Which case affirmed that the denial of national security eligibility is based on a judgment call and subject to human error?

• A. Department of the Navy v. Egan
• B. Greene v. McElroy
• C. Adam v. Laird
• D. Service v. Dulles

Answer: (A)

The idea being tested is that security-clearance decisions hinge on discretionary judgment and can be wrong because they rely on evaluating complex, sometimes confidential information. Department of the Navy v. Egan made this explicit: it showed that when the government denies a security clearance, the determination rests on professional judgments about an individual's trustworthiness and risk, and courts defer to the agency’s expertise rather than reweighing the evidence. This acknowledges that such denials aren’t precise formulas and are subject to human error. The other cases deal with related themes—broad executive power over clearances, due process in revocation, or citizenship status—but they don’t state this specific point about judgment-based, potentially fallible denials in the same way.