| 词条 | Webster v. Doe |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Webster v. Doe |ArgueDate=January 12 |ArgueYear=1988 |DecideDate=June 15 |DecideYear=1988 |FullName=William Hedgcock Webster, Director of Central Intelligence v. John Doe |USVol=486 |USPage=592 |ParallelCitations=108 S. Ct. 2047; 100 L. Ed. 2d 632; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2724; 56 U.S.L.W. 4568; 46 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1671; 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 38,034; 3 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 545 |Prior=Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |Subsequent= |Holding=The Court held that Section 102(c) of the National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. 402(c), precluded review under the APA. However, the Court also held that the Act did not preclude review of constitutional claims (as opposed to the procedural claims). |SCOTUS=1988-1990 |Majority=Rehnquist |JoinMajority=Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens; O'Connor (parts I, II) |Concurrence/Dissent=O'Connor |JoinConcurrence/Dissent= |Dissent=Scalia |NotParticipating=Kennedy |LawsApplied=National Security Act of 1947 }} Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988),[1] 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. BackgroundThe 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 receiving 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 CourtThe 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). DissentJustice 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
References1. ^{{ussc|name=Webster v. Doe|volume=486|page=592|pin=|year=1988}}. {{usgovpd}} Further reading
External links
| case = Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112097/webster-v-doe/ | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/486/592.html | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14538385972365870020 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/592/case.html | openjurist =https://openjurist.org/486/us/592 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-1294 6 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States administrative case law|1988 in United States case law|Central Intelligence Agency|LGBT law in the United States|United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。