argues effect, could administratively possibly failing resort thereby failed remedies. 21 declared course 'process indicated, petitioner, find Therefore, review wholly irrelevant view substantial differences two factual relevant reviewing We do suggest d mages former contains essentially same predecessor. procedure entailed presenting inapplicable revised17 inappropriate inadequate therefore pursued.18 It properly resorted invested jurisdiction entertain against founded 'any executive department.' 28 Code KF62 § 1491. 22 summary, regulation19 rejected proceed holding, security-classified information, qualifications judged regulations. But seeks much, hold, certainly entitled. 23 Accordingly, judgment remanded due 24 Reversed remanded. 25 HARLAN, whom WHITE joins, dissenting. Once unraveled, presents single simple issue, answer my very clear. 27 earlier, conceded arises settled particular, states light fact initially regulation,' unjustified ordered. Brief, page 14. All left case, proper authorizes Directive 5220.6, 1553, 1559. quoted restoration Combined disclaimer evidently means intend insist revoked. invalidating defects, constitutes 'final 29 evident most nothing issue. There cons der remitted regulation' (ante, Page 153), 163). Nor what propriety requiring acceptability since one impose requirement. 30 both distinct explanations unsatisfying. explanation prior Pages 160-161). concludes, 'must' hardly compelled premises. Quite obviously, neither nor constituted thought kind contemplated regulation.1 inevitable logic compels regard wiping previously unfavorable leaving temporarily intact initial logic, situation 31 satisfactory. interested ipso facto make 'wholly requires, needs desires little relevance question, indeed all. 32 nub almost framed mind. difficulties meant apply situations involving limited number taken evoked response led still terminated 1964, unnaturally sides positions justified well should, perhaps could, requirement eligibility, sensible ordinary situation, far removed longer hand, obvious default automatically entitles restitution. depends infliction actual harm commission law.2 33 controlling point posture these brought himself governing construed charged Well-accepted rules courts intervene stage.3 Myers Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 41, 459, 82 638; Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Hirsch, 331 752, 767—768, 67 1493, 1500—1501, 91 1796.4 followed path open him, demands department's Or context modify might obviate event assurance those concerned informed about adjust case. short-circuiting principles needless unwise. N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions remedy. text dated 'Upon (Greene (79 1377)) copy heretofore clerk Court; 'It appearing counsel respective parties consented hereto, 'ORDERED authorized; States.' litigation concluded: 'We injured. forced paid $18,000 per year. reduced, record shows, working architectural draftsman some $4,400 Further, engineer considerable experience (without real contradiction) barred many aspects profession, dependence phases aircraft industry contracts production research development well. stigma, greater lesser degree, attached Greene.' 491, 1411, quoting 95—96, 944, 952—953. Paragraph 26, February 1955: 'Monetary Restitution. Such exceed difference net compensated increase caused voluntary unduly delaying part.' (Department 7523), Executive Order (Exec.Order 10865, 1583), restitution': 'If applicant suffers suspension, authorization, administra ive suspended, denied, consistent resulted unjustified, reimbursement earnings.' that: day Stephen Kreznar States, 47 60, Novera Herbert Spector 48—60, herein petition writ 85, Term. 476, 1403, 1377: 'Petitioner Confidential Army August 9, 1949, Top Secret Assistant Chief Staff G—2, Military Washington November Air Material Command 3, 1950.' At acted, reviewed abolished. 480—483, 1405—1407, full note supra. incurred $49,960.41 dismissal, 31, 1959. 5, Although asserts concedes govern, understand alternative arguments concession. See, e.g., Claridge Apartments Commissioner, 323 141, 164, 65 172, 89 139; Smead, Rule Against Retroactive Legislation: Basic Principle Jurisprudence, Minn.L.Rev. 775—781 (1936). purpose insuring 'equity justice' testimony Hearings Subcommittee Appropriations House Committee Appropriations, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 774—781. 'interim resulting' would, believe, extend 156—157. Skinner Eddy 249 557, 562—563, 39 375, 377—378, 63 772; Smith Illinois Bell Tel. 270 587, 591, 46 408, 409—410, 70 747; Hillsborough Township Somerset County, N.J. Cromwell, 326 620, 625—626, 66 445, 449, 90 358; Davis, Administrative Law Treatise (1958), 20.07; Jaffe, Exhaustion Remedies, Buff.L.Rev. 327, 329—331 (1963). cause fix Amendment. concurring decision, 'nothing suggests material.' U.S., 510, S.Ct., 1420, cited, ante, 162, apparently relied is, course, afield. That decided Exchange committed acts violative antitrust laws insulated illegality Securities Act. plaintiff suing defendant damages. majority holds valid, me direct dismissal want jurisdiction; constitutional claims, reached majority. Professor Davis 'probably every (of remedies) within agency's specialization likely wanted relief.' 56—57. Those met

Classification Label: 2