## Facts

- John Doe, a covert electronics technician employed by the CIA, informed a CIA security official that he was homosexual.
- Doe had received “excellent” and “outstanding” performance ratings before the disclosure.
- After the disclosure, Doe was placed on administrative leave and terminated.
- The CIA Director relied on § 102(c) of the National Security Act of 1947, authorizing termination of any CIA employee whenever the Director “shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States.”
- Doe sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting (1) statutory claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and (2) constitutional claims, including due process and equal protection violations under the Fifth Amendment.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment to Doe on the APA claim and did not reach the constitutional claims; the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded, rejecting Doe’s APA merits theory while indicating APA review was not categorically barred.

## Issues

1. Whether § 102(c) termination decisions are unreviewable under the APA because they are “committed to agency discretion by law” under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2).
2. Whether § 102(c), or the National Security Act’s scheme, precludes judicial review of Doe’s colorable constitutional claims challenging the termination.

## Decision

- The Court held that § 102(c) termination decisions are not reviewable under the APA because § 102(c) provides no meaningful judicial standard for assessing the Director’s exercise of discretion, triggering 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2).
- The Court held that § 102(c) does not bar judicial consideration of colorable constitutional claims; Congress must speak clearly to foreclose a judicial forum for such claims.
- The case was allowed to proceed in district court on Doe’s constitutional claims, notwithstanding the bar to APA review.
- Justice Scalia dissented, concluding that the same considerations barring APA review also barred constitutional review; Justice Kennedy did not participate.

## Legal Principles

- Agency action is unreviewable under the APA where a statute is drawn so broadly that there is “no law to apply,” leaving no meaningful standard for judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2).
- Section 102(c)’s authorization to terminate employees whenever the Director “shall deem” termination “necessary or advisable” commits termination decisions to the CIA Director’s discretion for APA purposes, particularly given the national security functions of the agency.
- Courts will not infer that Congress intended to preclude judicial review of colorable constitutional claims absent a clear statement; construing a statute to deny any judicial forum for such claims raises serious constitutional concerns.
- Permitting constitutional claims to proceed does not convert discretionary national security judgments into ordinary merits review; courts may address secrecy concerns through procedural tools (e.g., protective orders and in camera review).

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the CIA Director’s employee-termination decisions under § 102(c) are unreviewable under the APA, but that the statute does not clearly foreclose judicial review of colorable constitutional challenges to such terminations, which may proceed in federal court.


Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)