Analysis of Webster vs Doe Case: Legal and Ethical Considerations

This case study analyzes the Webster vs Doe case, focusing on the CIA's dismissal of an employee due to homosexuality and its implications. The analysis examines the legal arguments, including the application of the National Security Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as the ethical considerations of the dismissal. The study evaluates the court's decision, particularly its stance on the CIA's authority and the employee's constitutional claims. The case also explores the impact of the 1995 Executive Order signed by President Bill Clinton, which banned the withholding of security clearance from the LGBT community, and its influence on the Agency Network for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Officers and Allies (ANGLE). The study concludes by considering how the court's decision might differ today in light of the evolution of policies regarding LGBT employees within the CIA.

Running Head: Webster vs Doe
WEBSTER vs DOE
System04128

Webster vs Doe
Table of Contents
Question 1..................................................................................................................................2
Question 2..................................................................................................................................2
Question 3..................................................................................................................................3
Question 4..................................................................................................................................3
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................4
1 | P a g e

Webster vs Doe
Topic 2- Webster vs Doe
Question 1
The court was not clear in finding the significant issues that were related to the security
threat. CIA claimed under Section 102(c) of the National Security Act that Doe was a
security threat in the national interest of the country (1947 National Security Act, 2019) and
he should be sacked with immediate effect. CIA was not clear about which kind of threat
does homosexuality can have on the national security and the court said that CIA knows
better about the people who can be a threat to national security. The decision of the director
was violation of Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 as it was irregular and arbitrary.
Moreover, Joe was dismissed without proper procedures and steps under the law and
guidelines of CIA.
Question 2
The decision of Webster on dismissing Joe due to his homosexuality and the reasoning given
by him that his sexual orientation is a national threat is highly unethical. The main reason
behind claiming that his decision is ethical because Joe was dismissed without proof that he
is threat to national security. The decision will have negative impact on other people working
in the agency. They might feel insecure about their job and they cannot reveal their sexual
preference. The dismissal was infringement of the constitutional rights under First, Fourth,
Fifth and Ninth Amendments. Moreover, the termination breached due process of law and
equal protection given under Fifth Amendment.
2 | P a g e

Webster vs Doe
Question 3
The court did not specifically reject the claims by the CIA. National Security Act gives the
CIA chief extreme wide power and authority to dismiss the employees. It does not “exclude
review of constitutional claims,” and recognizing that if translated, it would bring genuine
constitutional issues. The Court held that Section 102(c) is an “integral part” of National
Security Act that says “extraordinary discretion to the Director”. Court held that in
accordance with statutory expert the DCI had supreme authority to fire an employee and that
such choices cannot be reviewed under Section 701(a) (2) of the Administrative Procedure
Act (Administrative Procedure Act). Court clearly rejected the claims of CIA that plaintiff‘s
constitutional claims were non-reviewable. The decision taken by the Director is on his
discretion that has been given to him through National Security Act, noting the ‘genuine
fundamental issues’ that can emerge if a government resolution was interpreted to stop any
judicial organ for a valid claim.
Question 4
No, the court would not have been reached the same conclusion if the case would have come
up today because in 1995 President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order which banned the
withholding of security clearance from LGBT community. This lead to the foundation of
Agency Network for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Officers and Allies (ANGLE)
by three officers of the CIA to create a working environment which was comfortable for all
employees regardless of their sexual preference and gender identity (CIA Celebrates Pride
Month, 2018). After the introduction of the bill, the issue of sexual orientation in the CIA was
decreased significantly and whenever the issue will come in the court then the court will ask
to review the case to the ANGLE.
3 | P a g e

Webster vs Doe
Bibliography
(n.d.). Retrieved May 2, 2019, from Administrative Procedure Act:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf
1947 National Security Act. (2019). Retrieved May 2, 2019, from Director of National
Intelligence: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/ic-legal-reference-book/national-
security-act-of-1947
CIA Celebrates Pride Month. (2018, June 25). Retrieved May 2, 2019, from Central
Intelligence Agency:
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2018-featured-story-
archive/cia-celebrates-pride-month.html
4 | P a g e