Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 6/15/1988

Webster v. Doe

Citations

  • 486 U.S. 592
  • 108 S. Ct. 2047
  • 100 L. Ed. 2d 632
  • 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2724
  • 56 U.S.L.W. 4568
  • 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 545
  • 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 38,034
  • 46 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1671

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1988 United States Supreme Court case

Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that presented statutory and constitutional claims by a former CIA employee who alleged that his termination was the result of discrimination based on sexual orientation .[1]

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Webster_v._Doe&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

The National Security Act of 1947 authorizes the Director of the CIA "in his discretion" to terminate the employment of any employee whenever he shall deem it to be in the security interests of the United States. John Doe , a CIA employee, voluntarily admitted to a CIA security guard that he was a homosexual . Despite having previously received ratings of "excellent" and "outstanding" employee performance, the employee was placed on administrative leave and later terminated as the result of his admission. William J. Casey , the Director of the CIA at that time, cited Doe's homosexuality as a threat to security. (Note that even though William H. Webster is named as the petitioner , Casey was the Director at the time of Doe's termination.)

Opinion of the Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Webster_v._Doe&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")
]

The issue presented before the Supreme Court was whether, and to what extent, the termination decisions of the Director under 102(c) are judicially reviewable. The Court, in an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist , held that Section 102(c) of the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. 403(c), precluded review under the Administrative Procedure Act . However, the Court held that the Act did not preclude review of constitutional claims (as opposed to the procedural claims). The Court reasoned that Congress should not be taken to have intended to preclude constitutional claims unless it has explicitly so provided (603).

Dissent

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Webster_v._Doe&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Dissent")
]

Justice Scalia was the only justice to completely dissent; Justice O'Connor concurred in part and dissented in part while Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent, "Neither the Constitution , nor our laws, nor common sense gives an individual a right to come into court to litigate the reasons for his dismissal as an intelligence agent" (620).

See also

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Webster_v._Doe&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: See also")
]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Webster_v._Doe&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. ↑ Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988).  This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document .

Further reading

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Webster_v._Doe&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: Further reading")
]

  • Prince, T. P. (1988). "Webster v. Doe: Toward Constitutional Protection of Gays against Governmental Discrimination". Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. 16: 639. ISSN  0094-5617 .

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Webster_v._Doe&action=edit&section=7 "Edit section: External links")
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Webster_v._Doe&oldid=1351332569 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Search

Search

Webster v. Doe

Add languages Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that absent a clear statement of congressional intent, limitations on judicial review should not be construed to prevent review of substantial constitutional questions
  • holding that absent a clear statement of congressional intent, limitations on judicial review should not be construed to prevent review of substantial constitutional questions
  • concluding that “where Congress intends to preclude judicial review of constitutional claims, its intent to do so must be clear”
  • holding that an administrator’s decision unreviewable under the APA may be subject to review when a substantial constitutional question is implicated
  • concluding that decision to fire a particular individual because he was homosexual fell within the \discretion\ of the Director of Central Intelligence under the National Security Act of 1947 and thus was unreviewable under the APA
  • holding that under the National Security Act, the CIA Director's decision to terminate an employee is unreviewable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rehnquist, Bren-Nan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, O'Connoe, Scalia, Kennedy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

663 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Webster v. Doe

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.