Michael Schlesinger v. Melvin Laird. No. A-603

Background

A lieutenant in the Army Reserve was examined at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center by three specialist doctors who found a disabling foot problem, a disqualifying allergic condition, and a psychiatric condition that might make him unfit. The Surgeon General, using Army Regulation 40-501, reviewed those exams and concluded the officer was fit for active duty, supporting that view in a letter to Senator Percy. The officer sued, the District Court granted summary judgment for the Government, and the Seventh Circuit refused to stay his order to report for training while his appeal continued. He sought a stay from this Court, which denied the request.

Reasoning

The immediate question was whether the order sending the reservist to active training could be paused while his challenge to the Surgeon General’s decision proceeded. The Court denied the stay without a reported majority opinion here. In a written dissent, one Justice said the record did not show the reasons for the Surgeon General’s decision, leaving courts unable to review whether the decision was reasonable. That Justice relied on the idea that agencies must disclose their grounds so courts can perform meaningful review.

Real world impact

The denial lets the Army’s order stand and requires the officer to report while his appeals continue; the opinion does not resolve the underlying medical-discharge dispute on the merits. The case highlights how military medical decisions can impose significant limits on personal freedom and how lack of disclosed reasons can make judicial review difficult. This stay decision is procedural, not a final ruling on the officer’s entitlement to a medical discharge.

Dissents or concurrances

The dissent argued the Surgeon General failed to provide a disclosed basis for overriding examiners and would have granted the stay on procedural due process grounds.