Court Opinion

ID: 9764530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:26:08.247873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:57.914268
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stewart,
dissenting.
My brother Harlan's opinion contains, it seems to me, a lucid and persuasive analysis of the principles that should guide decision in this troublesome area of law. Where I part company is in the application of these principles to the facts of the present case.
I cannot agree that the issuance by the petitioner of this press release was “action in the line of duty.” The statement to the press (set out in note 5 of Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion) did not serve to further any agency function. Instead, it represented a personally motivated effort on the petitioner’s part to disassociate himself from the alleged chicanery with which the agency had been charged.
- By publicizing the action' which he intended, to take when he became permanent Acting Director, and his past ' attitude as a lesser functionary, the petitioner was seeking only to defend his own individual reputation. This was not within, but beyond “the outer perimeter of petitioner’s line of duty.”