Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean
135 S. Ct. 913
| SCOTUS | 2015Background
- Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act authorizing TSA to prohibit disclosure if detrimental to transportation security.
- TSA issued sensitive security information regulations prohibiting certain disclosures, including air marshal details.
- MacLean, a TSA air marshal, disclosed a cancellation of overnight flights and was fired for disclosing sensitive information.
- MacLean challenged under 5 U.S.C. §2302(b)(8)(A) which protects whistleblowers unless disclosure is “specifically prohibited by law.”
- The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision, prompting Supreme Court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TSA regulations count as ‘law’ for WPA purposes | MacLean | DHS argues regulations are ‘law, rule, or regulation’ and thus prohibited | No; regulations do not qualify as ‘law’ under WPA |
| Whether §114(r)(1) itself prohibits disclosure | MacLean | §114(r)(1) authorizes, not prohibits; could be a prohibition via delegation | No; statute does not itself prohibit disclosure |
| Whether the disclosure was protected by WPA notwithstanding §114(r)(1) | MacLean | Disclosures are not protected if prohibited by law | Yes; disclosure not ‘specifically prohibited by law’ |
| Policy concerns about public safety if whistleblower protections extend | Court should protect disclosure to safeguard security | Disclosures threaten security and rely on agency’s discretion | Addressed by Congress/President; not resolved by Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (U.S. (1979)) (word ‘law’ did not include all regulations unless clear intent otherwise)
- Department of Treasury, IRS v. FLRA, 494 U.S. 922 (U.S. (1990)) (distinguishes ‘law’ from ‘law, rule, or regulation’ phrasing)
- Administrator, FAA v. Robertson, 422 U.S. 255 (U.S. (1975)) (FOIA exemptions vs. antidisclosure statutes; agency discretion context)
- CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (U.S. (1985)) (deference to agency expertise; WPA applicability)
- Julian v. DOJ, 486 U.S. 1 (U.S. (1988)) (Exemption 3-like considerations in protecting information)