Many space and defense jobs require a federal security clearance. If the government denies, delays, or revokes a clearance, an employee may be unable to continue in that role; the employer may reassign or terminate the employee. If the cleared individual is an officer of the company, revocation could jeopardize the company’s eligibility to perform cleared work. A subsequent employment claim may allege discrimination or retaliation in the clearance process or in the employer’s response. The key question is whether a court can resolve the claim without second-guessing the government’s security judgment.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), limited administrative and judicial review of executive branch security judgments. But the rule does not create blanket immunity. Later cases show that the rule depends on the nature of the decision being challenged — and on whether resolving a claim would require a tribunal to second-guess the government’s assessment of security risk. That distinction affects how courts evaluate employment claims framed as discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in the commercial space and defense sectors, where many workers hold federal security clearances.
In Egan, the Supreme Court considered whether the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which has authority to review certain adverse personnel actions against federal employees, could review the Navy’s...
Early voting in the U.S. midterm elections is underway. Voters are deciding which party will control Congress, as well as numerous state legislatures and governors' offices. Snopes' fact-checker...