Term: 2014
Docket: 13-894
Dep't Of Homeland Sec. v. Maclean
- Pro
13-894 DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY V. MACLEAN DECISION BELOW: 714 F.3d 1301 CERT. GRANTED 5/19/2014 QUESTION PRESENTED: Congress has directed that the Transportation Security Administration "shall prescribe regulations prohibiting" the "disclosure of information obtained or developed" in carrying out certain transportation security functions, if the agency "decides" that "disclosing the information would * * * be detrimental" to transportation security. Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Pub. L. No. 107-71, § 101(e), 115 Stat. 603; Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L No. 107-296, Tit. XVI, § 1601(b), 116 Stat. 2312. Such information is referred to in the regulations as "Sensitive Security Information." See, e.g., 67 Fed. Reg. 8351 (Feb. 22, 2002). The question presented is whether certain statutory protections codified at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A), which are inapplicable when an employee makes a disclosure "specifically prohibited by law," can bar an agency from taking an enforcement action against an employee who intentionally discloses Sensitive Security Information. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2011-3231
The U.S. Supreme Court case Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean revolved around Robert J. MacLean, a former federal air marshal who was fired after revealing to the media that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had decided to cut costs by reducing security on overnight flights despite heightened warnings about potential hijackings. The issue at hand was whether or not this disclosure was protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), which shields employees if they disclose information that they reasonably believe evidences wrongdoing, but does not apply if such disclosures are specifically prohibited by law. MacLean argued his actions were justified as he believed there existed a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety due to TSA's decision. However, DHS maintained that his disclosure violated regulations prohibiting release of sensitive security information. In 2014, in an opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of MacLean stating that while agency rules like those invoked against him could influence interpretation of laws passed later; it cannot retroactively dictate how earlier statutes like WPA should be read unless explicitly incorporated into them.
In the dissenting opinion for the Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean case, Justice Sotomayor argued that Robert MacLean's disclosure of sensitive security information was not protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). She contended that Congress did not intend to allow federal employees to disclose such information without authorization under any circumstances. According to her interpretation, WPA protections should only apply when an employee discloses illegal conduct or gross mismanagement and does so in accordance with proper procedures. In this case, she believed that MacLean had other avenues available for reporting his concerns about aviation safety within his agency before resorting to a public leak. By interpreting the WPA as broadly protecting unauthorized disclosures like MacLean’s, she feared it would undermine national security and disrupt government operations.
