Taylor v. Elroy
| Decision Date | 29 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 504,504 |
| Citation | 79 S.Ct. 1428,3 L.Ed.2d 1528,360 U.S. 709 |
| Parties | Charles Allen TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. Neil McELROY, A. Tyler Port |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.
Solicitor General J. Lee Rankin, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
This is a companion case to Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 79 S.Ct. 1400, and concerns an industrial worker who was denied clearance to classified defense information and consequently discharged from his employment as a lathe operator and tool and die maker at a plant which manufactured aircraft for the Government.
Prior to 1956, petitioner had a Confidential clearance. In that year, he was denied Secret clearance and his Confidential clearance was suspended. He demanded and was accorded a hearing similar to the one afforded petitioner in Greene v. McElroy, supra. The Hearing Board concluded that petitioner's access to classified defense information was 'not clearly consistent with the interests of national security.' Later, he was afforded another hearing with similar results. Petitioner then filed an action asking for a declaration that he was entitled to a hearing at which he could confront the informants whose statements were used against him, a declaration that the denial of clearance violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment, and an injunction restraining respondents from enforcing the decision denying clearance. Respondents prevailed on a motion for summary judgment and, on December 15, 1958, we granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals before argument was had in that court because of the pendency here of Greene v. McElroy, supra. 358 U.S. 918, 79 S.Ct. 291, 3 L.Ed.2d 238.
On December 31, 1958, the Department of Defense notified all interested parties, including petitioner, his counsel, and his ex-employer, that the Secretary of Defense had determined 'that the granting of clearance to Mr. Charles Allen Taylor for access to Secret defense information is in the national interest.' On January 9, 1959, respondents filed a suggestion of mootness. We postponed consideration of that question to the hearing of the case on the merits. 359 U.S. 901, 79 S.Ct. 578, 3 L.Ed.2d 568.
At the oral argument in this case, the Solicitor General made the following representations:
1. The Secretary of Defense in determining that petitioner was eligible for clearance to obtain access to information classified 'Secret' did not intend by his reference to 'the national interest' to differentiate between petitioner's status and that of other employees whose eligibility for clearance has been found to be 'clearly consistent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v. Elroy
...as has Vitarelli, see Vitarelli v. Seaton, 1959, 359 U.S. 535, 79 S.Ct. 968, reimbursement for his loss of wages. See Taylor v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 709, 79 S.Ct. 1428. This will date back to 1953. His salary at that time was $18,000 a In holding that the Fifth Amendment protects Greene the Co......
-
Sullivan v. Murphy
...made by the Loyalty Review Board in response to a showing that the Board had acted without jurisdiction. Cf. Taylor v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 709, 79 S.Ct. 1428, 3 L.Ed.2d 1528 (1959) (cert. petition treated as moot where Government restored security clearance and voluntarily expunged findings o......
-
Lamont v. Postmaster General of United States
...prior to final judicial disposition, the controversy becomes moot and the court ceases to have jurisdiction. Taylor v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 709, 79 S.Ct. 1428, 3 L.Ed.2d 1528 (1959); Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U.S. 13, 42 S.Ct. 422, 66 L.Ed. 814 (1922). The same principle applies even whe......
-
Finley v. Hampton
...have raised questions concerning his loyalty and devotion to duty as a future Naval Officer." 18Compare Taylor v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 709, 711, 79 S.Ct. 1428, 1429, 3 L.Ed. 2d 1528 (1959): In view of the fact that petitioner has received clearance, the ultimate relief which he demanded, and i......