determination * * *" of whether it "is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue" his security clearance.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.
2. In normal circumstances, there is a right under the First Amendment for an individual to keep private the details of his sex life, and this applies to homosexuals, professed or otherwise. Norton v. Macy, 135 U.S. App. D.C. 214, 417 F.2d 1161 (1969); Scott v. Macy, II, 131 U.S. App. D.C. 93, 402 F.2d 644 (1968); Petition for Labady, 326 F. Supp. 924 (S.D.N.Y. 1971); Morrison v. State Board of Education, 1 Cal. 3d 214, 82 Cal. Rptr. 175, 461 P. 2d 375 (1969). See Mindel v. United States Civil Service Commission, 312 F. Supp. 485 (N.D. Cal. 1970).
3. In connection with professed homosexuals, a category into which plaintiff falls, where a man has admitted that he is a homosexual and will continue to be one, there must be proof of a nexus between that condition and his ability effectively to protect classified information. Adams v. Laird, 136 U.S. App. D.C. 388, 420 F.2d 230 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1039, 90 S. Ct. 1360, 25 L. Ed. 2d 650 (1970); Norton v. Macy, supra ; Scott v. Macy, I, 121 U.S. App. D.C. 205, 349 F.2d 182 (1965); Scott v. Macy, II, supra ; McConnell v. Anderson, 316 F. Supp. 809 (D. Minn. 1970); Morrison v. State Board of Education, supra. See Clifford v. Shoultz, 413 F.2d 868, 878 n. 7 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 962, 90 S. Ct. 426, 24 L. Ed. 2d 426 (1969); Mindel v. United States Civil Service Commission, supra.
4. In the context of the circumstances of plaintiff's case, the questions asked of plaintiff are a violation of his First Amendment right to privacy and lack the necessary nexus to a determination of whether plaintiff is effectively able to safeguard classified information.
5. The suspension of plaintiff's security clearance is set aside. Defendants may continue to review plaintiff's eligibility for continuation of his security clearance in accordance with their established procedures so long as they proceed on the basis of information which excludes the type of detail they have sought to elicit from plaintiff through the questions set forth at Finding 4.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.