Gebert v. Department of State, Civil Action No. 2022-2939

Matthew Gebert, a State Department employee, had his security clearance revoked and was suspended without pay after a news article linked him to white nationalist groups.
As part of his job, Gebert was required to maintain a Top Secret security clearance; a reinvestigation involved interview questions concerning potentially embarrassing associations.
After the revocation and loss of benefits, Gebert filed a FOIA request for related government records; unsatisfied with the response, he filed suit alleging constitutional, APA, FOIA, and Privacy Act violations.
The district court previously dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim; Gebert sought leave to file an amended complaint with additional claims.
The amended complaint included issues relating to both the revocation of clearance and the constitutionality of the interview process/questions, plus new Privacy Act and FOIA claims.
The court analyzed whether the amended claims were justiciable and would survive a motion to dismiss, applying recent D.C. Circuit precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial review of security clearance revocation	Revocation violated constitutional rights (First, Fifth Amendments, etc.)	Such decisions are non-justiciable; no standards for review	Court cannot review executive clearance revocations
Constitutionality of security interview questions	Interview questions were overbroad, vague, unconstitutional	Not directly relevant to revocation decision	Allowed claims challenging process, not outcome
APA claim for loss of health insurance	Removal of benefits flawed; seeks damages	Money damages not allowed, no prospective relief	Insufficient basis for APA claim; amendment denied
FOIA/Privacy Act (records-related) claims	Constructive exhaustion; agency failed to fully respond	No exhaustion of administrative remedies	Dismissed—failure to exhaust required appeals
Non-access Privacy Act claims	Department acted intentionally/willfully in violations	No plausible facts of intentional or willful violation	No sufficient allegation of intentional/willful conduct

Doe v. McMillan, 566 F.2d 713 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (discretion to grant or deny leave to amend lies with trial court)
Barkley v. United States Marshals Serv., 766 F.3d 25 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (standards for denying leave to amend complaints)
Caribbean Broad. Sys. v. Cable & Wireless PLC, 148 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (reviewing claims under 12(b)(6) dismissal standard)
Nat’l Fed’n of Fed. Emps. v. Greenberg, 983 F.2d 286 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (distinguishing challenge to process versus clearance decision)
Oglesby v. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (FOIA exhaustion requirements)
Hill v. Air Force, 795 F.2d 1067 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Privacy Act exhaustion requirement)
Dettmann v. DOJ, 802 F.2d 1472 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (constructive exhaustion standards for FOIA)