Greene v. United States
Headline: Engineer stripped of security clearance can recover lost pay under a 1955 Defense Department rule; Court blocks retroactive use of 1960 rule and rejects requirement to pursue new administrative review.
Holding: This field is not part of the required schema and should not appear.
- Allows cleared contractor employees to seek pay for job loss under older DoD rules.
- Prevents applying the 1960 regulation retroactively to bar earlier claims.
- Reduces the need for new agency review when claim arose under prior rules.
Summary
Background
An aeronautical engineer and former vice president at a private defense contractor lost his security clearance in 1953 and was fired. After years of litigation, this Court in 1959 held the clearance revocation was not validly authorized because he had been denied basic procedural safeguards. A District Court then expunged the adverse security determinations. The engineer took lower-paid work and sought monetary restitution under a 1955 Department of Defense regulation that promised compensation when there was a final favorable determination.
Reasoning
The Government refused payment and pointed to a new 1960 Defense regulation that imposed additional conditions, including a current administrative finding that the person "would be" eligible for clearance. The Court held the 1960 rule could not be applied retroactively to defeat a claim that matured under the 1955 rule. The earlier Supreme Court decision and the District Court order qualified as the required final, favorable determination under the 1955 regulation. Because the 1960 rule materially altered recovery conditions and the claimant did not seek current clearance, the Court found further administrative proceedings under the new rule inappropriate and unnecessary.
Real world impact
The decision lets employees who lost jobs because of improperly revoked clearances pursue compensation under the regulation in force when their claim arose, without being forced into a new administrative process under later rules. The case was sent back to the Court of Claims to calculate the amount of restitution owed to the engineer.
Dissents or concurrances
A dissent argued the Court should have sent the matter back to the Defense Department for administrative processing and that the 1955 regulation’s meaning was not clear enough to short-circuit agency review.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?