Court Opinion

ID: 9431177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:31:32.565598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:27.334428
License: Public Domain

Justice White,
with whom Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall join, dissenting.
It cannot be denied that the Government has a “compelling interest” in safeguarding the Nation’s secrets. See ante, at 527. I see no necessity for this Court to rewrite the civil service statutes in the name of national security, however, since those statutes already provide a procedure that protects sensitive information without depriving federal employees such as respondent of a hearing into the underlying reasons for their discharge.
The parties do not dispute that respondent was discharged from his civilian “laborer leader” position with the U. S. Navy pursuant to subchapter II of the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U. S. C. §§7511-7514. A federal agency may discharge an employee under those statutory provisions “only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.” § 7513(a). The employee is entitled to appeal the agency’s action to the Merit Systems Protection Board. § 7513(d). The Board must afford the employee “a hearing for which a transcript will be kept.” § 7701(a)(1). The employee’s discharge is to be sustained by the Board only if “supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” § 7701(c)(1)(B).
There is nothing in these statutory provisions to suggest that the Board is to scrutinize discharges on national security grounds any less comprehensively than other discharges for “cause.” Nor does the legislative history of these provisions suggest that the Board is foreclosed from examining the reasons underlying the discharges of employees who are alleged to be security risks.
*535If Congress had remained silent on the subject of national security discharges throughout the Civil Service Reform Act, I might feel compelled to read into the foregoing provisions some restrictions on the scope of Board review of such discharges. It might be appropriate in such circumstances to assume that Congress intended that such restrictions be inferred by the Board and the courts.
Congress did not remain silent, however, with regard to national security discharges. Rather, Congress carefully provided an alternative procedure to be used when the Government determines that an employee’s removal is “necessary or advisable in the interests of national security.” 5U. S. C. § 7532(b). The employee is entitled under this procedure to “a written statement of the charges against him,” “an opportunity ... to answer the charges and submit affidavits,” “a hearing ... by an agency authority duly constituted for this purpose,” “a review of his case by the head of the agency or his designee,” and “a written statement of the decision of the head of the agency.” § 7532(c). The decision of the agency head is “final.” § 7532(b). It is not disputed that the Navy could have proceeded against respondent under § 7532.
The sensible inference to be drawn from Congress’ enactment of the procedural protections of § 7532 for employees discharged “in the interests of national security” and its silence with regard to the procedures applicable to similarly motivated discharges under other sections of the civil service statutes is that Congress intended to guarantee every discharged employee a hearing into the “cause” for his removal. If the employee is discharged under § 7532, he is entitled to a hearing before his own agency; if the employee is discharged under other provisions of Title 5, he is entitled to a hearing before the Board.
Yet, the majority’s decision frustrates this congressional intent by denying any meaningful hearing to employees such as respondent who are discharged on national security grounds under provisions other than § 7532. In such cases, *536the employing agency has no statutory obligation to afford the employee a hearing, and the Board now need determine only “whether in fact [a security] clearance was denied, and whether transfer to a nonsensitive position was feasible.” Ante, at 530. Hence, the employee cannot demand a hearing into claims that he was branded a security risk based on false allegations or on reasons that lack any rational nexus to national security concerns.
It is difficult to reconcile today’s decision with the Court’s discussion in Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474 (1959), of the procedural protections available to an employee of a Government contractor who had been denied a security clearance based on his alleged Communist associations and sympathies:
“Before we are asked to judge whether, in the context of security clearance cases, a person may be deprived of the right to follow his chosen profession without full hearings where accusers may be confronted, it must be made clear that the President or Congress, within their respective constitutional powers, specifically has decided that the imposed procedures are necessary and warranted and has authorized their use. Such decisions cannot be assumed by acquiescence or non-action. They must be made explicitly not only to assure that individuals are not deprived of cherished rights under procedures not actually authorized, . . . but also because explicit action, especially in areas of doubtful constitutionality, requires careful and purposeful consideration by those responsible for enacting and implementing our laws.” Id., at 507 (citations omitted).
It is far from clear in the instant circumstances that Congress or the President has decided that discharging alleged security risks without any sort of hearing is “necessary or warranted” or has explicitly authorized such a procedure. Instead, the majority assumes such a result from congressional “nonaction.” For example, the majority emphasizes that “[n]othing in the [Civil Service Reform] Act . . . directs or *537empowers the Board to go further” than to determine whether a security clearance was indeed denied and whether transfer to a nonsensitive position was possible. Ante, at 530. There is likewise nothing in the Act, however, that directs the Board not to “go further.”
Today’s result is not necessary to protect the Nation’s secrets. If an agency fears that the Board will not be sufficiently sensitive to the national security implications of a discharge decision,1 the agency may foreclose external review of that decision by proceeding against the employee under § 7532. The agency would be required in such circumstances, however, to afford the employee an internal hearing into the reasons for his termination. The agency could not discharge the employee, as the Navy did here, without affording him any hearing into the merits of his discharge.
*538The majority suggests that respondent would have received no more procedural protection under §7532 than under § 7513 notwithstanding that he was guaranteed a hearing on the merits under the former provision but not under the latter. Ante, at 533. This conclusion does not show sufficient regard for our many decisions recognizing the particularly important role of the hearing in assuring that individuals are not wrongfully deprived of their livelihoods or other significant interests. See, e. g., Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 557-558 (1974); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 603 (1972); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 652-658 (1972); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 269-270 (1970). I cannot assume that the proceedings required under § 7532 would not provide an employee with a meaningful opportunity to be heard simply because they are conducted by an agency authority rather than by the Board.2
In sum, absent any indication that Congress or the President intended to deny federal employees discharged on national security grounds a full hearing before either the Board or their employing agency into the merits of their removal, I respectfully dissent.

 There is no reason to assume that the Board would be insensitive to national security concerns. It is questionable whether the Board would often have to consider sensitive information in determining whether an agency had cause to discharge an employee on national security grounds. No such information appears to have been at issue in the instant case. Moreover, in those eases in which sensitive information would have to be considered, the Board could be expected to adopt procedures (e. g., in camera inspection of classified documents) similar to those utilized by the courts in similar circumstances. It appears that the courts have previously adjudicated eases involving denials of security clearances without any documented harm to national security. See, e. g., Hoska v. United States Department of Army, 219 U. S. App. D. C. 280, 677 F. 2d 131 (1982); Gayer v. Schlesinger, 160 U. S. App. D. C. 172, 490 F. 2d 740 (1973); McKeand v. Laird, 490 F. 2d 1262 (CA9 1973). Finally, given the requirement of Executive Order No. 10450, 3 CFR 937 (1949-1953 Comp.), that security clearances be granted only if “clearly consistent with the interests of the national security,” I would assume that the Board’s review of national security discharges would be suitably deferential to the employing agency even under the preponderance of the evidence standard prescribed by § 7701(c)(1)(B). It is questionable whether the Board’s inquiry into such discharges would be qualitatively different from its inquiry into discharges for other varieties of “cause.” The Board routinely evaluates such factors as loyalty, trustworthiness, and judgment in determining whether an employee’s discharge will “promote the efficiency of the service.”

 The § 7532 procedure is not as “harsh and drastic” as the majority contends to either the employee or the agency head. The majority asserts that, if respondent had been discharged under § 7532, “he would have been barred from employment with the agency.” Ante, at 533. Respondent, however, could have obtained other employment with the Navy even if he had been discharged under § 7532; the civil service statutes expressly authorize the reinstatement of persons removed under § 7532 “in the discretion of the head of the agency concerned.” §3571. It has never been suggested that the Navy would not rehire respondent for a position that does not require a security clearance. Moreover, while the majority asserts that the agency head “must act personally” to discharge an employee under § 7532, ante, at 533, the statute provides for final review of discharge decisions by “the head of the agency or his designee” § 7532(c)(3)(D) (emphasis added).