In the United States v. Morton case of 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a federal employee who had been dismissed from his position due to alleged misconduct. The court held that under Section 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), judicial review was available for an individual claiming wrongful termination based on procedural errors during their dismissal process. In this particular case, Roger C.B. Morton, former Secretary of Interior, fired Douglas Costle without providing him with a detailed written notice or opportunity to respond before his removal - both requirements under Department regulations and procedures at that time. The Supreme Court found these actions violated APA's "arbitrary and capricious" standard by not adhering to established agency rules and ordered reinstatement for Costle along with back pay.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Morton, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too narrow and failed to consider its broader implications. He contended that Congress intended for federal employees to be held accountable not only for their actions but also for their inactions when they are detrimental to public interest or violate a citizen's rights. In this case, he believed that Morton should have been held liable because his failure to act resulted in harm. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view on immunity protections stating it would create an environment where government officials could neglect their duties without fear of repercussions which is contrary to public policy objectives.