## Facts

- Rachel Brawner worked for over six years as a short-order cook for M & M Restaurants, Inc., a private concessionaire operating a cafeteria on the premises of the Naval Gun Factory in Washington, D.C.
- The Naval Gun Factory conducted classified weapons-related work and restricted access to persons holding security badges issued under Navy security regulations.
- The concession contract barred the concessionaire from employing anyone on the premises who did not satisfy the Gun Factory’s security requirements as determined by the installation’s Security Officer.
- In 1956, the Security Officer directed Brawner to surrender her badge because she allegedly failed to meet the Gun Factory’s security requirements.
- After losing her badge, Brawner was barred from entering the installation and could not continue working at the cafeteria.
- Brawner requested a hearing and reasons for the exclusion; the installation denied her request and provided no formal charges or stated grounds.
- Brawner and her union sued federal officials seeking restoration of her badge and access to the installation.
- The district court denied relief, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause required notice of reasons and an opportunity to be heard before the Government could summarily exclude a civilian employee of a private concessionaire from a military installation, thereby causing loss of her job.
2. Whether a naval commander’s authority under Navy regulations and traditional command power permitted summary civilian exclusion for security reasons without individualized procedural safeguards.
3. Whether the exclusion implicated a protected liberty or property interest requiring procedural process on these facts.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court held that the commanding officer (through installation officials acting under regulations) had authority to control access to the installation and to exclude civilians for security reasons.
- The Court held that Brawner’s exclusion, without a hearing and without disclosure of specific reasons, did not violate the Fifth Amendment.
- The Court concluded the record did not show a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest requiring the procedures sought.
- In dissent, Justice Brennan (joined by Justices Douglas and Warren) would have required at least minimal notice and an opportunity to respond given the practical effect on long-held employment.

## Legal Principles

- A military commander has broad, traditionally recognized authority to control access to the area of command and may summarily exclude civilians from a military installation for security reasons.
- Not every government action that causes loss of employment triggers Fifth Amendment procedural requirements; due process analysis depends on whether a protected liberty or property interest is impaired.
- Where the Government’s action does not impose a formal stigma or disability that broadly forecloses employment opportunities, the Constitution may not require notice of reasons or an adversarial hearing, even if the action ends a particular job dependent on access to government property.
- Absent statutory or regulatory procedural guarantees, the Fifth Amendment does not necessarily require a hearing before exclusion from a specific military facility based on security determinations.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Navy could bar a civilian cafeteria worker from a sensitive military installation based on a security determination without providing reasons or a hearing, because the commander’s authority over base access and the limited nature of the interest affected did not require additional Fifth Amendment process.


Cafeteria & Rest. Workers Union, Loc. 473, AFL-CIO v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886 (1961)