Department of the Navy v. Egan
484 U.S. 518 · No. 86-1552 · 1987 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Feb 23, 1988 · argued Dec 2, 1987
First Amendment · Security risks: denial of benefits or dismissal of employees for reasons other than failure to meet loyalty oath requirements
Majority opinion: Harry Blackmun
The voteMajorityDissent
5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Reversed. Department of the Navy won.
What this ruling means
Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.
Department of the Navy was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Wikipedia has no article on this case, so there is no summary.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1987 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Harry BlackmunWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
Byron WhiteWrote a dissent
Thurgood MarshallJoined a dissent
William BrennanJoined a dissent
Did not take part: Anthony Kennedy.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Department of the NavySecretary or administrative unit of the U.S. Navy
- Respondent
- EganGovernmental employee or job applicant (United States)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 5 U.S.C. § 7511
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Feb 23, 1988DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: reversed. Department of the Navy won.
- Dec 2, 1987ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit: vacated and remanded, with a dissent.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
17 other argued cases since 1946 on security risks: denial of benefits or dismissal of employees for reasons other than failure to meet loyalty oath requirements, newest first.
- Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Maclean574 U.S. 383Jan 21, 2015 · 574 U.S. 383First Amendment7–27–2 band
- Carlucci, Frank C., Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Doe, John488 U.S. 93Dec 6, 1988 · 488 U.S. 93First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
- Webster, Director of Central Intelligence v. Doe486 U.S. 592Jun 15, 1988 · 486 U.S. 592First Amendment6–27–2 band
- Greene v. United States376 U.S. 149Feb 17, 1964 · 376 U.S. 149First Amendment7–27–2 band
- Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473, AFL-CIO, et al. v. McElroy et al.367 U.S. 886Jun 19, 1961 · 367 U.S. 886First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Flemming, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, v. Nestor363 U.S. 603Jun 20, 1960 · 363 U.S. 603First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Nelson et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al.362 U.S. 1Feb 29, 1960 · 362 U.S. 1First Amendment5–36–3 band
- Taylor v. McElroy et al.360 U.S. 709Jun 29, 1959 · 360 U.S. 709First Amendment9–0Unanimous band
- Greene v. McElroy et al.360 U.S. 474Jun 29, 1959 · 360 U.S. 474First Amendment8–18–1 band
- Vitarelli v. Seaton, Secretary of the Interior, et al.359 U.S. 535Jun 1, 1959 · 359 U.S. 535First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Lerner v. Casey et al., Constituting the New York City Transit Authority357 U.S. 468Jun 30, 1958 · 357 U.S. 468First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Beilan v. Board of Public Education, School District of Philadelphia357 U.S. 399Jun 30, 1958 · 357 U.S. 399First Amendment5–45–4 band
- Service v. Dulles et al.354 U.S. 363Jun 17, 1957 · 354 U.S. 363First Amendment8–0Unanimous band
- Peters v. Hobby et al.349 U.S. 331Jun 6, 1955 · 349 U.S. 331First Amendment7–27–2 band
- Barsky v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York347 U.S. 442Apr 26, 1954 · 347 U.S. 442First Amendment6–36–3 band
- Adler et al. v. Board of Education of the City of New York342 U.S. 485Mar 3, 1952 · 342 U.S. 485First Amendment6–36–3 band
- United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, Acting District Director of Immigration and Naturalization338 U.S. 537Jan 16, 1950 · 338 U.S. 537First Amendment4–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.