Ronnie Foote v. Ernest Moniz, 751 F.3d 656

Foote was denied certification under the Department of Energy's Human Reliability Program (HRP).
Foote alleged the denial relied on a psychologist, Dr. Seagrave, who supposedly recommended against certification due to Foote's race.
Foote sued under Title VII; the district court dismissed, citing Egan v. Navy as a bar to review.
The court analyzes whether Egan bars review of HRP certification decisions and whether Seagrave was an authorized official to judge Foote's suitability.
The HRP aims to protect national security by evaluating applicants with access to nuclear materials or facilities; certification requires multiple verifications, including a psychological evaluation.
The court ultimately holds that HRP certification decisions are insulated from review under Egan, and Seagrave was within the authorized category to make the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HRP certification denial is reviewable under Egan.	Foote argues Egan does not bar review.	DOE argues Egan precludes review absent statutory provision.	Unreviewable under Egan.
Whether Dr. Seagrave was authorized to judge Foote’s HRP suitability.	Foote contends Seagrave lacked proper authorization.	Seagrave is an authorized Designated Psychologist under HRP.	Seagrave authorized; judgment insulated from review.

Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1988) (national security interests shield certain agency judgments from review)
United States Information Agency v. Krc, 905 F.2d 389 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (predictive judgments about sensitive information not reviewable)
Ryan v. Reno, 168 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same rationale as Egan for security-clearance decisions)
Bennett v. Chertoff, 425 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (ethical and security-related employment decisions not reviewable)
Rattigan v. Holder, 643 F.3d 975 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (security-clearance judgments by trained officials shielded from review)