In the case of Webster, Director of Central Intelligence v. Doe in 1987, a former CIA employee (Doe) who was dismissed on grounds of homosexuality sued William H. Webster, then-Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Doe claimed his dismissal violated his constitutional rights to privacy and due process. The Supreme Court ruled that while federal law gave the CIA director absolute discretion to terminate employees if he deemed it necessary for national security reasons, this did not prevent judicial review under constitutional claims. However, they also held that courts should be extremely deferential when reviewing such cases due to national security concerns. Therefore, although Doe's claim could proceed through lower courts for further examination regarding its constitutionality, there would be significant limitations on how much those courts could question or challenge the CIA's decision.

In the dissenting opinion for Webster v. Doe, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was a dangerous departure from established principles of judicial review and separation of powers. He contended that Congress had explicitly given the Director of Central Intelligence broad discretion to terminate employees whenever he deemed it necessary or advisable in the interests of national security. Therefore, courts should not second-guess such decisions by subjecting them to constitutional scrutiny under due process claims. Furthermore, he asserted that allowing discharged CIA employees to sue for alleged violations would inevitably lead to public disclosure of sensitive information detrimental to national security - something Congress sought to avoid when drafting this law. Thus, according to Scalia’s view, these types of employment disputes within intelligence agencies are non-justiciable political questions beyond judicial competence and jurisdiction.