the judiciary to undertake to determine for itself whether Greene or any other individual similarly situated is in fact sufficiently trustworthy to be entitled to security clearance for a particular project. For these reasons, the order of the District Court must be NEIL M. MCELROY, Secretary of Defense, et al., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Before: WILBUR K. MILLER, WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges. Judgment This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, It is ordered and adjudged by this Court that the order of the said District Court appealed from in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed. Dated: April 17, 1958 PER CIRCUIT JUDGE WASHINGTON. Cole v. Young, 351 U. S. 536 Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277 Dupree v. United States, 247 F. 2d 819 Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657 Parker v. Lester, 227 F.2d 708 Peters v. Hobby, 349 U. S. 331 Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232 Service v. Dulles, 354 U. S. 363 Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33 Constitution of the United States, Fifth Amendment. § 2 (c) (12) (41 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) 151 (c) (12)) 10 U. S. C. (Supp. V) 2304 (a) 10 U. S. C. (Supp. V) 2306 18 U. S. C. 798 In the Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1958 No. 180 WILLIAM L. GREENE, PETITIONER v. NEIL M. MCELROY, THOMAS S. GATES, JR., and ROBERT B. ANDERSON 1 ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORari to the united STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the district court (R. 582-584, Pet. la-4a) is reported at 150 F. Supp. 958. The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. 5a-23a) is reported at 254 F.2d 944. JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals (Pet. 23a) was entered on April 17, 1958. The petition for certiorari was filed on July 16, 1958. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. 1254 (1). 1 The action has abated as to Mr. Anderson, who ceased serving as Secretary of the Navy on April 30, 1954, and as Deputy Secretary of Defense on August 4, 1955 (R. 35). QUESTION PRESENTED Whether an employee of a Government contractor has a judicially-enforceable right to access to classified contract data. STATEMENT Petitioner is the former General Manager and Vice President in charge of engineering of the Engineering and Research Corporation (ERCO), a corporation engaged in classified research under contracts with the Department of the Navy (R. 65). Each of the contracts, as well as a basic security agreement entered into by the parties on June 5, 1951 (R. 40), incorporated by reference the Department of Defense Industrial Security Manual (R. 41). The Manual in turn provided (R. 47, 57): [14. e.] The Contractor shall exclude (this does not imply the dismissal or separation of any employee) from any part of its plants, factories, or sites at which work for any military department is being performed, any person or persons whom the Secretary of the military department concerned or his duly authorized representative, in the interest of security, may designate in writing. [16.] No individual shall be permitted to have access to classified matter unless cleared by the Government or the Contractor, as the case may be, as specified in the following subparagraphs and then he will be given access to such matter only to the extent of his clearance. On December 11, 1951, the Army-Navy-Air Force Personnel Security Board notified ERCO and petitioner that their request that petitioner have access to classified information was denied and that his existing clearances were revoked (R. 73). Following appeal and hearing (R. 66), the Industrial Employment Review Board reversed this decision and granted petitioner access to classified information up to and including "secret" (R. 197). On March 27, 1953, the Secretary of Defense abolished both existing boards and directed the service Secretaries to establish regional boards (R. 198). Pending the establishment of such boards, the Secretary of Defense directed the service Secretaries to grant or deny security clearances in accordance with the criteria used by the former boards (R. 199). In accordance with this authority, Secretary of the Navy Anderson, on April 17, 1953, advised ERCO as follows (R. 2): I have reviewed the case history file on William Lewis Greene and have concluded that his continued access to Navy classified security information is inconsistent with the best interests of National security. In accordance with paragraph 4. e. of the Industrial Security Manual for Safeguarding Classified Security Information, therefore, you are requested to exclude William Lewis Greene from any part of your plants, factories or sites at which classified Navy projects are being carried out and to bar him access to all Navy classified security information. In addition, I am referring this case to the Secretary of Defense recommending that the |