Service v. Dulles

Supreme Court of the United States · 1957 · Administrative Law

354 U.S. 363 (1957)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawagency bound by own regulationsAccardi doctrineagency bound by regulationsadministrative discretionState DepartmentMcCarran Riderloyalty-security regulations

Facts

John S. Service, a Foreign Service Officer, was repeatedly investigated on loyalty and security grounds and twice was cleared by the Department's Loyalty Security Board, with those favorable determinations approved by the Deputy Under Secretary. The Civil Service Commission's Loyalty Review Board later found a reasonable doubt as to his loyalty and advised that he be removed. Secretary Acheson then terminated Service under Executive Order No. 9835, as amended, and the McCarran Rider, stating by affidavit that he acted solely on the Loyalty Review Board's opinion, did not read the testimony, and made no independent judgment on the record. The State Department had promulgated loyalty and security regulations and had proceeded against Service under those regulations throughout the administrative process.

Issue

Whether the State Department's loyalty and security regulations applied to a discharge carried out under the McCarran Rider, and if so, whether the Secretary's termination of Service violated those regulations. The Court did not reach Service's separate argument that the Secretary's action was invalid because it relied on a void Loyalty Review Board determination.

Rule

Validly promulgated administrative regulations bind the agency official who issued them as well as the affected individual, even where the underlying statute confers broad or discretionary authority. When an agency has chosen to subject its discretionary removal power to specified procedural and decisional requirements, it may not disregard those requirements while the regulations remain in force.

🔒

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.

The director of the Great Lakes Trade Office in Chicago has statutory authority to dismiss any analyst whenever she deems it advisable in the interests of the United States. The office has published regulations requiring that any dismissal on loyalty or security grounds occur only after a hearing before an internal review panel and a written recommendation from the deputy director. Director Elena Morris dismisses analyst Aaron Pike immediately after reading an outside advisory memo, without obtaining either step.

If Aaron challenges the dismissal, what is the strongest argument?

Explanation. When an agency head validly promulgates regulations governing the exercise of a discretionary removal power, those regulations bind the agency head as well as the employee. The key issue is not whether the underlying statute is broad, but whether the agency complied with its own applicable procedures. Because the director bypassed required internal steps, the dismissal cannot stand.