## Facts

- William L. Greene, an aeronautical engineer and executive at a defense contractor, performed work requiring access to classified information.
- The Army-Navy-Air Force Personnel Security Board informed Greene’s employer that his clearance was in jeopardy based on allegations of “Communistic associations and sympathies.”
- The Department of Defense revoked Greene’s security clearance under departmental regulations that lacked explicit authorization from Congress or the President.
- In the clearance proceedings, Greene was denied access to much of the adverse information and denied any opportunity to confront or cross-examine adverse witnesses.
- Greene was discharged from his job as a direct result of the clearance revocation and was unable to obtain comparable work in his profession.
- Greene sued for declaratory and injunctive relief; the case reached the Supreme Court from the D.C. Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether, absent explicit authorization from Congress or the President, the Secretaries of the Armed Forces could implement and apply security-clearance procedures that effectively deprive a private-industry employee of his job without confrontation and cross-examination.
2. Whether executive orders and cited national-security statutes authorized a clearance program producing severe employment consequences through procedures denying access to adverse evidence and adversarial testing.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed (8–1), holding that the Secretaries were not authorized, without explicit presidential or congressional authorization, to deprive Greene of his job through proceedings denying confrontation and cross-examination.
- The Court rejected reliance on Executive Orders 10290 and 10501 as authority to impose employment-disqualifying clearance programs that deny an effective chance to challenge adverse evidence and testimony.
- The Court held that the National Security Act, the Armed Services Procurement Act, and cited criminal provisions did not authorize such a clearance regime without confrontation and cross-examination.
- The Court rejected implied congressional ratification based solely on appropriations funding aspects of the program.

## Legal Principles

- Absent explicit authorization from Congress or the President, executive officials may not use security procedures that effectively bar a person from civilian employment while withholding adverse evidence and denying confrontation and cross-examination.
- Executive orders concerning classification and information security do not, by themselves, confer authority to run clearance proceedings that deny a meaningful opportunity to challenge the evidence supporting an adverse determination.
- General national-security and procurement statutes, even alongside criminal prohibitions on disclosing classified information, do not amount to authorization for employment-restricting clearance programs lacking confrontation and cross-examination.
- Continued appropriations do not imply congressional approval of administrative procedures that dispense with traditional safeguards where the practical effect is to exclude an individual from his profession.

## Conclusion

The Court set aside the clearance revocation because the Defense Department lacked explicit presidential or congressional authority to impose procedures that used withheld adverse information and denied confrontation and cross-examination while effectively ending Greene’s ability to work in his chosen field.


Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (1959)