## Facts

- Margaret A. Padula applied in 1982 for an FBI Special Agent position.
- During the background investigation, the FBI learned Padula was homosexual; she confirmed it.
- The FBI rejected her application, citing “intense competition” for Special Agent positions.
- Padula alleged the real basis for rejection was her homosexuality, contrary to the FBI’s public and internal statements describing homosexuality as a “factor” and emphasizing “conduct rather than status or preference.”
- Padula sued, alleging (1) the hiring decision was reviewable and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it conflicted with FBI policy statements, and (2) the decision violated equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the FBI, concluding the decision was committed to agency discretion and that no constitutional violation occurred.
- Padula appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the FBI’s refusal to hire Padula was judicially reviewable under the APA or was “committed to agency discretion by law” under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), despite FBI statements about how homosexuality would be considered.
2. Whether refusing to hire Padula because of her homosexuality violated equal protection, including whether sexual-orientation classifications require heightened scrutiny or instead are evaluated under rational-basis review.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the FBI.
- The court held the hiring decision was committed to agency discretion and unreviewable under the APA because the FBI’s statements were not binding norms that constrained discretion.
- The court held that homosexuality is not a suspect or quasi-suspect classification for equal protection purposes and that the FBI’s justification satisfied rational-basis review.

## Legal Principles

- Agency pronouncements are treated as binding norms only if they have present, mandatory effect and impose significant restraints on agency discretion; prospective or flexible policy statements do not create enforceable limits.
- When a matter is committed to agency discretion by law under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), courts lack APA jurisdiction to review the challenged action.
- Sexual-orientation classifications do not receive heightened scrutiny (on this court’s analysis); they are evaluated under rational-basis review.
- Under rational-basis review, the government need only show a rational relationship to a legitimate interest; the FBI’s concerns about susceptibility to compromise or breach of trust in sensitive work were deemed rational.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the FBI’s refusal to hire a homosexual applicant, ruling that the decision was insulated from APA review because no binding policy constrained the Bureau’s discretion and that the challenged classification survived rational-basis scrutiny under equal protection principles applicable to the federal government.


Padula v. Webster, 822 F.2d 97 (D.C. Cir. 1987)