Topic
Every decision we've filed under National Defense & Espionage.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the Central Intelligence Agency's redaction of a security clearance investigation file. The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim because existing statutes provided adequate remedies for his grievances.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction requiring intelligence agencies to follow their own termination regulations. The court held that career officers facing reduction-in-force terminations possess a property interest in reassignment and internal appeal procedures.
The Seventh Circuit clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Department of the Navy v. Egan imposes a rule of mandatory judicial deference rather than a limit on subject-matter jurisdiction. The court affirmed the dismissal of a federal employee's retaliation claim because adjudicating it would require second-guessing the Executive Branch's security clearance decisions.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict for an employee terminated for prescription pain medication use, rejecting the employer's claim that the termination was a nonjusticiable security clearance decision. The court held that medical and physical fitness standards under 10 C.F.R. § 1046 are distinct from predictive national security judgments protected by the Supreme Court's decision in Department of Navy v. Egan.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction regarding Florida's registration and affidavit requirements for real property owners. However, the court reversed the lower court's decision on the purchase restriction, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge that specific provision.
The Second Circuit vacated a district court ruling that denied sovereign immunity to a foreign state's UN mission, holding that the employment of a non-diplomatic chauffeur for high-ranking officials may constitute a sovereign function rather than commercial activity. The appellate court found the lower court erred by shifting the burden of proof and failing to conduct a nuanced examination of the specific context surrounding the driver's duties.