Doe v. Webster

United States District Court for the District of Columbia · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsEqual ProtectionDue ProcessRight to PrivacyCIA employmentrational basisequal protectionhomosexual conduct

Facts

John Doe began working for the CIA in 1973, received consistently strong evaluations, and by 1977 had become a covert electronics technician. In January 1982, he voluntarily informed a CIA security officer that he was a homosexual, after which the CIA placed him on paid administrative leave and investigated the security implications of his homosexual conduct. Doe admitted engaging in homosexual conduct but denied relations with foreign nationals or disclosure of classified information, and he submitted comments on the investigative report. The CIA concluded his homosexuality posed a security threat, asked him to resign, and when he refused, the Director dismissed him on May 7, 1982.

Issue

Whether Doe stated colorable constitutional claims arising from his discharge from the CIA, specifically an equal protection claim, a privacy claim, and a due process claim based on a protected property interest in continued employment. Also at issue was whether either party was entitled to summary judgment on those claims.

Rule

Homosexuals are not treated as a suspect or quasi-suspect class for equal protection purposes, so a discharge based on homosexual conduct is evaluated under rational basis review and is valid if rationally related to the agency's national security responsibilities. A protected property interest in employment exists when there is a reasonable expectation of continued employment supported by a legitimate claim of entitlement, which may arise from agency-fostered understandings even if statute or regulations do not create such an entitlement. Once such a property interest exists, due process requires at least notice and a hearing before termination.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez works as a signals analyst for Redwood Intelligence Service in Arlington, Virginia, a federal foreign-intelligence agency. After she admits engaging in same-sex conduct, the agency removes her from a classified post on the ground that hostile foreign services may exploit that conduct for coercion or blackmail.

If Alvarez brings an equal protection challenge arguing that the court should apply heightened scrutiny because the decision targets homosexual conduct, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority applied rational basis review, not strict or intermediate scrutiny, to a discharge based on homosexual conduct. Under that standard, the action is upheld if rationally related to the agency's national-security responsibilities, including concern about coercion, exploitation, and blackmail by hostile intelligence services. (Derived from Doe v. Webster (n.d.).)