“As a rule of mandatory deference to the Executive Branch’s security clearance decisions, Egan functionally forecloses judicial review of claims within its reach.”
The Secretary of Homeland Security was entitled to merits-based dismissal of a Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim brought by a UCIS job applicant whose offer of employment was rescinded for security clearance reasons that he alleged related to his prior complaints and litigation accusing DHS of disability discrimination during previous employment with the agency, the Seventh Circuit held. Clarifying that Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), which held that security-clearance decisions are committed to the executive branch and unreviewable by the courts, imposes a nonjurisdictional limit on judicial review of claims that fall within its scope, the appeals court affirmed dismissal of the claim (Shiba v. Mullin, No. 23-2304 (7th Cir. Apr. 23, 2026)).
Prior employment with DHS. The plaintiff’s employment with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began in April 2007 when he was hired as an Immigration Information Officer and assigned to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) field office in Chicago. Two months later, he suffered an on-the-job injury that left him unable to work, so he took unpaid medical leave. By June 2010, his injury had still not resolved fully and he remained unable to work. The agency fired him.
MSPB challenge and reinstatement. He challenged the...
Pakistani actress and model Ayesha Omar has strongly denied a controversial statement falsely attributed to her on social media. In recent days, a statement circulated online claiming that the act...