Department of the Navy v. Egan

Background

A Navy civilian worker, Thomas Egan, was hired at the Trident Naval Refit Facility in a noncritical-sensitive laborer leader job that required a security clearance. The Navy proposed to deny him a clearance after reviewing criminal records and statements about past drinking; Egan replied but the Navy denied clearance, and because no nonsensitive job was available he was removed. He appealed his removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board under the civil-service removal statute that gives employees a right to a Board hearing.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the Board may examine the substance of the agency's security-clearance decision when reviewing such a removal. The majority held that the Act does not give the Board authority to second-guess the agency’s predictive judgment about national security risks. The Court relied on the President and agencies’ constitutional and statutory responsibility to protect classified information, the two-track statutory scheme for security removals, and the mismatch between the Board’s ordinary preponderance-of-the-evidence review and the security standard required by executive guidance. It reversed the Federal Circuit and concluded the Board may not review the merits of clearance denials in this context.

Real world impact

As a result, agencies have broad discretion to deny clearances and remove employees in sensitive positions without the Board reweighing the underlying security judgment. Federal workers in sensitive jobs face limited outside review of clearance decisions, although agencies may use the separate, summary national-security removal process described in the statutes.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White (joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall) dissented, arguing that the civil-service statutes already allow hearings that protect sensitive information and that employees should be able to have the Board or an agency hear the merits of security-based removals.