John Doe v. William J. Casey, Director, C.I.A. , 796 F.2d 1508 ( 1986 )

Opinion for the Court filed by HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge.

Concurring opinion filed by GINSBURG, Circuit Judge.

Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by BUCKLEY, Circuit Judge.

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge:

The Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) appeals from a District Court order requiring the CIA to reinstate a former undercover employee to administrative leave status. The undercover employee — appellee John Doe — was terminated from CIA employment after he informed the CIA of his homosexuality. Doe’s employment was terminated by the Director of Central Intelligence (“Director”), acting under section 102(c) of the National Security Act of 1947, which provides that the Director may, in his discretion, terminate the employment of any CIA employee “whenever he shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States.”¹

Doe commenced this action in District Court, seeking reinstatement to his old position, or, in the alternative, reinstatement to administrative leave status and a reconsideration of the CIA’s decision to terminate his employment. He alleges that he was terminated without adequate procedural protections in violation of CIA regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court ordered Doe reinstated to administrative leave status and directed the CIA to reconsider Doe’s termination using procedures that would provide Doe with a meaningful statement of the CIA’s reasons and an opportunity to respond.

On appeal, the Government argues principally that the CIA’s decision to terminate Doe’s employment under section 102(c) is not subject to judicial review. Although section 102(c) gives the Director of Central Intelligence broad discretion, we conclude that judicial review is neither precluded by statute nor foreclosed by the absence of judicially manageable standards. We reverse the judgment of the District Court, however, because the court failed to accord sufficient deference to the judgment of the head of the agency. Given the sensitive nature of decisions by the Director of Central Intelligence concerning removal of employees under section 102(c), we hold that an employee must present some concrete evidence of an impermissible basis for his or her termination before a court may require the CIA to explain the reason for that termination. No such evidence was presented by Doe in this case. Nonetheless, because the record is unclear on certain critical points, we remand for further proceedings.

I. Background

The plaintiff, John Doe,² had a nine-year career with the CIA. Although he began that career as a clerk-typist, he was eventually promoted, after agency training, to a covert position as an electronics technician. Periodic fitness reports consistently rated Doe as either an excellent or an outstanding employee, and the CIA expressed no dissatisfaction with either Doe’s work or his loyalty.

On January 28, 1982, Doe voluntarily informed a CIA security officer that he was a homosexual. As a result, the CIA placed Doe on administrative leave on February 2, 1982, pending an investigation of his homosexuality. Under this status, Doe did not report for work, but the CIA continued to pay his salary. On February 12 and 17, Doe was interviewed at length by a polygraph officer about his sexual orientation and possible security violations. After these interviews, which lasted a total of ten hours, the officer told Doe that the polygraph indicated that he had truthfully answered all questions. His answers included statements that he had not had sexual relations with any foreign nationals and had not disclosed classified information to any sexual partners.

The polygraph officer prepared a five-page factual report based on the two days of interviews. Doe reviewed this factual report on March 23, 1982, and, in addition, Doe prepared a two-page addendum. On April 14, 1982, a CIA security officer informed Doe that the CIA’s Office of Security had determined that the circumstances of his homosexuality posed a security threat, but refused to explain why Doe’s homosexuality posed such a danger. Throughout the previous two months of investigation, Doe had received conflicting explanations about the CIA’s policy toward homosexuals. While two CIA security officers told Doe that his homosexual activities violated CIA regulations, the Deputy General Counsel of the CIA told Doe’s counsel that homosexuality was a security concern that did not inevitably result in termination. Instead, according to the Deputy General Counsel, the CIA considers homosexuality on a case-by-case basis.

Doe was asked to resign on April 14, but refused to do so. The Office of Security then recommended to the Director of Central Intelligence that the CIA terminate Doe’s employment. On April 20, Doe’s counsel delivered a detailed letter to the Director concerning Doe’s case, but the CIA made no response.

On May 12, 1982, a security officer informed Doe that the Director had terminated his employment effective May 7, 1982. Doe’s counsel later received a letter from the Deputy General Counsel of the CIA dated May 11, 1982, confirming Doe’s termination:

The Director has reviewed the facts of your client’s case, your client’s memorandum commenting upon those facts, the Office of Security’s evaluation of the security significance of those facts, and the statement submitted by you in your client’s behalf.

After careful consideration of this matter, the Director has deemed it necessary and advisable in the interests of the United States to terminate your client’s employment with this Agency pursuant to section 102(c) of the National Security act [sic] of 1947, as amended.³

Doe was never told why he was considered a security risk and never had access to the Office of Security evaluations. The Director’s decision to terminate Doe’s employment was made pursuant to section 102(c) of the National Security Act, which provides:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7501 of title 5, or the provisions of any other law, the Director of Central Intelligence may, in his discretion, terminate the employment of any officer or employee of the Agency whenever he shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States, but such termination shall not affect the right of such officer or employee to seek or accept employment in any other department or agency of the Government if declared eligible for such employment by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management.⁴

CIA officials told Doe that the agency would give a positive recommendation on his behalf to any prospective employer; Doe also was advised that if he applied for a job that required a security clearance, the CIA would inform the prospective employer that it had determined that Doe presented a security threat “because of his homosexuality.” Moreover, a member of the General Counsel’s staff told Doe that he is obliged to inform the CIA whenever he applies for a job that requires a security clearance.

Doe then commenced this action in District Court. His complaint alleged that the CIA’s decision to fire him because of his homosexuality violated both procedural and substantive protections to which he was entitled by law. To remedy the substantive violations, Doe sought outright reinstatement to his old position with the CIA. For violation of procedural protections, on the other hand, Doe sought a new determination by the Director under fair procedures.⁵ Doe filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the procedural claims, which were alleged violations of CIA regulations, the APA and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court granted Doe summary judgment on the violations alleged with respect to the CIA regulations and the APA, but declined to reach the constitutional issues. The trial court ordered Doe reinstated to administrative leave status and directed the CIA to reconsider his case using procedures that would provide Doe with a meaningful statement of the CIA’s reasons for the termination and with an opportunity to respond.

This appeal followed.

II. Analysis

A. Preclusion of Review

On appeal, the CIA has contended that its decision to terminate Doe’s employment is not reviewable under the APA. We conclude that section 102(c) obviously requires that we give deference to the judgment of the Director of Central Intelligence; however, we cannot countenance the CIA’s unprecedented attempt to preclude judicial review when it is absolutely clear that the Director’s discretion is expressly limited by the terms of the statute that has been cited by the CIA to support the Director’s exercise of authority.

Under section 701(a) of the APA,⁶ agency actions are judicially reviewable

except to the extent that — (1) statutes preclude judicial review; or (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.

In the decades of litigation over the scope of these two grounds for preclusion, the Supreme Court and this court have emphasized in the strongest terms that preclusion is the rare exception and certainly not the norm. Section 701 “creates a strong presumption of reviewability that can be rebutted only by a clear showing that judicial review would be inappropriate.”⁷ As the Supreme Court most recently explained:

We ordinarily presume that Congress intends the executive to obey its statutory commands and, accordingly, that it expects the courts to grant relief when an executive violates such a command.⁸

The presumption of reviewability is firmly rooted even in pre-APA administrative law,⁹ and is clearly reflected in the legislative history of the APA.¹⁰ The compelling reasons for this presumption are well known, and recently have been reiterated in an article by Professor Sunstein:

The presumption of reviewability under the APA is based on a set of considerations, loosely captured in the notion of the rule of law, that relate to the perceived need to constrain the exercise of discretionary power by administrative agencies. Judicial review serves important goals in promoting fidelity to statutory requirements and, where those requirements are ambiguous or vague, in increasing the likelihood that the regulatory process will be a reasonable exercise of discretion instead of a bow in the direction of powerful private groups.¹¹

In light of the prevailing case law, there is little doubt that, in seeking to overcome the strong presumption of judicial review, the CIA shoulders a very heavy burden. We will address in turn each of the two possible grounds for the preclusion of review.

1. Preclusion by Statute

The first question we consider is whether Congress expressed an intention to preclude review of the Director's decision to terminate the employment of a CIA employee under section 102(c). Fortunately, the Supreme Court has elaborated several principles to guide our inquiry.

First, there must be a showing of “clear and convincing evidence” of a congressional intent to negate review before courts may legitimately restrict access to judicial review.¹² Although the “clear and convincing evidence” standard is not a rigid evidentiary test,¹³ a court should not refuse to review agency action if there is substantial doubt that Congress intended to preclude review.¹⁴ Rather, at the very least, such an intent to preclude review must be “fairly discernible” in the detail of the legislative scheme.¹⁵

Second, the Supreme Court has never found a congressional intent to preclude review when the statute at issue specifies a standard that at least purports to limit agency discretion. In Southern Railway Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp.,¹⁶ for example, the Court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission’s decision not to suspend and investigate a proposed rate increase was not subject to judicial review primarily because the statute was silent on what factors should guide the Commission’s decision. When, however, as in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe,¹⁷ the statute on its face provides a standard limiting agency discretion, the Court “easily” rejects the argument that review is precluded by statute.

Simply stated, when agency authority is defined or limited pursuant to a substantive standard, this is highly probative evidence that Congress did not intend to preclude judicial review. . Indeed, if the chosen standard is judicially manageable, it is difficult to imagine stronger evidence of an intent not to preclude judicial review. It may be, of course, that the standard chosen by Congress is such that it offers no meaningful basis upon which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion. In such a circumstance, however, the wiser policy is to treat the agency action as “committed to agency discretion” and hence precluded from review by section 701(a)(2). Thus, when Congress has chosen a standard, the preclusion analysis for section 701(a)(2) rather than section 701(a)(1) is appropriate.¹⁸

Third, the structure of a statutory scheme sometimes may support a finding that Congress intended to preclude judicial review; however, the Supreme Court has accepted arguments based on structure only in a very limited category of cases involving uniquely complex or otherwise delicately balanced statutory schemes. The best example of this is seen in Block v. Community Nutrition Institute,¹⁹ where the Supreme Court relied heavily on the omission of an express provision for participation by consumers in the development of milk-market orders as evidence of an intent to preclude consumers from seeking judicial review only because the statute included specific and detailed provisions for the participation of milk handlers and producers.²⁰ Moreover, the Court took care to emphasize the complexity of the statutory scheme.²¹ Similarly, in Morris v. Gressette,²² the Court held that the Attorney General’s failure to object to a change in voting procedure was precluded from review by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Central to the Court’s decision, however, was the delicate balance between Congress’ decision to authorize the Attorney General to impose the “extraordinary remedy” of postponing the effect of state legislation and Congress’ desire to prevent undue delay.²³ In other cases involving less complicated or delicate statutory frameworks, nearly identical arguments based on the “statutory framework” have been unavailing.²⁴

Under our reading of the extant case law, it is abundantly clear that the CIA has failed to carry its burden to establish clear and convincing evidence of a congressional intent to preclude judicial review in section 102(c). The language of the statute itself cannot be fairly read to preclude judicial review, and legislative history is silent on the issue. Most importantly, section 102(c) provides a standard — the termination must be “necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States.” As discussed above, Congress’ decision to cabin the Director’s discretion by the use of this standard is compelling evidence of its intent not to preclude judicial review. Congress could have left section 102(c) terminations unambiguously to the Director’s absolute discretion; this, however, Congress chose not to do. Finally, arguments based on the statutory “framework” simply have no force where, as here, there is a single statutory provision unaccompanied by any “scheme” or “framework.”

The specific arguments made by the CIA are easily rejected. The CIA contends that the statutory language — “notwithstanding the provisions of section 7501 of title 5, or the provisions of any other law” — removes the basis for any and all judicial review. This argument is, at best, strained. Section 102(c) does not prevent the application of all law; instead, it merely replaces one set of standards — the more rigorous efficiency standards normally applied to the termination of federal employees²⁵ — with a new, more relaxed standard: that the termination be “necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States.” The obvious result is that the Director of Central Intelligence has far more discretion in personnel matters than other federal agencies. This relaxation in standard, however, in no way manifests a congressional intent to preclude review altogether.

The CIA additionally maintains that the sensitive nature of its work requires that judicial review be precluded. Our inquiry, however, is limited to what Congress intended, not what the CIA finds preferable. Congress could have explicitly precluded judicial review; it did not do so. Or, Congress could have written section 102(c) narrowly to state that “the Director may, in his sole discretion, terminate the employment of any officer or employee of the Agency” (omitting any reference to “necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States”); it did not so limit the language of the statute.

Moreover, the CIA is unable to offer any contemporaneous legislative history suggesting that Congress intended to preclude judicial review. The CIA merely points to a Senate Report, written decades after the enactment of section 102(c), which incorrectly states that courts have interpreted section 102(c) as giving unlimited discretion to the Director.²⁶ This Report, however, is simply not relevant to congressional intent in 1947.²⁷

The CIA has simply failed to overcome the presumption of reviewability. Neither the statute nor legislative history offer even a hint of a congressional intent to preclude review.

2. Committed to Agency Discretion

Our next task is to determine whether the standard offered by section 102(c)— that terminations be “necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States”— commits the decisionmaking to the Director’s judgment absolutely. As with the section 701(a)(1) exception, the section 701(a)(2) exception for action committed to agency discretion by law is a “narrow” exception,²⁸ and we operate under a presumption of reviewability.²⁹ Indeed, even the Government concedes that this presumption of reviewability applies. It simply asserts that that presumption is sufficiently rebutted in this case.

In order for the “committed to agency discretion” exception to preclude judicial review altogether, the Government must establish that “the statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.”³⁰ There must, in other words, simply be “no law to apply.” ³¹ The fact that a statute gives an agency broad discretion

does not render the agency’s decisions completely nonreviewable under the “committed to agency discretion by law” exception unless the statutory scheme, taken together with other relevant materials, provides absolutely no guidance as to how that discretion is to be exercised.³²

In the instant case, we surely cannot find that section 102(c) offers “absolutely no guidance” as to how the Director of Central Intelligence is to exercise his or her discretion to terminate CIA employees. Obviously, courts must give great deference to the judgment of the Director as to what is “necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States,” but the Director’s exercise of discretion is still subject to judicial review. Without doubt, for example, the Director could not terminate Black employees simply because they are Black, female employees simply because they are female, or even blonde employees simply because they are blonde.³³ Indeed, Government counsel conceded at oral argument that the agency was not prepared to say that constitutional claims, or even claims that the Director acted in excess of his or her statutory authority, are precluded from review.

Additionally, section 102(c) requires that an employee be terminated only if the termination advances the interests of the United States. Although the court cannot second-guess the Director’s decision that the termination of an employee is advisable in the interests of the United States, we must at least satisfy ourselves that the termination has some relationship to the interests of the United States. Thus, section 102(c) terminations cannot be a result of the mere whim of the Director. Otherwise, the words of section 102(c) would become nothing more than a magical incantation immunizing wholly irrational, vindictive or even blatantly unconstitutional action. Assuredly, therefore, the Director’s discretion is not absolute.

In similar circumstances, other courts have refused to preclude review. In Barlow v. Collins,³⁴ for example, the Supreme Court held that even a statute authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture “to prescribe such regulations as he may deem proper” did not preclude judicial review. In a justly celebrated decision by the late Judge Friendly, the Second Circuit held that the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service not to exercise its discretion to suspend an alien’s deportation was subject to arbitrary and capricious review even though the statute in question itself offered no standards for the exercise of that discretion.³⁵ Even in a recent case challenging the Government’s selective enforcement of a law — an action arguably subject to a presumption of nonreviewability — the Supreme Court did not refuse to review for First and Fifth Amendment violations.³⁶ Finally, this court in Torpats v. McCone³⁷ addressed the very statute at issue in this case and — rather than refuse review — upheld the termination of a CIA employee as “within the authority conferred upon [the Director] by Congress.”³⁸

We conclude therefore that there is “law to apply.” The statute gives broad discretion to the Director, but that discretion is simply not absolute.

B. The Alleged Breach of the CIA Regulations

On the merits, Doe first claims that a CIA Headquarters regulation imposes independent limitations on the Director’s discretion to terminate employees pursuant to section 102(c). Generally, an agency must follow its own regulations, and judicial review is available for claims that agency regulations have been violated.³⁹ At issue here is whether the particular CIA regulation cited by appellee indeed limits the CIA’s discretion.

We conclude that the CIA regulation does not so limit the Director’s discretion. The regulation lists ten circumstances in which employees may be separated from the CIA, the last of which is almost identical to section 102(c):

OTHER TERMINATION IN THE INTERESTS OF THE AGENCY. In addition to paragraphs a through i, employees may be terminated if the Director of Central Intelligence determines it necessary and advisable in the interest of the Agency or for other reasons contributing to the efficiency of the Agency.⁴⁰

The regulation also lists procedures that “[n]ormally” will govern separations from the CIA, but cautions that these procedures need not be followed for terminations made pursuant to section 102(c):

[Procedures] should be followed insofar as practicable, but there may be circumstances of a case that make these procedures impractical or undesirable, and the case should be handled in a manner conforming to the circumstances. Moreover, to meet the responsibilities placed upon the Agency and pursuant to statutory authority, any employee may be separated immediately and without regard to any suggested procedural steps when the Director of Central Intelligence considers it necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States.⁴¹

This disclaimer is reiterated later in the regulation:

In some other cases, the following modified procedures apply:

(c) Pursuant to statutory authority, the Director of Central Intelligence may separate an employee directly when necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States.⁴²

We cannot imagine how the CIA could have more plainly expressed its intent to protect the discretion granted it by section 102(c). Doe’s arguments to the contrary are simply without merit. The District Court ruled that the exception for terminations necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States applies only when urgency prevents the application of procedural protections:

While section 27m provides that an employee “may be separated immediately and without regard to any suggested procedural steps when the Director ... considers it necessary or advisable in the interest [sic] of the United States” the immediacy and urgency of Doe’s employment status is belied by the fact that his voluntary disclosures were made in January 1982, but it was not until five months later — May 1982, that the Director decided to fire him.⁴³

This reasoning cannot stand, however, because “immediacy” is not a requirement that must be satisfied before the procedures otherwise provided by the regulations become inapplicable. Rather, if a termination is “necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States,” the termination can be made “without regard to any suggested procedural steps” and, in addition, the termination “may” be immediate. The immediate separation discussed in the regulation is an optional course of action available to the Director that he or she need not exercise.

The cases cited by Doe and the District Court are equally inapposite. In Ashton v. Civiletti,⁴⁴ an FBI Handbook informed agency employees that they could “assume that [their] positions] [are] secure, if [they] continue to do satisfactory work;” and the FBI Handbook contained no exceptions for particular types of terminations as found in the CIA regulations. The court in Ashton did, however, emphasize that — like the CIA — the FBI distinguished between probationary and nonprobationary employees:

In the absence of any special definition [of probation], appellant could only be expected to comprehend it in its normal meaning — that he was required to serve an initial proving period in which his performance could be tested and, if his employer was dissatisfied, in which he could be fired without ceremony. A probationary period, of course, would be unnecessary if the employer could dismiss a non-probationary employee at any time and for any reason.⁴⁵

Although the CIA also has a “probationary period,” it — unlike the FBI — does give “probation” a “special definition” in its regulation. A termination during this period has its own set of procedures and standards.⁴⁶ This same regulation, however, explicitly exempts terminations that are “necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States” from any procedural requirements.

Similarly, Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force⁴⁷ is not applicable. In that case, this court ordered the Air Force to explain the termination of a homosexual Air Force airman. The court noted, however, that unlike the CIA, the “Air Force regulation expressly contemplates that exceptions can be made to the general policy of separating homosexuals;”⁴⁸ it was because the regulation expressly contemplated such exceptions that we concluded that the Air Force must provide a reasoned explanation for not making such an exception in an individual case.⁴⁹ The CIA regulation quite simply includes no such explicit exception.

We conclude, therefore, that the CIA regulation provides no independent source of procedural or substantive protections. Doe must look to section 102(c) itself or to the Constitution.

C. Termination of Doe’s Employment

The APA provides the appropriate standard for our review of Doe’s termination pursuant to section 102(c). We must uphold the Director’s decision unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”⁵⁰ At the outset it is critical that we emphasize the broad discretion granted the Director of Central Intelligence by section 102(c). The Director is responsible for one of the most sensitive agencies in the federal government; the keen interest of foreign intelligence agencies in the inner workings of the CIA is obvious. Congress accordingly recognized the need for the Director to have broad power to terminate CIA personnel for even the slightest security risk. The necessity for judicial deference to the judgments of the Director is further highlighted by the difficult nature of the decisions the Director must make. Judgments about the security of the CIA require an expertise unique to those in the intelligence community. As the Supreme Court recently noted in CIA v. Sims⁵¹ “[t]he decisions of the Director, who must of course be familiar with ‘the whole picture,’ as judges are not, are worthy of great deference given the magnitude of the national security interests and potential risks at stake.”⁵² Moreover, our review must be circumspect because “[i]t is conceivable that the mere explanation of why information must be withheld can convey valuable information to a foreign intelligence agency.”⁵³

We conclude, therefore, that although judicial review of the Director’s judgments is not precluded, we must apply the arbitrary and capricious standard in the context of this statute which leaves the decision to terminate CIA employment largely to the expertise and judgment of the Director. As a practical matter, therefore, our main concerns will be the arguable infringement of constitutional rights and the possibility that the Director has acted in excess of statutory authority, rather than the wisdom of the termination itself.⁵⁴

Unfortunately, there is great confusion as to precisely what the Director intended to do in this case. We see three possible explanations for the Director’s action:

(1) The Director may have intended to invoke section 102(c) without giving any reasons at all for the termination of Doe’s employment;

(2) The Director may have intended to terminate Doe as part of a ban against the employment of all homosexuals; or

(3) The Director may have dismissed Doe because Doe’s homosexuality presented a security risk.

As we discuss below, the resolution of this case depends critically on which of these explanations is applicable. Because of the confusion surrounding the Director’s reasoning, we must remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

1. Invocation of Section 102(c) Without Giving Reasons

It may be — albeit unlikely — that the Director terminated Doe’s employment for reasons wholly unrelated to Doe’s homosexuality. We strongly doubt that this is the case because the CIA displayed no concern about Doe’s employment until it was made aware of Doe’s homosexuality; and, as we read the record, the clear focus of the CIA’s inquiry before the.Director decided to terminate Doe’s employment was Doe’s homosexuality. Because the record is unclear on this point, however, we leave the task of deciding whether the Director fired Doe for other unstated reasons to the District Court.

If the Director intends to invoke section 102(c) without giving any reasons at all, a plaintiff must point to something concrete in the record suggesting that section 102(c) is being used as a sham before a court requires the Director to explain his decision to fire the employee. The plaintiff must, for example, point to evidence of an impermissible basis — such as sex, race, hair color, etc. — for the termination. Given the sensitive nature of the CIA’s mission, and the risk that merely explaining why information must be withheld “can convey valuable information to a foreign intelligence agency,” ⁵⁵ we cannot permit a “witchhunt” aimed at discovering the reasons for the invocation of section 102(c). Quite simply, we could endanger national security interests if we were to require the CIA to explain each and every decision to terminate the employment of an employee.

We must operate under a presumption that the CIA is acting lawfully and in good faith in any invocation of section 102(c), unless the plaintiff gives adequate reason to believe otherwise. Only if a plaintiff offers a basis for suspicion that the Director terminated the plaintiffs employment for an impermissible reason will we require the Director to justify his or her decision. In the instant case, Doe has not even alleged concrete evidence of an impermissible ground unrelated to his homosexuality for the invocation of section 102(c). Thus, we hold that if the Director intended to invoke section 102(c) without reasons in this case, there are no grounds to reverse the Director’s decision to terminate Doe’s employment and, correspondingly, no bases for requiring the Director to explain his exercise of discretion under section 102(c).

2. Bar Against All Homosexuals

Alternatively, the Director may have intended to terminate Doe’s employment as part of a CIA policy barring the employment of all homosexuals. The record is somewhat confusing on this point. Doe was not immediately discharged by the CIA; instead, he underwent extensive polygraph examination. This suggests that his mere status as a homosexual was not the reason for his later discharge. Furthermore, Doe’s counsel was informed by officials in the CIA General Counsel’s Office that decisions to terminate homosexuals would be made on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, however, Doe was told by several security officers that homosexuality violated CIA rules. Thus, it is unclear to us whether Doe’s termination reflects a policy of terminating the employment of all homosexuals. We will leave this issue for resolution by the District Court.

If the District Court concludes that the CIA intended to bar all homosexuals, there is an arguable claim that can be litigated. Although this circuit’s decision in Dronenburg v. Zech,⁵⁶ and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bowers v. Hardwick,⁵⁷ hold that homosexual conduct is not constitutionally protected, they did not reach the difficult issue of whether an agency of the federal government can discriminate against individuals merely because of sexual orientation. At the very least, the CIA would have to justify why such a ban on the employment of all homosexuals was “necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States.”

3. Termination Because of Doe’s Homosexuality

Finally, the Director may have dismissed Doe because Doe's homosexuality presented a security risk. Although we do not believe that this would present any color-able substantive constitutional claim, if this were the case Doe may have a claim that the CIA deprived him of his liberty interest in reputation without due process.

In Board of Regents v. Roth,⁵⁸ the Supreme Court concluded that a government employee’s liberty interests are impaired when the government makes a charge against the employee that damages “his standing and associations in the community” or “impose[s] on him a stigma or other disability that foreclose[sJ his freedom to take advantage of other employment opportunities.”⁵⁹ An injury to reputation alone, however, is not sufficient to give rise to a colorable liberty interest claim. Instead, a court analyzing a claim of a deprivation of a liberty interest must satisfy itself that a plaintiff has met two requirements. First, the government must have altered the “status” of the employee in some tangible way by, for example, discharging the employee, foreclosing the employee’s future employment opportunities, or reducing the employee’s rank or pay.⁶⁰ Second, this change in “status” must be accompanied by injury to the employee’s good name, reputation, honor or integrity, or by the imposition of a similar stigma.⁶¹

There is little question that the first requirement — a change in status — is satisfied in this case. The loss of government employment is the paradigmatic “status change” in liberty-interest jurisprudence.⁶² Satisfaction of the second requirement is more problematic. In order for Doe to assert the deprivation of a liberty interest, he must establish that the CIA has stigmatized him and that the stigma “has hampered future employment prospects” or injured his good name.⁶³ If the CIA had merely declined to give Doe a security clearance for unspecified reasons, we doubt whether the second requirement would be satisfied. In Molerio v. FBI,⁶⁴ we held that the decision of the FBI not to hire an applicant because of security clearance problems did not violate the applicant’s due process rights:

To receive a “top secret” clearance is assuredly a badge of loyalty; but to be denied it on unspecified grounds in no way implies disloyalty or any other repugnant characteristic — as is shown by the evidence in this case that the mere fact that one has relatives in a hostile country may be considered a basis for denial.⁶⁵

Doe, however, was not denied a security clearance “on unspecified grounds.” Instead, the CIA will inform Doe’s future employers that he presents a security risk because of his homosexuality. Because Doe himself does not view homosexuality as stigmatizing — and indeed, admits that he is a homosexual — he would have no liberty interest claim if all homosexuals were banned from CIA employment.⁶⁶ If, on the other hand, the CIA terminated Doe because his homosexuality presented a unique security risk not necessarily presented by all other homosexuals, we must conclude that the statement is sufficiently stigmatizing to give rise to a color-able liberty interest claim. If the CIA alleges that something unique about Doe’s sexual conduct makes him undesirable for sensitive government work, the inevitable result is that Doe is foreclosed from employment in the field in which he has been especially trained. As a practical matter, Doe will be unable to obtain employment whenever a security clearance is required.⁶⁷

Even if the CIA deprived Doe of his liberty interest in his reputation, however, our inquiry is not at an end. The due process clause requires that the CIA not deprive Doe of his liberty interest without due process of law. We must therefore determine whether Doe received the process he was due. Doe was entitled to an opportunity to refute the charges and “clear his name.”⁶⁸ The sole purpose of this “name-clearing hearing” is to do just that — give the employee an opportunity to clear his or her name. This name-clearing hearing need not be formal; the fundamental requirement is that Doe have an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner.⁶⁹ As the Seventh Circuit explained,

In its essence, a hearing demands that the person have the right to support his allegations by argument, however brief, and if necessary, by proof, however informal.⁷⁰

We conclude that Doe was given a meaningful opportunity to contest any allegation that his homosexuality presented a security risk — indeed, a meaningful opportunity that Doe and his counsel vigorously pursued. Doe had notice that the CIA was seriously concerned about his homosexuality. The CIA furthermore permitted Doe to examine the polygraph officer’s report, and to submit lengthy written arguments on his behalf. Finally, Doe makes no allegation that either the Office of Security or the Director of Central Intelligence were biased.⁷¹ In the context of a very sensitive agency such as the CIA, we cannot say that the Constitution requires more.⁷²

III. Conclusion

Section 102(c) terminations are subject to judicial review. Because the statute leaves the decision of whether an individual’s employment should be terminated as “necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States” largely to the discretion of the Director of Central Intelligence, however, judicial review must be deferential. The District Court erred by showing insufficient deference to the judgment of the Director. However, because the record is unclear on certain critical points that may have a bearing on Doe’s claims for relief, we remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

1 . 50 U.S.C. § 403(c) (1982).

2 . John Doe is proceeding under a pseudonym only because his status as a CIA employee cannot be publicly acknowledged, not because of any embarrassment about his homosexuality.

3 . Joint Appendix ("J.A.”) 31.

4 . 50 U.S.C. § 403(c) (1982).

5 . Doe principally seeks an explanation of precisely why his employment was terminated.

6 . 5 U.S.C. § 701(a) (1982).

7 . Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. SEC, 606 F.2d 1031, 1043 (D.C.Cir.1979); see also Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 567, 95 S.Ct. 1851, 1857, 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410, 91 S.Ct. 814, 820, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1510, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967); WWHT, Inc. v. FCC, 656 F.2d 807, 815 (D.C.Cir.1981).

8 . Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 2133, 2140-41, 90 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986).

9 . 5 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 28.4 (2d ed. 1984).

10 . See H.R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 41 (1946) ("To preclude judicial review under this bill a statute, if not specific in withholding such review, must upon its face give clear and convincing evidence of an intent to withhold it").

11 . Sunstein, Reviewing Agency Inaction After Heckler v. Chaney, 52 U.Chi.L.Rev. 653, 655 (1985).

12 . See Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, 470 U.S. 768, 105 S.Ct. 1620, 1627, 84 L.Ed.2d 674 (1985); Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 567, 95 S.Ct. 1851, 1857, 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410, 91 S.Ct. 814, 820, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 141, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1511, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967); WWHT, Inc. v. FCC, 656 F.2d 807, 809 (D.C.Cir.1981). As discussed previously, this "clear and convincing evidence" standard is based on clear congressional intent. See H.R.Rep. No. 1980, supra note 10, at 41.

13 . Block v. Community Nutrition Institution, 467 U.S. 340, 351, 104 S.Ct. 2450, 2457, 81 L.Ed.2d 270 (1984).

14 . Id.

15 . Id. (quoting Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 157, 90 S.Ct. 827, 831, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970)).

16 . 442 U.S. 444, 99 S.Ct. 2388, 60 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1979).

17 . 401 U.S. 402, 410, 91 S.Ct. 814, 820, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971).

18 . As Justice Rehnquist noted in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 1655, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985), section 701(a)(2)’s preclusion of review when a decision is “committed to agency discretion” would be unnecessary unless there are circumstances in which "Congress has not affirmatively precluded review,” but has chosen a standard such that "a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.”

19 . 467 U.S. 340, 104 S.Ct. 2450, 81 L.Ed.2d 270 (1984).

20 . Id. at 346-47, 104 S.Ct. at 2454-55.

21 . See, e.g., id. at 347, 348 & 352, 104 S.Ct. at 2455, 2456, 2458. A similar logic was used to find preclusion in Southern Railway Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp., 442 U.S. 444, 99 S.Ct. 2388, 60 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1979). Congress provided mandatory language in the statute when it wished to provide judicial review. Therefore, its use of permissive language without any standard was strong evidence of an intent to preclude review.

22 . 432 U.S. 491, 97 S.Ct. 2411, 53 L.Ed.2d 506 (1977).

23 . Id. at 504.

24 . See, e.g., Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 567, 95 S.Ct. 1851, 1857, 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975); Local 1219, AFGE v. Donovan, 683 F.2d 511, 516-18 & n. 16 (D.C.Cir.1982) (permissive statutory language alone does not suggest a congressional intent to preclude review).

25 . Section 102(c) specifically references only one portion of the United States Code — 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (1982). This is an unambiguous reference to the statutory protections offered most federal employees. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7501-14 (1982) (providing standards and procedure for adverse actions against federal employees). Under these provisions a federal employee may be dismissed "only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.” 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) (1982).

26 . See S.Rep. No. 77, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 6-7 (1983), cited in Reply Brief for Appellant at 9. It is manifestly untrue that all courts have interpreted section 102(c) as precluding review. Indeed, this circuit in Torpats v. McCone, 300 F.2d 914, 915 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 886, 83 S.Ct. 182, 9 L.Ed.2d 121 (1962), upheld a termination of a CIA employee as "within the authority conferred [on the Director] by Congress” and did not refuse review.

27 . One final CIA argument deserves only a short comment. The CIA argues that the statute’s language, ”[n]otwithstanding ... any other law," explicitly prevents the application of the APA. Although we agree that the APA is a "law,” we find it plain that it is not the type of law to which the statute refers. The ”law[s]’’ to which section 102(c) refers are those that would otherwise limit the Director’s discretion to terminate CIA employees. The APA does not itself limit the Director's discretion. Instead, APA review merely ensures that the Director does not exceed the authority granted by section 102(c) and that the Director does not violate other limits — such as the Constitution — on his or her discretion.

28 . Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 1659, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410, 91 S.Ct. 814, 820, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971); Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159, 1161 (D.C.Cir.1973) (en banc).

29 . Robbins v. Reagan, 780 F.2d 37, 45 (D.C.Cir.1985). While Heckler v. Chaney, 105 S.Ct. at 1656, applied a presumption of nonreviewability to agency enforcement discretion, even the Government admits that no such presumption is applicable in the instant case. This case concerns agency action that involves coercive power over a federal employee and in an area traditionally subject to judicial scrutiny. See Heckler v. Chaney, 105 S.Ct. at 1656 (contrasting an agency’s decision not to act with agency action such as that involved in the instant case); Robbins, 780 F.2d at 45 (limiting Heckler's presumption of nonreviewability to enforcement decisions).

30 . Heckler v. Chaney, 105 S.Ct. at 1655; see State of Florida v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 768 F.2d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1186, 89 L.Ed.2d 302 (1986).

31 . Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc., 401 U.S. at 410, 91 S.Ct. at 820 (quoting S.Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 26 (1945)).

32 . Robbins, 780 F.2d at 45; see abo Local 1219, AFGE v. Donovan, 683 F.2d 511, 515 (D.C.Cir.1982).

33 . Even in cases in which courts have held actions "committed to agency discretion by law,” some review is still available to ensure that the agency has not violated other constitutional or statutory commands. See Hondros v. United States Civil Service Comm’n, 720 F.2d 278, 293 (3d Cir.1983) (“even those actions ‘committed to agency discretion by law’ are reviewable on grounds that the agency lacked jurisdiction, that the agency's decision was occasioned by ‘impermissible influences,’ or that the decision violates any constitutional, statutory, or regulatory command"); WWHT, Inc. v. FCC, 656 F.2d at 815 n. 15 ("In no event would a finding of non-reviewability on the ground that an action is committed to agency discretion preclude judicial review when constitutional violations have been alleged."); Sunstein, supra note 11, at 658 (”[I]f a plaintiff claims that an agency has taken constitutionally impermissible factors into account, there is always ‘law to apply’ — no matter what the governing statute may say. Similarly, if the plaintiff alleges that the agency’s conduct has been based on factors that are irrelevant under the governing statute, there is always law to apply, even if the agency has especially broad discretion in weighing those factors that are statutorily relevant.").

34 . 397 U.S. 159, 166, 90 S.Ct. 832, 837, 25 L.Ed.2d 192 (1970).

35 . Wong Wing Hang v. INS, 360 F.2d 715 (2d Cir.1966). Judge Friendly explained the possible grounds for a finding of an abuse of discretion:

Without essaying comprehensive definition, we think the denial of suspension to an eligible alien would be an abuse of discretion if it were made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as an invidious discrimination against a particular race or group, or, in Judge Learned Hand’s words, on other "considerations that Congress would not have intended to make relevant."

Id. at 719 (quoting United States ex rel. Kaloudis v. Shaughnessy, 180 F.2d 489, 491 (2d Cir.1950)). Clearly these same factors would also constitute an abuse of discretion in the context of section 102(c) terminations.

36 . See Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 1531, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985) (challenging selective prosecution of draft registration law violators).

37 . 300 F.2d 914 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 886, 83 S.Ct. 182, 9 L.Ed.2d 121 (1962).

38 . Id. at 915.

39 . See Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957).

40 . CIA Regulation HR 20-27(j), reprinted in J.A. 35.

41 . Id. 20-27m (emphasis added).

42 . Id. 20-27m(8).

43 . Doe v. Casey, 601 F.Supp. 581, 587 n. 4 (D.D.C.1985).

44 . 613 F.2d 923 (D.C.Cir.1980).

45 . Id. at 929.

46 . See CIA Regulation HR 20-27(a); 20-27m(8)(b) (“In the case of separation during the trial period, the procedures of paragraph a are to be followed.”), supra note 40.

47 . 591 F.2d 852 (D.C.Cir.1978).

48 . Id. at 855.

49 . Id. at 859.

50 . 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (1982).

51 . 471 U.S. 159, 105 S.Ct. 1881, 85 L.Ed.2d 173 (1985).

52 . Id. at 1893.

53 . Id.

54 . In cases involving challenges to agency failures to institute rulemaking we have similarly declined to find a preclusion of review, but have exercised only a narrow scope of review. See WWHT, Inc. v. FCC, 656 F.2d 807, 809 (D.C.Cir.1981) (‘‘[W]e hold that, except where there is evidence of a ‘clear and convincing legislative intent to negate review,’ ... an agency’s denial of a rulemaking petition is subject to judicial review. However, we believe that the decision to institute rulemaking is one that is largely committed to the discretion of the agency, and that the scope of review of such a determination must, of necessity, be very narrow.’’) (quoting Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. SEC, 606 F.2d 1031, 1043 (D.C.Cir.1979)).

55 . Sims, 105 S.Ct. at 1893.

56 . 741 F.2d 1388 (D.C.Cir.1984).

57 . — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 2841, 92 L.Ed.2d 140 (1986).

58 . 408 U.S. 564 (1972).

59 . Id. at 573.

60 . See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1165, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Mosrie v. Barry, 718 F.2d 1151, 1161 (D.C.Cir.1983). For purposes of a liberty interest claim, it is not relevant that the public employee’s job did not constitute a property interest. See Doe v. United. States Dep’t of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092, 1106-07 (D.C.Cir.1985).

61 . Doe v. United States Dep't of Justice, 753 F.2d at 1105.

62 . See, e.g., id. at 1106-08; Mosrie, 718 F.2d at 1161-62.

63 . Doe v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 753 F.2d at 1111.

64 . 749 F.2d 815 (D.C.Cir.1984).

65 . Id. at 824 (emphasis added).

66 . See Belter v. Middendorf, 632 F.2d 788, 806 (9th Cir.1980) (when "real stigma imposed by the Navy’s action ... is the charge of homosexuality," which plaintiffs admit, there is no deprivation of liberty), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 905, 101 S.Ct. 3030, 69 L.Ed.2d 405 (1981).

67 . While it may be true that other agencies and private employers will make their own determination of Doe’s security risk, as a practical matter, we find it inconceivable that other agencies would second-guess such a determination by the CIA. At the very least, the potential foreclosure of economic opportunities is as great as that found to violate liberty interests in recent cases in this circuit. See, e.g., Doe v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 753 F.2d at 1112-13 & n. 24 (information in employee’s file indicating that employee was terminated for unprofessional conduct and dishonesty gives rise to liberty claim); Old Dominion Dairy Products, Inc. v. Secretary of Defense, 631 F.2d 953, 962-66 (D.C.Cir.1980) (“lack of integrity” charge that was communicated to other government agencies gave rise to liberty interest claim); see also White v. Thomas, 660 F.2d 680, 684-85 (5th Cir.1981) (charge that employee lied on his employment application gave rise to liberty interest due process claim), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1027, 102 S.Ct. 1731, 72 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982).

68 . Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 627, 97 S.Ct. 882, 883, 51 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977).

69 . Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 901, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976).

70 . Endicott v. Huddleston, 644 F.2d 1208, 1216 (7th Cir.1980).

71 . See, e.g., Staton v. Mayes, 552 F.2d 908, 913-14 (10th Cir.) (finding potential due process violation because of biased decisionmaker), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 907, 98 S.Ct. 309, 54 L.Ed.2d 195 (1977).

72 . Similar informal procedures have been upheld. See, e.g., Campbell v. Pierce County, 741 F.2d 1342, 1345-46 (11th Cir.1984) (rejecting liberty interest due process claim when plaintiff had notice and the opportunity to rebut claims of insubordination and mishandling of funds), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 1754, 84 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985); Endicott, 644 F.2d at 1216 (rejecting requirement that government call witnesses whom the employee’s counsel could cross-examine).