Court Opinion

ID: 9444786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:11:39.686239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:00.027576
License: Public Domain

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
As we held a year ago, enforcing the Lloyd-LaFollette Act’s requirement that “ ‘No person in the classified civil service of the United States shall be removed’ ” without notice and reasons in writing: “The power of Congress thus to limit the President’s otherwise plenary control over appointments and removals is clear.” Roth v. Brownell, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 320, 215 F.2d 500, 502. It does not follow, of course, that Congress could impose absurd and crippling limits. But this is irrelevant here.
In the Lloyd-LaFollette Act and the Veterans’ Preference Act, Congress limited the President’s control over removals. No one claims that these limitations are unreasonable. By the Act of August 26, 1950, Congress authorized exceptions to these limitations. 64 Stat. 476, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 22-1, 22-3. The question is whether this case i-s within the exceptions. I think it is not, for three reasons.
1. The exceptions do not cover the Food and Drug Administration, in which the appellant was employed.
The Act of 1950 provides in § 1: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 652 of this title [Lloyd-LaFollette Act], or the provisions of any other law, the Secretary of State; Secretary of Commerce ; Attorney General; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Army; the Secretary of the Navy; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Secretary of the Treasury; Atomic Energy Commission; the Chairman, National Security Resources Board; or the Director, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, may, in his absolute discretion and when deemed necessary in the interest of national security, suspend, without pay, any civilian officer or employee * * Section 1 also provides that a suspended employee may be dismissed if the agency head thinks it “necessary or advisable in the interest of the national security”. Section 3 provides that the *342Act “shall apply to such other departments and agencies of the Government as the President may, from time to time, deem necessary in the best interests of national security.”
In Executive Order No. 10450 the President, ostensibly “deeming such action necessary in the best interests of the national security”, undertook to extend the Act to “all other departments and agencies of the Government”. I think this blanket extension unauthorized and invalid. Congress had specified some agencies that have something to do with national security. Committee reports describe them as “sensitive” or “concerned with vital matters” affecting national security. H.R.Rep.No. 2330, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1950); S.Rep.No. 2158, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1950); S.Rep.No. 2264, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1948). Evidently Congress thought some other agencies might likewise be concerned with national security. Accordingly Congress authorized the President to extend the Act. There is, I think, not the slightest reason for supposing that Congress intended to authorize the blanketing in of all agencies. A committee report said: “the bill makes ample provision for the employment in nonsensitive agencies of certain of those employees who may be classified in sensitive departments and agencies as security risks.” H.R.Rep.No. 2330, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1950). Accordingly Section 1 of the Act provides “That the termination of employment herein provided shall not affect the right of such officer or employee to seek or accept employment in any other department or agency of the Government * * Since many agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in which the appellant was employed, have nothing to do with national security, the Act of 1950 has nothing to do with them. The authorization to bring “other” departments and agencies within the Act should be recognized, in accordance with the purpose and intent of Congress, as limited to those that might reasonably be deemed “necessary in the best interests of national security.” It could not reasonably be deemed necessary in the best interests of national security that employees in all agencies, including not only the Food and Drug Administration but the Fish and Wildlife Service, be subject to summary unappealable dismissal.
The Supreme Court has said regarding the “plain meaning” of an Act of Congress: “When that meaning has led to absurd or futile results * * * this Court has looked beyond the words to the purpose of the act. Frequently, however, even when the plain meaning did not produce absurd results but merely an unreasonable one ‘plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole’ this Court has followed that purpose, rather than the literal words.” United States v. American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 310 U.S. 534, 543, 60 S.Ct. 1059, 1063, 84 L.Ed. 1345.
2. The Act of 1950 authorizes the head of an agency covered by the Act to dismiss suspended employees “whenever he shall determine such termination necessary or advisable in the interests of the national security”. Appellant’s agency head did not make that determination concerning the appellant, but determined only that appellant’s continued employment “is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security”. In Executive Order 10450 the President purported to adopt the “clearly consistent” test, but he had no authority to adopt it. It differs vitally from the “necessary or advisable” test that Congress prescribed.
The difference is closely parallel to that between the test, “reasonable grounds exist for belief that the person involved is disloyal”, used in Executive Order 9835, [5 U.S.C.A. § 631 note] and the test, “there is a reasonable doubt as to the loyalty of the person involved”, used in the later Executive Order 10241. [U.S.Code Congressional and Administrative Service, 1951, p. 1028.] As this court has held, that “amended standard applied a more rigid test of suitability *343for government employment. It contemplated the possible existence of proof or information which, while not capable of inducing a belief that the person ‘is disloyal,’ does cause a reasonable doubt as to whether he is in fact loyal.” Jason v. Summerfield, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 197, 200, 214 F.2d 273, 276, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 840, 75 S.Ct. 48.1 Just so here, the amended standard applied a more rigid test of suitability for government employment. It contemplated the possible existence of information which, while not capable of inducing a belief that the person’s dismissal is “necessary or advisable in the interests of national security”, does cause a reasonable doubt as to whether his continued employment is consistent with the interests of national security. Under the new standard, but not under the old, no matter how important to the country a man’s continued employment may be he must be dismissed if there is doubt about him from a security standpoint. The new standard gives employees less protection than Congress authorized, and thereby makes a deeper inroad on the safeguards of the Lloyd-LaFollette Act and the Veterans’ Preference Act.
3. The procedure used in appellant’s dismissal does not even comply with the Act of 1950. Even that Act requires “a written statement of the decision of the agency head”. Frequently, in legal connections, “decision” means not only a result but the reasons for the result.2 The Administrative Procedure Act follows this usage. It requires that “All decisions (including initial, recommended, or tentative decisions) shall become part of the record and include a statement of (1) findings and conclusions, as well as the reasons or basis therefor, upon all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record; and (2) the appropriate rule, order, sanction, relief, or denial thereof.” Section 8(b); 60 Stat. 242, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1007(b). The letter telling appellant he was dismissed, but not telling him why, was evidently not “a written statement of the decision" as Congress uses that term in connection with administrative procedure. The required statement is plainly intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary action. Unless reasons are given no safeguard is provided. Cf. Mulligan v. Andrews, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 211 F.2d 28.

. The court found the difference so essential that employees who had been cleared under the old standard might be reexamined and dismissed under the new one.

. One of the definitions of “decision” in Webster is “an account or report of a conclusion, especially of a legal adjudication or judicial determination of a question or cause; as, a decision of the Supreme Court.” One of the definitions in the Century is “ * * * final judgment or opinion in a case which has been under deliberation or discussion: as, the decision oi the Supreme Court.”