Lacson v. United States Department of Homeland Security
406 U.S. App. D.C. 402
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Lacson, a Federal Air Marshal, posted SSI-related information on Officer.com, including staffing numbers, locations, and attrition rates.
- TSA discovered posts in June 2010, Lacson admitted identity as INTHEAIRCOP but claimed many postings were false.
- TSA concluded three postings were true and thus SSI; a Final SSI Order and a removal decision followed.
- Lacson challenged the SSI Order under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, seeking judicial review in the D.C. Circuit while MSPB/Federal Circuit exclusive review of his termination remained a related issue.
- Court held § 46110 provides jurisdiction to review the SSI Order; on the merits, three posts were supported by substantial evidence, but the fourth (Post 3261) lacked sufficient evidence to prove SSI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the SSI Order under § 46110 | Lacson argued § 46110 grants review; Lacson relies on this statutory route. | TSA argued jurisdiction exists for SSI order review under § 46110; review limited by CSRA scheme. | Yes; the court has jurisdiction under § 46110 to review the SSI Order. |
| Whether the CSRA exclusivity bars Lacson’s challenge outside MSPB/Federal Circuit | Lacson claims collateral challenge to SSI policy via § 46110. | TSA contends reviewing the SSI Order does not circumvents CSRA because § 46110 is jurisdiction-specific. | CSRA exclusivity does not bar this § 46110 review; § 46110 is a jurisdictional grant tailored to this order. |
| Whether Lacson’s posts constituted SSI because they were true postings | If postings were false, they would not be SSI. | The SSI finding rests on truth of postings; false postings cannot be SSI. | Three posts supported as true SSI; the four-post (Post 3261) lacked substantial evidence of truth. |
| Whether the agency’s substantial-evidence support for three posts is valid | Bolton memo and Miami Office attestations are hearsay and insufficient. | Hearsay can be substantial evidence if reliable; TSA officials’ knowledge supports truth. | Yes for three posts; evidence from Bolton/Jeffries and Bauer sustained SSI finding. |
| Whether there is substantial evidence to support Post 3261’s SSI status | Metzler memorandum relied on to identify SSI; none shows Post 3261 was true. | Metzler relied on regulatory texts and Bolton; but Post 3261 not addressed by Bolton. | No substantial evidence; Post 3261 SSI finding set aside. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fronaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (CSRA exclusivity; district court in APA challenges not proper for personnel policies)
- Nyunt v. Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors, 589 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (APA challenges to policies cannot circumvent CSRA review)
- Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 132 S. Ct. 2126 (S. Ct. 2012) (facial constitutional challenges to removal statutes fall within CSRA review)
- Fausto v. United States, 484 U.S. 439 (S. Ct. 1988) (CSRA primacy; exclusive review scheme for personnel actions)
- Grosdidier v. Chairman, Board of Governors, 560 F.3d 495 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (CSRA framework; cautions against broad APA challenges)
- Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (systemwide challenges to agency policy grounded in CSRA)