Page images
PDF
EPUB

cracy," The Evening Star, April 8, 1947, p. B-3. Greene's recollection of the meeting (R. 92) is in substantial agreement with the report in the Evening Star. This newspaper reports that Mr. Justices Black and Douglas were in attendance.

V. The finding that Greene is of doubtful credibility. (R. 24). THIS CHARGE IS REFUTED BY THE FOLLOWING FACTS

A. The board at the first hearing accepted Greene's testimony, and the board at the second hearing, which purports to doubt his credibility, believed his uncorroborated testimony as to Hess, Syrzentic, Owen Lattimore, Ed Fruchtman, and Virginia Gardner.

B. No mention of this charge was made until March 12, 1956, a year and a half after the institution of this suit, and the charge is then made in a document prepared by respondent's subordinates for an obviously self-serving purpose.

C. Greene's testimony was corroborated with respect to important issues by the testimony of disinterested witnesses and by documentary evidence.

D. Greene's testimony was stated to have been in accord with that of the alleged informants. (e.g., R. 422, 425).

BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS

INDEX

Opinions below

Jurisdiction

Questions presented

Statutes and regulations involved

Statement.

1. Factual background
2. Proceedings below

Summary of argument
Argument

I. The regulations establishing the industrial se-
curity program are based on the executive
power of the President and do not violate any
statutory restrictions

II. The interest of a private person in having access
to classified defense information in order to be
able to work on classified government contracts
is not "liberty" or "property" entitled to pro-
cedural due process protections

A. Access to classified defense information is
a permissive use of property afforded
by the Government solely for its own
convenience and no analogous interest
has been recognized as legally pro-
tected

B. Control over military secrets is an exec-
utive function which has never been,
and should not be, subjected to judi-
cial review

C. The interest in reputation injured by
denial of a security clearance is not
independently entitled to constitu-
tional protection

III. Assuming that petitioner's interest in access to
classified defense information was constitu-
tionally protected, the procedures provided in
this case satisfied the requirements of due

process

[blocks in formation]

Adams v. Nagle, 303 U.S. 532

Bailey v. Richardson, 182 F. 2d 46, affirmed by an equally-divided Court, 341 U.S. 918

Berlan v. Board of Education, 357 U.S. 399

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497

Brooks v. Dewar, 313 U.S. 354

Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524

Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. Waterman Corp., 333
U.S. 103

Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277

Dayton v. Dulles, 254 F. 2d 71, reversed, 357 U.S. 144
Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497

Dupree v. United States, 247 F. 2d 819

Dupree v. United States, 141 F. Supp. 773

Eberlein v. United States, 257 U.S. 82

Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490

FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134
Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co., 331 U.S.

111

Gaines v. Thompson, 7 Wall. 347

Garland, Ex parte, 4 Wall. 333

Golding v. United States, 78 C. Cls. 682, certiorari

denied, 292 U.S. 643

Gonzales v. United States, 348 U.S. 407

Hall v. Payne, 254 U.S. 343

Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U.S. 579

Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345

Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341

U.S. 123

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116

Kent v. United States, 105 C. Cls. 280

Lerner v. Casey, 357 U.S. 468

Lester v. Parker, 235 F. 2d 787

Liversidge v. Anderson, [1942] A.C. 206

Cases Continued

Litchfield v. The Register and Receiver, 9 Wall 575
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. May, 194 U.S. 267
Moog Industries v. Federal Trade Comm'n., 238 F. 2d
43

Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1

National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay, 304 U.S. 333

National Lawyers Guild v. Brownell, 225 F. 2d 552, certiorari denied, 351 U.S. 927

Panama Canal Co. v. Grace Line, Inc., 356 U.S.
309

Parker v. Lester, 227 F. 2d 708, reversing 112 F.
Supp. 443

Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113

Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331

Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53

Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232

Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206
Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U.S. 551.

Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105

Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33

United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1
United States v. Gray, 207 F. 2d 237
United States v. Nugent, 346 U.S. 1

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1

United States ex rel. Chicago Gt. Western R.K. Co. v.
I.C.C., 294 U.S. 50

United States ex rel. Girard Co. v. Helvering, 301 U.S.
540

United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537

Von Knorr v. Miles, 60 F. Supp. 962, judgment vacated sub nom. Von Knorr v. Griswold, 156 F. 2d 287

Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183

Wilbur v. United States, 281 U.S. 206
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241
Work v. Rives, 267 U.S. 175

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356

Constitution and Statutes:

U.S. Constitution:

Fifth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment

Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947, 62 Stat. 21, 41 U.S.C. 151 et seq. (1952 ed.):

41 U.S.C. 151 (c) (later recodified as 10 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 2304(a))

41 U.S.C. 153 (later recodified as 10 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 2306)

Internal Security Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987, as amended, 50 U.S.C. 781 et seq.:

50 U.S.C. 783(b)

National Security Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 495, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 171, et seq

5 U.S.C. 171a (b)

5 U.S.C. 411

5 U.S.C. 412

5 U.S.C. 22, as amended by 72 Stat. 547

18 U.S.C. 798

28 U.S.C. 2680 (h)

Miscellaneous:

Association of the Bar of the City of New York,
The Federal Loyalty-Security Program

Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, dated Feb-
ruary 2, 1955

Department of Defense Industrial Security Manual for
Safeguarding Classified Matter, January 18, 1951:
Par. 4a
Par, 40

Par. 6

Dominion of Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1951, Vol. II, 2d Sess

Executive Order 10290, 16 Fed. Reg. 9795 (Sept. 24, 1951)

Par. 30(b)

Executive Order 10501, 18 Fed. Reg. 7049 (Nov. 5, 1953)

Par. 7(b)

21 Fed. Reg. 2814

Hearings before the Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on Department of Justice Appropriation Bill for 1949, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. 245-47..

« PreviousContinue »