Department of the Navy v. Egan
98 L. Ed. 2d 918, 484 U.S. 518, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 936 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Merit Systems Protection Board does not have statutory authority to review the substantive merits of an underlying security clearance determination when reviewing an adverse employment action taken for 'cause' under 5 U.S.C. § 7513.
Facts:
- Thomas M. Egan was hired as a civilian laborer for the U.S. Navy at the Trident Naval Refit Facility, which services nuclear-powered submarines.
- All employee positions at the facility, including Egan's, were classified as sensitive, making retention conditional upon the satisfactory completion of a security investigation.
- The Navy's Director of the Naval Civilian Personnel Command issued a letter of intent to deny Egan a security clearance.
- The proposed denial was based on Egan's prior state criminal convictions for assault and being a felon in possession of a gun, his failure to disclose two other convictions, and his statements about past drinking problems.
- Egan submitted a response explaining his past conduct and providing favorable character references from supervisors.
- After reviewing Egan's response, the Director concluded it was insufficient to mitigate the concerns and officially denied Egan's security clearance.
- Because Egan could not obtain the required clearance and no nonsensitive positions were available at the facility, the Navy terminated his employment.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of the Navy removed Thomas M. Egan from his position.
- Egan appealed the removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a quasi-judicial agency.
- An MSPB presiding official reversed the Navy's decision, holding that the Board had authority to review the merits of the security clearance denial.
- The Navy sought review from the full MSPB.
- The full MSPB reversed its presiding official, sustained the Navy's removal of Egan, and held that it lacked authority to review the merits of the security clearance denial.
- Egan, as appellant, appealed the full Board's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- A divided Court of Appeals reversed the MSPB's decision, holding that the Board did have authority to review the merits of the clearance denial.
- The Department of the Navy, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Merit Systems Protection Board have statutory authority to review the substantive merits of an underlying security clearance determination when reviewing an adverse employment action taken for 'cause' under Title 5 U.S.C. § 7513?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. The Merit Systems Protection Board does not possess the authority to review the substance of an agency's security clearance determination. The authority to grant or deny a security clearance is a sensitive and inherently discretionary judgment call committed by law to the Executive Branch, flowing from the President's constitutional power as Commander in Chief. The grant of a clearance is a predictive judgment about an individual's future reliability, which requires expertise that an outside, non-expert body like the Board lacks. Courts have traditionally shown great deference to the Executive in matters of national security. Furthermore, the Civil Service Reform Act does not expressly grant the Board such review authority, and the Board's 'preponderance of the evidence' standard is incompatible with the high standard required for granting a clearance, which is that it must be 'clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.'
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes. When the Navy chooses to fire an employee for 'cause' under 5 U.S.C. § 7513, the Merit Systems Protection Board should have the authority to review the underlying reasons for that cause, including the security clearance denial. The Civil Service Reform Act provides a separate, distinct procedure (§ 7532) for national security removals, which includes an internal agency hearing on the merits. By proceeding under § 7513 but insulating the clearance denial from review, the majority's holding creates an anomaly where an employee is deprived of any meaningful hearing on the merits of their termination—either at the agency or before the Board. This outcome is contrary to the congressional intent to provide a hearing for every discharged employee and is inconsistent with the principle from Greene v. McElroy that any denial of a full hearing in security matters must be explicitly authorized by Congress or the President.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a strong precedent of judicial and quasi-judicial deference to Executive Branch authority in national security matters. It effectively insulates the substantive reasoning behind security clearance denials from review by the Merit Systems Protection Board, limiting the Board's jurisdiction in such cases to procedural checks. The ruling reinforces the principle that security clearance determinations are a core executive function, unreviewable by outside bodies unless Congress has explicitly and unambiguously provided for such review. This significantly impacts the appeal rights of federal employees in sensitive positions who are terminated for failing to maintain a security clearance.
Unlock the full brief for Department of the Navy v. Egan