2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
1-11-2010 

# Ab del M onie m Ali El-G an a

yni v . U S D ep ar tme nt of E ne rgy P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4745

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Abde l M onie m Al i El -G an a yni v . U S D ep ar tme nt of E ne rgy " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1969. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1969

### PRECEDENTI AL UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HETH IRD CIRC UI T
N o. 08- 4745

____ ____ ____ _ ABDEL MONIEM ALI EL-GANAYN I, Appe llant
v. U N IT E D S T A T E S D E PART MEN TO F EN E RGY ; JE FF REYF
. K

UPF E R, A ct ingD ep uty

S ec re tary

of D ep ar tment of E ne rgy

On Appeal from

the United State s District Court for the W estern D istrict of Pennsylvania D istri ct Co urt N o. 2- 08- cv -0 0881 D i s tri c tJu d g e : Th e Ho n o r a b l e Te rr e n c e F
. M c V e rry
Argue d O ct obe r 28, 200 9 Befo re: SMITH, FIS HER, andSTAPLETON,

Circuit Judges2 

### (F ile d: J anuary

11, 201 0) G eo rg e E
. Mc Grann Pa ul H
. T itu s K ei th E
. Whit son (argue d) Sc hna de r H ar

ri son Se ga l & L ew is 120 Fi fth Ave nue 2700 Fifth Avenue Place Pi tts burgh, P A152 22 W itoldJ. W alczak Am eric anCi vilL ibe rt ie s Unio n 313 Atwood Street Pi tts burgh, P A152 13 Co unse l f or A ppe lla nt T homas M. Bo ndy Be th S
. Brinkmann ( argue d) United States D epartment of Justice Ci vilD ivi sio n Ro om 753 5 9 5 0 Pe nn s ylv an i a Av enu e, N.W. W as hin gto n, D C 2 0530 Marcia Sowle s United States D epartment of Justice Ci vilD ivi sio n P. O
. Bo x 88 3 Be n F rankl in S tatio n3 

### W as hin gto n, D C 2 0044 Counsel fo r Appellee

OPINION
SMI TH, Circuit Judge.
D r . A bdel M oni em A l i E l

- G anayni w as fi r ed fr om hi s j ob atB et t i s L abor at or yaft erthe D ep ar t m entof Ener gy( “D O E ”) r evoked hi s s ecur i t y cl ear ance . E l

- G anayni s ued the D O E and i t s A ct i ng D eputySecr et aryJ eff r eyK upfer , cl ai m i ng t hatt he r evoca t i on of hi s cl ear ance vi ol at ed the U ni t ed St at es C o n sti tuti o n an d the A d m inistrati v e P roc ed u re A ct (“A P A ”). T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m isse d al l of hi s cl ai m s . E l

- G anayni appea l s . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatE l -G an ay ni ’ s compl ai nt f a iled to sta te a c laim u p o n w h ich re lief m a yb e g ra n ted , w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt
. I. T h e f o llo w in g s ta te m e n ts o f f a c t ar e d ra w n f

ro m E lG a n a yn i’s c o m p la in t. B e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt d e c id e d th is cas e on a mot i on t o di s m i s s , the al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt
“ m u s t b e a c c e p te d a s tru e f o r p u rp o s e s o f t h i s a p p e a l.” N at i onw i de Li

f e I ns . C o. v. C om m onw eal th Land Ti t l e I ns . C o. ,4 5 7 9 F .3 d 3 0 4 , 3 0 6 n .1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). E l

- G anayni i s a nat i ve- bor n E g yp ti an. H e ca m e t o t he U n ite d S ta te s in 1 9 8 0 a n d s e ttle d in P itts b u rg h , P e n n s y lv a n ia
. H e h o lds a M ast er’ s deg ree i n at om i c ph y si cs and a P h. D . in n u clea r p h y sics. In 19 8 8 , h e be ca m e a U n it ed S tat es cit izen
. In 1 9 9 0 , h e w a s h ire d a s a p h y sic ist a t B e tti s L a b o ra to ry , a f a c ili ty oper at ed under contr act w i t h t he D O E
. B et t i s w as and r emai ns d e d ic a te d s o le ly to th e N a v a l N u c le a r P ro p u ls io n P ro g ra m , a j oi ntN avy - D O E pr ogr am re s pons i bl e fort he des i gn, cons t ruct i on, oper at i on, and mai nt enanc e of nuc l ear - pow er ed w ar s hi ps . E l

- G anayni ’ s j ob r equi r ed a s ecur i t ycl ear ance , and h e re c e iv e d o n e in M a yo f 1 9 9 0 . T h a t cle a ra n c e w a s s u b jec t to atl eas tfi ve re - eval uat i ons betw een 1990 and 2007, and on ea ch occa s i on E l

- G anayni r et ai ned hi s cl ear ance . H e neve rr ece i ved a nega t i ve per form ance eval u ati o n and w as neveracc us ed of m is c o n d u c t. E l

- G anayni i s M us l i m , and out s i de of w or k he w as act i ve i n var i ous caus es r el at ed t o hi s fai t h. H e hel ped t o es t abl i s h one of Pi t t s bur gh’ s fi r s t m o s ques , t he I s l ami c C ent erof Pi t t s bur gh ( t h e “ I s l a mi c Ce n t e r ” ) , a n d s e r v e d i n i t s l e a d e r s h i p . He r egul ar l ys pok e at s ervi ces t her e and a tot herPi t t s bur gh- ar ea m o s q u e s . A c c o r d i n g t o El

- Gan a yn i , g o v e r n me n ts c ru t i n yof P it ts bur gh- ar ea M us l i m s i ncr eas ed af t ert he att acks of Sept ember11, 2001. O n J une 30, 2006, t he FB I r ai ded theE id a l- F itris a f e a s t ce le b ra tin g th e e n d o f R a m a d a n . 1 5 L ig h t o f A g e M o sq u e , a m o sq u e lo c a ted o n P itt sb u rg h ’s N o rth S i d e , d u r i n g a s o l e mn p r a y e rs e r v i c e k n o wn a s J u ma ’ h
. T wo w eeks l at er, E l

- G anayni gave a s peec h att he I s l ami c C ent er c r i t i c i z i n g t h e F B I a n d c o n d e m n i n g t h e r a i d
. Du r i n g t h e s a me s p e e c h , h e s t r o n g l yc r i t i c i z e d Un i t e d S t a t e s f o r e i g n p o l i c y . He w a s e s p e c ia lly c ri tic a l o f A m e ri c a n in v o lv e m e n t in Ir a q . T hen, i n J une orJ ul yof 2007, E l

- G anayni gave a s peec h ata mosque t o pr om ot e pr i s on out r eac h. W hi l e ther e, he found FB I br ochur es rec ruit i ng M us l i m i nform ant s . H e t ol d t he congr egat i on t hatt he FB I ’ s r ecrui t m enteff or t s w er e i m pr oper beca us e t he m os que w as a hous e of w or s hi p. H e ar gued thatt he FB I had bec om e a pol i t i cal or gani zat i on, nota l aw enfor cement a g e n c y . H e to ld c o n g re g a n ts th a t th e ysh o u ld re p o rt c rim e s if th e yk n e w o f a n y , b u t th a t th e ysh o u ld n o t se rv e a s in f o rm a n ts forthe FB I unt i l i ts t opped ac t i ng l i ke a pol i t i cal or g an iz at i on. A r o u n d t he s ame t i m e, E l

- G anayni began s ervi ng as an I m am for the Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C or r ect i ons att he S t a t e Co r r e c t i o n a l I n s t i tu t i o n a tF o r e s t( “ S CI
- F o r e s t ” )
. He r eques t ed t o s peak w i t h t he s uper i nt endentt her e aboutt he t r eatm entof M us l i m pr i s oner s , but t he super i nt endentdecl i ned t o m eetw i t h hi m . I n J ul y of 2007, he s oughtt o r ai s e moneyfor E i d al

- Fi t rcer emoni es atSC I
- For es t forM us l i m pr i s oner s w ho w er e unabl e t o pay their shar e of the cos t s t hemsel ves . T he 1 su p e rin ten d e n t re f

u se d to a c c e p t an ym o n e yra ise d b yE l-6 G anayni
. Shor t l yt her eaf t er , E l

- G anayni l earned thatpr i s on offi ci al s w er e ups et w i t h hi m fordi s t r i but i ng t o pr i s oner s a book about I s l am t i t l ed The Mi r acl e i n the Ant
. T he book cont ai ned a passage ab ou ta def

ens e m e c han i sm fou nd i n cert ai n an t s, w hi ch al l ow s t hem t o bur s topen thei rbodyw all and s pr ay d e a d ly se c re tio n s u p o n a tta c k e rs . A p p rox im atelya w ee k af ter l ea rn ing o f th e d ispleasu re at S C I-Fo rest ov er The Mi r acl e i n the Ant , E l

- G anayni dr ove a M usl i m i nm at e’s fam i l y fou r ho urs t o a differ ent s t at e pri son so t h at th e inm at e and he rfami l ycoul d vi s i t
. T he fa m i l yhad an a p p o i n t m e n t , b u t E l

- G a n a yn i a n d t h e f a m i l y w e r e d e n i e d e n t r y. E l-G a n a yn i co m p lain e d a n d a sk e d to sp e a k w ith th e d e p u ty w a rd e n a n d th e su p e rin ten d e n t. B o th re q u e sts w e re d e n ied . E lG a n a yn i su b m itt e d a w ritten c o m p lain t o v e r th e in c id e n t. S e v e ra l d a y s la ter , h e re c e iv e d a p h o n e c a ll statin g th a t h is c o n tr a c t w ith S C I- F o re s t w a s b e in g te rm in a te d
. O n O ct ober24, 2007, E l

- G anayni w as ca l l ed i nt o a m eet i ng w i t h t he B et t i s L abor at or ySecur i t yM anage r . A not her per s on, uni dent i fi ed, w as pr es ent
. A tt he meet i ng, E l

- G anayni w as ques t i oned ext ens i vel y . H e w as as ked w hethe r he s uppor t ed k i l l i ng A m er i cans , w hetherhe s uppor t ed s ui ci de b o m b ing s, an d w h ethe r The Mira c le in th e A n t coul d be con strued as enco uragi ng sui ci de b om bings. H e w a s als o q u e stio n e d a b o u t h is c o n ta c ts w ith o th e r M u slim s, h is i nter act i on s w i th the Pen nsy l van i a D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s, h is s p e e c h e s a t m o sq u e s, a n d h is p ra c tice o f se n d in g m o n e yto7 a fa m i l yi n Y emen. A tt he end of t he m eet i ng, E l

- G anayni w as t ol d t h a th i s s e c u r i t yc l e a r a n c e was s u s p e n d e d p e n di ng
“ re s o lu tio n o f

is s u e s .” H e w a s e s c o rt e d f ro m th e b u ild in g . Sever al w eeks l at er , E l

- G anayni agr eed t o an i nt ervi ew wi t h t h e F BI
. F BI a g e n t s i n f o r me d E l

- Ga n a yn i t h a tt h e DOE h a d a sk e d th e F B I to d e ter m in e w h e th e r h e sh o u ld c o n ti n u e to hol d h i s s ecur i t ycl ear ance . T he age nt s as ked hi m ques t i ons sim ilar to th o se p o se d b yth e B e tti s L a b o ra to ryS e c u rity M anager. H e w as al s o as ked abouthi s vi ew s on t he K or an; w h e th e r h e e v e r w a tch e d tele v isio n o r In ter n e t n e w s b ro a d c a sts dep i ct i ng t he d eat hs of A m eri cans i n Ira q ; w hetherhe w as a m e m b e r o f

H a m a s o r a l-Q a e d a , o r w h e th e r h e k n e w a n y o n e in t hos e or gani zat i ons ; and w hetherhe bel i eved an Ir aqi w oul d be a mar t yri f he ki l l ed an A m er i can i n a s ui ci de bombi ng. A tt he en d o f th e m ee ti n g , th e F B I ad v ised E l- G an ay n i th at m o re m ee ti n g s m igh t be n ec essa ry , b u t no m o re interv ie w s w ere s c h e d u le d
. I n D ece m berof 2007, E l

- G anayni r ece i ved a l et t erfr om a D O E o f

f i c i a l i n f o r m i n g h i m t h a t h e w a s s u s p e n d e d w i t h p a y. T he l et t ers t at ed that“r epor t ed i nform at i on” ca s t“s ubs t ant i al doubt ” on hi s cont i nued el i gi bi l i t yfora s ecur i t ycl ear ance . T he l et t erfur t hers t at ed thatt he D O E pos s es s ed i nform at i on in d ica tin g th a t E l-G a n a yn i’s c o n tin u e d p o ss e ss io n o f a se c u rity cl ear ance coul d endange rnat i onal s ecur i t y . O n D ece m ber12, 2007, E l

- G anayni w as pl ace d on r educed p ay for the l ength of h is s u s p e n s io n .8 I n J anuar yof 2008, E l

- G anayni r ece i ved a l et t er e x p lain in g th e re a so n s f o r th e su sp e n sio n o f

h is s e c u rity cl ear ance . T he l et t ers t at ed: R el i ab le i nform at i on i n t he pos s es s i on of the D epart m entof Ener gyi ndi cat es t haty ou have k n o w in g lye s ta b lish e d o r c o n tin u e d sy m p a th e tic asso ciati o n w ith a sab o teur, sp y , terrori st, tr ait o r, s edi t i oni s t , anar chi s t , orr evol ut i oni s t , es pi onage agen t , or represent at i ve of a forei gn nati on w ho se in ter e sts a re in im ica l to th e U n ited S tate s, its t err i t or i es orpos s es s i ons , orw i t h anyper s on a dv ocati ng t he use of force or viol en c e to over t hr ow t he G overnm entof the U ni t ed St at es or any s t at e o r subdi vi s i on t her eof by u n c o n s titu tio n a l m e a n s . It f u rth e r sta ted th a t: R el i a b l e i n f

o r ma t i o n i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f t he D epart m entof Ener gyi ndi cat es t haty ou have e n g a g e d in u n u su a l co n d u c t o r a re su b jec t to ci r cumst ance s w hi ch t end t o s how t haty ou ar e not hones t , r el i abl e, ort rus t w o r t hy ; orw hi ch furni s hes r eas on t o bel i eve thaty ou m aybe s ubj ectt o pr es s u r e, coer ci on, expl oi t at i on, or dur es s w hi ch may caus e y ou t o actcontr aryt o t he b e s ti n t e r e s t s o f n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y. S p e c i f i c a l l y,9 t he ci r cumst ance s orconducti nvol ve conf l i ct i ng a lle g ia n c e s . T h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s s i mp l yt r a c k e d t h e l a n g u a g e o f DOE re g u la tio n s , s ee 1 0 C .F .R . § 7 1 0 .8 (b ), ( l) , and di d notincl ude anydet ai l s aboutt he “r el i abl e i n fo r m at i on” pos s es s ed byt he D O E
. T he l et t eral s o expl ai ned ce r t ai n pr ocedur es t hr ough wh i c h El

- Ga n a yn i c o u l d c h a l l e n g e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s th i m. T hos e pr ocedur es i ncl uded a he ar i ng befor e a D O E H ear i ng O ffi cer ; t he r i g h t to subm i tw r i t t en ans w er s t o t he al l egat i ons agai ns thi m ; t he r i ght t o pr es ent evi dence on hi s behal f; and the r i g h tt o b e p r e s e n ta n d t o b e r e p r e s e n t e d b yc o u n s e l a th i s o wn e x p e n s e . E l

- G anayni acc ept ed t he D O E ’ s offe rt o chal l enge the al l egat i ons i n the J anuaryl et t er , and t o t hatend he r eques t ed a h e a r i n g . Aft e ra n i n i t i a l s t a tu s c o n f e r e n c e , h o we v e r , t h e DOE ter m in a ted th e p ro c e e d in g s. O n M a y 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , A c tin g D e p u ty S e c re tar y o f E n e rg y K u p f e r no tifie d E l-G a n a yn i th a t h is s e c u rity cl ear ance w as r evoked ( t h e “K upferC er t i fi cat i on”)
. K upfer cert i fi ed under E xecut i ve O r der12968 t hatt he us ual pr ocedur es avai l abl e i n s ecur i t y cl ear ance r evoca t i on pr ocee di ngs coul d not “be made ava i l abl e [ to E l- G anayni ]
. . . w i t houtdamagi ng t he i nt er es t s of nat i onal secur i t ybyr evea l i ng cl as s i fi ed i nform at i on. ” K upfer s t at ed t hat t hi s det erm i nat i on w as
“ c o n c lu siv e .” H e d id n o t d e sc rib e th e sp e c if ic n a tio n a l se c u rityT h e B o d m a n C e rtific a tio n w a s is su e d a f ter th is la w su it 2 b eg an , to o b v iat e a lega l d ispu te th at aro se in the D istri ct C o u rt as to w h ethe r K u p fe r ha d au tho ri tyto rev o k e E l- G an ay n i’ s s e c u ri ty cl e a ra n c e . 10 co n ce rns th at m o ti v ated the d ec isi o n to rev o k e E l- G an ay n i’ s cl ear ance w i t houta hea r i ng. L at er , t he K upferC er t i fi cat i on w as s uper s eded bya s i m i l ar ce rt ifi cat i on bySecr et aryof Ener gy S am u el W
. B o d m an (th e “ B o d m an C erti fica ti o n ”). 2 L acki ng a s ecu ri ty cl ear ance , E l

- G anayni l os thi s j ob at B e ttis L a b o ra to ry o n M a y2 2 , 2 0 0 8
. II
. O n J une 26, 2008, E l- G an ay n i fi l ed thi s l aw s ui ti n the U ni t ed St at es D is t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. H i s t hr ee- count compl ai ntnamed K upferand the D O E as defe ndant s . I n C o untI , E l

- G anayni al l eged thatt he defe ndant s vi ol at ed hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s t o fr ee s peec h a n d f r e e e x e r c i s e o f

r e l i g i o n . He c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e DOE r evoked hi s cl ear ance i n r et al i at i on for t he s peec hes h e g ave c riticiz in g th e F B I, U n ited S tate s fo re ig n p o licy , a n d th e w a r in I r aq. I n C ount I I , he al l eged t hat t he D O E and K upfervi ol at ed hi s Fi fth A m endmentr i ght t o equal pr ot ect i on bydi s cr i m i nat i ng agai nst h im o n t he bas i s of hi s r el i gi on and nat i onal or i gi n. A c c o rd in g to E l-G a n a yn i, th e D O E in v o k e d n a tio n a l se c u rity s ol el yt o m as k i t s r eal r eas ons forr evoki ng hi s clea ran ce, and11 t hatt he r eal r eas ons w ere reta l i at or y , di s cr i m i nat or y , and unco n s t i tut i onal
. I n C ountI I I , E l

- G anayni al l eged thatt he d e f e n d a n ts v io late d th e A P A a n d h is F if th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss b yf

a ili n g to f o llo w D O E re g u latio n s in re v o k in g h is clea ran ce . H e s o u g h t a de clarati o n that d ef en d an ts’ ac ti o n s w ere u n c o n stitu tio n a l a n d a n o rd e r re q u irin g th e D O E to p ro v id e h im wi t h a h e a r i n g a n d o t h e rp r o c e d u r e s p r o v i d e d b yDOE re g u latio n s. S ig n if

ic a n tly , h e c laim e d th a t h e d id n o t se e k to o v e rtu rn th e se c u rityre v o c a tio n d e c isio n . H e o n lyso u g h t a hear i ng and the oppor tuni t yt o cont es tt he r evoc ati on befor e a n e u tr a l a rb ite r. T he gove rnm entm oved t o di s m i s s C ount s I and I I for lack o f ju ri sd ict ion u n d er D epar tm ent of the N avy v. Egan , 484 U
. S
. 5 1 8 (19 8 8 ), an d C o u n t I II fo r fa il u re to state a c lai m . It a rg u e d th a t th e E x e c u tiv e B ra n c h ’s r e v o c a tio n o f a se c u rity c lea ra n c e is n o t su b

jec t to ju d icia l re v iew a n d th a t, i n a n ye v e n t, E l

- Ga n a yn i ’ s c l e a r a n c e wa s r e v o k e d i n c o mp l i a n c e wi t h DOE reg u lat ion s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n clud ed that C o u n ts I an d II re q u ire d e x a m in a tio n o f th e m e rits o f

th e D O E ’s d e c isio n to r evoke hi s cl ear ance , and ther efor e di s m i s sed thos e cl ai m s for l ack of j ur i s di ct i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o concl uded thatt he D O E fol l ow ed i t s ow n r egul at i ons and di s m i s s ed C ountI I I for f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im . E l- G a n a yn i a p p e a le d
. Th e Di s t r i c t Co u r t e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1331. J ur i s di ct i on i n t hi s cour t ar i s es under 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der“The M er i tSy s t ems Pr ot ect i on B o ard i s an 3 i ndepende nt , quas i

-

j udi ci al agenc y i n t he Execut i ve br anch that s erves as t he guar di an of Feder al m er i ts y s t ems. ” A boutM P SB , M S P B
. g ov, 12 g ra n tin g th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s m o tio n to d is m is s . P h ill ip s v . C o u n ty of A l l egheny , 5 1 5 F .3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). II I. A
. T he governm ent , ci t i ng E gan , c o n ten d s tha t A rt icl e III cour t s l ack j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s ca se beca us e theyl ack j ur i sd ict ion t o r evi ew t he mer i t s of a s ecur i t ycl ear ance r evoca t ion
. C i t i ng W

ebs t erv. D oe , 486 U
. S. 592 ( 1988) , and Stehney v. P erry , 101 F. 3d 925 ( 3d C i r . 1996) , E l

- G anayni ar gues t hatw e do have j ur i s di ct i on. T o deci de the j ur i s di ct i onal q u e s t i o n , we mu s te x a mi n e a l l t h r e e of t h e s e c a s e s i n s o me d e ta il. T h e p l ai nt i ff i n Egan , T h o m a s M . E g a n , w o rk e d a t a naval fac i l i t yw here al l empl oy ees w er e r equi r ed t o have s e c u ri ty cl e a ra n c e s . Egan , 484 U
. S. at520. A ft er E g an had wo r k e d a tt h e f

a c i l i t yf o r a s h o r tt i me , t h e Na v yd e n i e d h i m a s ecu ri tycl ear ance and r emoved hi m fr om hi s pos i t i on. E gan so u g h t r ev iew b ythe f

ed e ra l M eritS y stem s P rotec ti o n B o ard (“the B o ard ”). Id

. at522

. D u ri n g the e n su ing B o ard 3ht tp: //w w w . ms p b
. g o v / s i t e s / m s pb/pages / A bout % 20M SPB
. as px (l a s t v is ite d N o v . 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 ). 13 pr ocee di ngs , t he N avycont ended thatt he B o ard “di d nothave t h e a u t h o r i t y t o j u d g e t h e m e r i t s o f t h e u n d e r l yi n g s e c u r i t yc le a ra n c e d e te rm in a tio n ” th a t le d to E g a n ’s re m o v a l. Id

. at523. Itarg u ed that the B o ard co u ld o n ly inq u ir e a s to w h ethe r a cl ear ance w as a r equi r ementforE gan’ s pos i t i on, and w hether th e re q u ir e d p ro c e d u re s h a d b e e n f o llo w e d in re m o v in g h im
. I d. T h e B o a rd a g re e d th a t it h a d n o a u th o rity to re v iew th e m e rits o f a sec u ri tyclea ran ce d eterm ination an d su stai n ed E g an ’s re m o v a l. Id

. at525. O n appea l , t he Feder al C i r cui tr ever s ed the B oar d, r eas oni ng t hatt he “a bs ence of anys t at u torypr ovi s i on p re c lu d in g a p p e llate re v iew o f se c u rityc lea ra n c e d e n ials ” in r emoval pr ocee di ng s suc h as t he one be for e i tcr eat ed a s t r ong p re s u m p tio n in f

a v o r o f re v ie w . Id

. a t 5 2 6
. T h e S u p rem e C o u rtrev erse d , h o lding that the B o ard lac k e d a u th o rityto re v iew th e m e rits of th e N a v y ’s d e c isio n to re v o k e E g a n ’ s s e c u ri ty cl e a ra n c e . Egan , 48 4 U. S. at526- 27. T h e C o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th e g e n e ra l ru le th a t ag e n c ya c tio n is pr es um pt i vel yr evi ew abl e, but n o t ed thatt hi s pr es um pt i on has i t s l i m i t s , and t hat i t “runs agr ound w hen i tencount er s conce r ns of nat i onal s ecur i t y . ” Id

. a t 5 2 7 . It n o ted th a t th e d e c isio n to g ra n t a s e c u rityc lea ra n c e is “ a se n si tiv e a n d in h e re n tly di s cr et ion ary judgmentcal l
. . . comm i t t ed by l aw t o t he appr opr i at e age ncyof the Execut i ve B r anch. ” I d. T h e “ law ” to w hi ch the Supr eme C our tr efe r r ed w as t he U ni t ed St at es14 C o n stitu tio n . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t:

“ T h e P re sid e n t, a f

ter a ll, is th e ‘C o m m a n d e r in C h ie f o f th e A rm ya n d N a v yo f

th e U n ite d S ta te s .’ U
. S. C ons t
. , A r t
. I I , § 2. H i s author i t yt o cl as s i fy and contr ol acc es s t o i nform at i on bear i ng on n ati onal s ecur i t yand t o det erm i ne w hetheran i n d i v i d u a l i s s u f

f i c i e n t l y t ru s t w o r t h y t o o c c u p y a pos i t i on i n t he Execut i ve B ranc h t hatw i l l gi ve t h a tp e r s o n a c c e s s t o s u c h i n f o r ma t i o n f

l o ws pr i m ar i l yfr om t hi s cons t i tut i on al i nves t m entof pow eri n t he Pr es i dentand exi s t s qui t e apa r tfr om anyexpl i ci tcongr es s i onal gr an t
. T hi s C our thas r ecogni zed t he G over n me n t ’ s ‘ compel l i ng in ter est ’ i n w i t hh oldi ng n a tio n a l se c u rity i nform at i on fr om unauthor i zed pe r s ons i n t he c o u rse o f

e x e c u tiv e b u sin e ss . T h e a u th o rityto pr ot ects uch i nform at i on fal l s on t he Pr es i dentas head of t he E xecut i ve B r anch a nd as C om m ander i n C hi ef. ” I d. (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T he Egan C our tal s o s t at ed t hat i t w as “obvi ous ” that“no one has a ‘ r i ght ’ t o a s ecur i t ycl ear ance . ” Id

. at 52 8
. T h e C o u rt not ed thatt he dec i s i on t o gr ant a cl ear ance i s di s cr et i onary , and m us tbe pr emi s ed on t he j udgm entt hatan i ndi vi dual ’ s r ece i ptof a cl ear ance i s “cl ear l y cons i s t ent w i t h t he i nt er es t s of n ati o n al15 s e c u r i t y . ” Egan , 484 U
. S. at528. B e c a u se su c h ju d g m e n ts aboutw hom t o t rus tw i t h cl as s i fi ed i nform at i on ar e made by expert s i n t he E xecut i ve br anch, and bec aus e theyi m pl i cat e the Pr es i dent ’ s t r adi t i onal author i t yover“mi l i t aryand nat iona l s ecur i t yaff

ai r s , ” s e e id

. at 53 0 , the C o u rtrea so n ed that theyare ent i t l ed t o defe r ence fr om “nonexpe r tout s i de bod[i es ] ” s uch as th e B o a rd
. Id

. a t 5 2 9
. A l t hough Egan hel d onl yt hata non- expertagenc y( t he B o a rd) l acked authori t yt o revi ew t he m eri t s of a secur ity cl ear ance deci s i on, i t s hol di ng has s i nce been ext ended. M any c o u rts, in c lu d in g th is o n e , h o ld th a t Egan al so forbids j udi ci al re v ie w o f

th e m e ri ts o f

c le a ra n c e d e c is io n s . See, e. g. , Makky v. C h e rto ff , 541 F. 3d 205 , 2 1 2 (3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t i ng Egan and s t at i ng t hat“ther e i s no j udici al revi ew of the mer i t s of a se c u rity c lea ra n c e d e c isio n ” ); St ehney , 101 F. 3d at932 ( not i ng t he cons ens us i n t he C our t s of A ppeal s aboutt he s cope of Egan ); Do r

f mo n tv . Br o wn , 9 1 3 F
. 2 d 1 3 9 9 , 1 4 0 1 (9th C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ); J a m il v . S e c ’y . o

f th e D e p ’t o f D e f. , 910 F. 2d 1203, 1206 (4 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ); Hi l lv. D ep’ tof the Ai rFor ce , 844 F. 2d 1407, 1 4 0 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). Egan ’ s defe r ent i al appr oach m ay be contr as t ed w i t h t he Supr eme Court ’ s hol di ng i n W ebs t er . T her e, t he C our tdeci ded t he ext ent t o w hi ch t he empl oym entdeci s i ons of the D i r ect orof th e C e n tra l In tellig e n c e A g e n c y(“ C IA ” ) w e re ju d icia lly r evi ew abl e. Sect i on 102( c) of the N ati onal Secur i t yA ctof 1947 perm i t t ed t he D i r ect or of t he C I A , “i n hi s di s cr et i on, [t o]16 t erm i nat e the empl oym entof anyoffi cerorempl oy ee of t he A gency ” w heneve rhe de emed suc h t erm i nat i on “nec es s aryor advi s abl e i n the i nt er es t s of the U ni t ed St at es . ” W ebs t er , 486 U
. S
. at 59 4
. Jo h n D o e w o rke d fo r th e C IA fo r nin e y ea rs be fo re vo l un t ari l yi nfo rm i ng a C IA securi t yoff i cer that h e w as a h o m o s e x u a l. I

d. at595. U l t i m at el y , t he D i r ect ordet erm i ned t hat Doe ’ s h o mos e x u a l i t ywas a t h r e a tt o n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t yand f ir e d h im u n d e r S e c tio n 1 0 2 (c ). Id

. D oe s ued, cl ai m i ng t hatt he C IA ’s a c tio n s w e re a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s u n d e r t h e A P A
. He al s o as s er t ed a panopl y of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s , includi ng vi ol at i ons of hi s r i ght s t o due proc es s and equa l pr ot ect i on under t h e F i f t h A m e n d m e n t , a n d v i o l a t i o n s o f h i s r i g h t s t o p r o p e r t y, lib e rty , an d p riv a c yu n d e r th e F irs t, F o u r th , F if th , an d N in th A m e n d m e n ts
. Id

. at595- 96. T he Supr eme C our thel d t hatD oe coul d not br i ng an A PA cl ai m , beca us e Sect i on 102( c) gr ant ed t he C I A D i r ect orunrev iew abl e di s cr et i on i n empl oym ent d e c is io n s . I

d. at599- 600
. T h e C our tal s o hel d, how ever , t hat S e c tio n 1 0 2 ( c ) d id n o t p re c lu d e ju d icia l re v iew o f “ c o lo ra b le cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof the ac ti o n s of the D i r ect or pur s uan t t o t hats ect i on. ” Id

. a t 6 0 3 . T h e C o u rt re a c h e d th is concl us i on t o “avoi d ‘t he s er i ous cons t i tut i onal ques t i on’ t hat w oul d ar i s e i f a f

eder al statut e w er e cons t rued t o denyany j u d i c i a l f

o ru m f o r a c o l o r a b l e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m . ” W ebs t er , 4 8 6 U .S . a t 6 0 3
. I n St ehney , this C o u rt so u g h t to re c o n c ile th e d e c isio n s in W ebst er and Egan . T he pl ai nt i ff i n St ehney w o rk e d a t a p riv a te
“ th in k tan k ” in v o lv e d in re se a rc h f o r th e N a tio n a l S e c u rity17 A g e n c y(t h e “ N S A ” ). St ehney , 1 0 1 F
. 3d at928. H erj ob requi red a securi t y c lea rance, w hich she recei ved bu tl at er l ost w h e n s h e re f

u s e d to ta k e a p o lyg ra p h te s t. Id

. at929. St ehney fi l ed a c om p lai n t a l l egi ng t hatt he N SA vi ol at ed her cons t i tut i onal r i ght s t o due pr oces s , pr ivac y , and equa l p rot ect i on . S he al so al l eged t hat t he N S A fai l ed t o fo llo w its o w n r egul at i ons i n r evoki ng hercl ear ance . T he D i s t r i ctC ou rt di s m i s s ed St ehney ’ s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s for l ack of ju ri s d ic tio n . Id

. Itco n clud ed that the re v o ca ti o n o f S tehn ey ’s clea ran ce w as a no n -rev iew ab le p o li ti ca l q u esti o n . Id

. at932. A c c o rd in g to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt , “ Egan s uppor t ed the conc l us i on t hatt her e w as a ‘ t extual l ydemon str abl e cons t i tut i onal c o m m itm e n t’ o f th e iss u e o f a c c e ss to c las sif

ied in f o rm a tio n to t he Execut i ve B r anch” underA r t i cl e I I and thatany“j udi ci al re v ie w [ o f

s u c h ] d e c is io n s v io la te d th e s e p a ra tio n o f p o w e rs .” Id

. W e hel d t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n di s m iss i ng St ehney ’ s cl ai m s for l ack of j ur i s di ct i on. W e adhe r ed t o Egan ’s hol di ng t hatt he mer i t s of the r evoca t i on deci s i on w er e nonre v ie w a b le
. St ehney , 1 0 1 F. 3d at932. W e emphas i zed, how ever , t hat“notal l cl ai m s ar i s i ng fr om s ecur i t ycl ear ance r evoca t i ons vi ol at e s epar at i on of pow er s or in v o l ve pol i t i cal ques t i ons . ” I

d. W e r ead Egan and W ebst er t ogetheras hol di ng t hatA r t i cl e I I I cour t s have j ur i s di ct i on t o hear“cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s ar i s i ng fr om t he cl ear ance r evoca t i on pr oces s , ” even th o u g h th e m e ri ts o f th a t re v o c a tio n c a n n o t b e re v ie w e d
. See i d.W e a lso re itera ted th a t S teh n e yh a d n o “ c o n stitu tio n a lly 4 p rotec ted l iberty o r p rop erty interest in a sec u ri ty clea ran ce o r a j ob r equi r i ng a s ecur i t ycl earan ce . ” St ehney , 101 F. 3d at936 ( ci t i ng Egan , 4 8 4 U .S . a t 5 2 8 ). 18 ( ci t i ng W ebs t er , 4 8 6 U .S . at 6 0 3 -0 4 ). In c o n c lu d in g th a t A rticle 4 I I I j ur i s di ct i on exi s t ed, w e s t r es s ed that St ehney w as notas ki ng forr evi ew of the mer i t s of the N SA ’ s rev ocat i on, buti ns t ead s oughtr evi ew of the cons t i tut i on al c la i m s ar i s i ng fr om t he N S A ’s d e c is io n to re v o k e h e r c le a ra n c e . St ehney , 101 F. 3d at 9 3 2
. T hi s C our tdr ew a s i m i l ardi s t i nct i on i n M akky
. I n t hat ca se, w e e x erc ised juri sd ictio n o v er a m ixed -m o ti v e T it le V II c l a i m c h a l l e n g i n g a s e c u r i t yc l e a r a n c e r e v o c a t i o n . Ci t i ng St ehney , w e em p h asi zed the “di s t i nct i on betw een c hal l engi ng t he mer i t s of a c l ear ance r evoca t i on and cha l l engi ng t he r evoca t i on pr oces s , ” not i ng ourauthor i t yovert he l at t erbutnot th e f o rm e r. Ma kky , 541 F. 3d at212- 13. W e r evi ew ed the pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m on t he m er i t s , but w er e car eful t o not e i n doi ng s o t hatw e coul d n o t “ques t i on t he mot i vat i on behi nd the deci s i on t o denyM akky ’ s s ecur i t ycl ear ance . ” Id

. a t 2 1 3
. I n l i ghtof Egan , W

ebs t er , St ehney , and M akky , we c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n o v e r E lG a n a yn i’s a lleg a tio n s th a t c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n s o c c u rre d in th e p ro c e ss o f

re v o k in g h is s e c u rityc lea ra n c e . In C o u n t I, E lG a n a yn i cla im s th a t th e d e c isio n to su sp e n d a n d th e n re v o k e h is19 se c u rityc lea ra n c e w a s m a d e in re talia tio n f o r th e e x e rc ise o f

h is F ir st A m en d m en t r igh ts to fre ed o m o f sp ee ch an d reli g ion
. In C o u n t II, h e a ss e rts tha t th e d e c isio n s to su sp e n d a n d re v o k e h is s ecur i t ycl ear ance wer e b a s ed on hi s r el i gi on and nat i onal or i gi n. R ea d in the li g h t m o st f av o rab le to E l- G an ay n i, C o u n ts I an d II bot h as s er t“cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s ar i s i ng fr om t he cl ear ance rev o ca t i on pr oces s . ” St ehney , 1 0 1 F .3 d a t 9 3 2 . L ik e S te h n e y, E l

- Ga n a yn i d o e s n o ta s k u s t o r e s t o r e h i s s e c u r i t y c l e a r a n c e . He o n lyse e k s re v iew o f

h is c laim th a t a n a g e n c yv io late d h is cons t i tut i onal r i ght s i n t he pr oces s of r evoki ng h is cl ear ance , a n d a tmo s t , a n e w h e a r i n g c o n c e r n i n g t h a t c l e a r a n c e . Wh i l e we ca n n o t r ev iew the m erit s o f the d ec isi o n to rev o k e E l- G an ay n i’ s s e c u ri ty cl e a ra n c e , St ehney req u ir es us t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on over E l

- G anayni ’ s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and r evi ew t hem t o t he ext entt hatw e can do s o w i t houtexami ni ng t he mer i t s of that d e c is io n . See Stehney , 101 F. 3d at 9 3 2 (not i ng t hat“t o t he ext entt hatSt ehneys eeks r evi ew of w hethe r N S A
. . . vi ol at ed hercons t i tut i onal r i ght s , ” s he pr es ent ed a j us t i ci abl e cl ai m , but emphasi zi n g that ther e coul d be no r evi ew of the mer i t s of the c le a ra n c e re v o c a tio n ). See a l so M akky , 541 F. 3d at213 (rev iew ing p lai n ti ff ’s T it le V II clai m b u t st atin g th a t the co u rt w as pow er l es s t o “ques t i on t he mot i vat i on behi nd t he dec i s i on” to d e n yp lain tiff a c lea ra n c e ). T h u s, th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in dis m i ssi ng C ou nts I and I I for l ack o f j uri sdi ct i on . N evertheles s, w e w ill a f

f irm th e d ism iss a l o f

C o u n ts I a n d II b e c a u se th e yf a il to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f c a n b e g ra n te d
.20 B
. As n o t e d , Co u n t I i s a F i r s tAme n d me n tr e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. T o s t at e a pr i m a fac i e cas e of r et al i at i on, E l

- G anayni m us ts how ( 1) “that hi s conduct w as cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed” a nd ( 2) t hat
“ h is pr o tec ted a c tiv ity w a s a su b sta n tial o r m o tiv a tin g f a c to r in the al l eged r et al i at or yact i on. ” Ambr o s e v . Twp

. o f Ro b i n s on , 3 0 3 F .3 d 4 8 8 , 4 9 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e D O E m a yd e f e a t h is p r i ma f a c i e c a s e b y“ s h o wi n g t h a ti two u l d h a v e t a k e n t h e s a me ac t i on even i n t he abs ence of the pr ot ect ed conduc t
. ” I d. ( quot i ng B d. of

C ount y C om m ’ rs v. U

m behr , 518 U
. S. 668, 675 (1 9 9 6 ))
. E l

- G anayni coul d ea s i l yes t abl i s h t hatt he pol i t i cal and re lig io u s s p e e c h th a t alle g e d ly le d to th e re v o c a tio n o f h is cl ear ance w as cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed. I ti s t he s econd el ementof hi s pr i m a fa ci e cas e t hat i s pr obl emat i c. Pr ovi ng t hat E l

- G anayni ’ s pol i t i cal s peec h w as “a s ubs t ant i al orm ot i vat i ng f a c to r” in th e d e c isio n to re v o k e h is c lea ra n c e w o u ld in e v itab ly re q u ire re v iew o f

th e m e rits o f

th e D O E ’s d e c isio n . T h e re is sim p lyn o w ayto p rov e o r disp rov e w h at w as— o r pe rha p s m o re i m por t ant l yfort hi s cas e, w hatw as not

— a “s ubs t ant i al or m o ti v atin g f

a ctor” in the d ec isi o n to rev o k e E l- G an ay n i’ s cl ear ance w i t houtdemandi ng s om e expl anat i on of thatdeci s i on fr om t he D O E
. I t w oul d r equi r e di s coveryof D O E offi ci al s and document s conce r ni ng t he var i ous “fa ct or s” t hatl ed t o t he d e c isio n to re v o k e th e c lea ra n c e , an d sc ru tin y o f th o se f a c to rs to det erm i ne w hi ch w er e “s ubs t ant i al ” or“mot i vat i ng. ” Id. We21 can di s cern no di ffe r ence betw een t hat i nqui r yand the r evi ew of t h e m e r i t s t h a t i s f

o rb i d d e n b y Egan . I ndeed, E l

- G anayni never expl ai ns how he coul d s ucce ed on C ountI w i thoutr evi ew i ng t he m e rits. Ju st th e o p p o site ; h e a d m its th a t re v iew in g th e m e rits is ex ac tl y w h at h e see k s to do
. H e claim s th a t th e D O E ’s i nvocat i on of nat i onal s ecur i t y w as pr et extual , and t hatt he r eal reas on s w ou l d p rove t o b e viol at i ve of h i s const i tuti on al ri gh t s. H e a rg u e s th a t: [A ] l t hough a r evi ew of the D O E ’ s act i on m ay entai l an ex am i nati on of the basi s for [i t s] decis i on s, i tdo es not fol l ow t hat t h e C ou rtm ust s econd- gues s t he D O E ’ s exer ci s e of pr edi ct i ve ju d g m e n t. T h e p u rp o se o f th is la w su it i s to ens ur e that[the] D O E ’ s act i ons ar e i ndeed ba s ed on s uch pr edi ct i ve j udgm ent a n d notbas ed on di s cr i m i nat o ryani m us . I f i ti s det erm i ned that [ th e ] D O E ’s a c tio n s . . . w e re c o n stitu tio n a lly p e r m i s s i b l e ( n o tb a s e d o n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l yp ro h ib ited ra tio n a le) th e n n o f u rth e r rev iew
. . . is n e c e s s a r y. A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at29- 30. I n ot herw or ds , E l- G anayni ar gues t h a t t h e DOE n e e d n o t t e l l h i m w hy i t r evoked hi s cl ear ance , but it m u st te ll h im th a t it r e a llyd id so b a se d o n n a tio n a l se c u rity a n d n o t as a p re tex t f

o r dis c rim in a tio n . T h is a rg u m e n t f a ils. E lG a n a yn i g iv e s a w a yth e g a m e w h e n h e c o n c e d e s th a t h is cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s “mayent ai l an exami nat i on of the bas i s for22 D O E ’ s deci s i ons . ” T hi s admi s s i on i s fat al
. A n “exa m i nat i on of the b a s is” o f th e D O E ’s de cisi o n to rev o k e E l- G an ay n i’ s c lea ra n c e is p re c ise lyw h a t Egan f o rb id s . See Egan , 48 4 U. S. at529- 30 ( expl ai ni ng t hat“an a gencyhead w h o m us tbeart he re s p o n s ib i l i ty f

o r t h e p ro te c tio n o f

c la s s if ie d in f o rm a tio n . . . sh o u ld h a v e th e f

in a l sa yin d e c id in g w h e th e r to re p o se h is tru st” in a p a rticu lar p e rso n ); St ehney , 1 0 1 F .3 d a t 9 3 2 ; D or f m ont , 913 F .3 d a t 1 4 0 1
. T h e N in th C irc u it righ tlyre jec ted a n a rg u m e n t sim ilar to E l

- G anayni ’ s i n B ra zil v. U

. S. D ep’ tof

the N avy , 66 F. 3d 193 ( 9 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 5 )
. I n B ra zil , t he pl ai nt i ff s ued the N avyunder T i t l e V I I aft erhi s s ecur i t ycl ear ance w as r evoked. H e ar gued t hathi s T i t l e V I I cl ai m di d “notr equi r e t he courtt o det erm i ne w h eth e r th e N av y ’s reaso n s fo r rev o k ing h is cl ea ran ce w ere val i d; i tm er el yr equi r e[d] a d eter m i nat i on of w hethert he pr offe r ed r eas ons w er e the actual r eas ons . ” B ra zil , 66 F. 3d at 197. T he N i nt h C i r cui t r ej ect ed t hi s at t empt t o es cape Egan by c laim in g p re tex t, fo r re a so n s th a t ar e e q u a llya p p lica b le h e re : T he more val i d a r eas on appea r s upon eval uat i on, t he l es s l i kel ya courtw i l l be t o fi nd t hatr eas on pr et extual ; t h e conve r s e i s al s o t rue. E ven w hen t he court fac es i ndepende ntevi dence of a d isc rim in a to rym o ti v e , it is still n e c e ss a ryto w ei gh t he val i di ty o f t he def endant ’ s pr offe r ed rea so n s w h en d ec iding if th eyare p re te x tu a l. In s hor t , t he mer i tof su ch deci s i ons s i m pl ycannotW e n e e d n o t an d d o n o t d e c id e w h a t w o u ld h a p p e n if 5 th e S e c re tar yo f

E n e rg yin ste a d a v e rre d th a t h e d id , in f a c t, r evoke El

- G anayni ’ s cl ear ance bas ed on s om e cr i t er i on t hat appear ed cons t i tuti o n all ysu sp ec t, su ch as E l- G an ay n i’ s r el i gi on.
23 be w hol l ydi vor ced f r om a det erm ina t i on of w h e th e r t h e ya re le g itim a te o r p re te x tu a l. I d. a t 1 9 7
. A d d iti o n a lly , w e n o te th a t ev e n if E l-G a n a yn i co u ld som eho w m ake o ut the p ri m a facie case fo r hi s Fir st A m endmentcl ai m , t he D O E ’ s r i ght t o defe nd i t s el f aga i ns tt hat claim also raises p rob lem s u n d er Egan . I f El

- G anayni m ade out hi s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, D O E coul d t heor et i cal l ys t i l l pr evai l by pr ovi ng t hati tw oul d have t aken the s ame act i on even i n t he abs ence of El

- G anayni ’ s r el i gi ous an d pol i t i cal s peec h. A m brose , 303 F. 3d at493. T hatw oul d i nevi t abl yr equi r e the D O E to ex p la in in d etail it s d ec isi o n to rev o k e E l- G an ay n i’ s cl ear ance , oratl eas ts ubm i tan af fi davi ts t at ing that i tdi d not r evoke El

- Gana yni ’ s cl ear ance beca us e of hi s pr ot ect ed s peec h. 5 B utbeca us e of Egan , no cour t coul d ever for ce t he D O E t o do s o . Fu r t h e r mor e , e v e n i f t h e DO E chos e t o o f f e r a nond isc rim in a to rye x p lan a tio n f o r its d e c isio n to re v o k e E lG anayni ’ s cl ear ance , a fa ct fi nderw oul d t hen have t o as s es s t he pl aus i bi l i t yof that ex p la nat i on t o deci de w hethert he governm entm eti t s “bur den” unde rs t ep thr ee. W ei ghi ng t he24 str en g th o f th e g o v ern m en t’ s arg u m en ts ag ains t E l- G an ay n i’ s cl ai m s of pr et ext w oul d amount t o a j udgm enton t he mer i t s of th e d e c isio n to re v o k e E l-G a n a yn i’s cle a ra n c e . T h is to o w o u ld vi ol at e Egan . S e e B ra zil , 66 F.3d at197. Forr eas ons of “i ns t i tut i onal compet ence , s epar at i on of pow er s , and def er ence t o t he Execut i ve on nat i onal s ecur i t ym at t er s , ” St ehney , 101 F. 3d a t 9 3 2 , the d e c isio n to d e n ya se c u rityc lea ra n c e is le f t to th e so le d i s c r e t i o n o f

t h e E x e c u t i v e b r a n c h
. T h e S e c r e t a r y o f E n e r g y, w ho s erves as a t rus t ee of t he pr es i dent i al pow erover i nform at i on cr i t i cal t o nat i onal s ecur i t y , s i m pl y ca n n o tbe o rd e re d to ju stif

yh is d e c is io n s in th is a re a , n o r c a n h is j us t i fi cat i ons be s ubj ect ed t o w ei ghi ng and s econd- gues s i ng by a “nonexpe r t out s i de body ” s uch as a fac t fi nder in a f ed er al c o u rt
. Egan , 4 8 4 U .S . a t 5 2 9
. W e co ncl ude thatC ountI w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed beca us e E l

- G anayni cannot pr evai l on hi s Fi r s tA m endment c laim . T h e leg a l f

r a m e w o rk a p p lica b le to th a t cla im w o u ld demand fr om t he D O E an expl anat i on of i t s deci s i on t o r evoke E l

- G anayni ’ s cl ear ance , and al l ow a fa ctfi ndert o w ei gh t he D O E ' s a rg u m e n ts in s u p p o rt o f th a t d e c is io n . Egan forbi ds bot h. Put a n otherw ay , E l

- G anayni ’ s cl ai m coul d neverbe m eani ngful l y l i t i gat ed; t he out come i s pr e- or dai ned. W hat ever el s e happene d, t he D O E w oul d al w ay s pr evai l beca us e of Egan . In sh o rt, w e b e liev e th a t Egan p re se n ts a n “ in s u p e r a b le b a r to re lie f ” o n C o u n t I
. See B ent on v. Mer r i l lLynch & C o. , 524 F. 3d 8 6 6 , 8 7 0 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (e x p lain in g th a t d ism iss a l f o r f a ilu re to s t at e a c l ai m i s appr opr i at e w her e an “ i ns uper abl e bart o r el i ef”25 is ev iden t from the fa ce o f th e c o m p lai n t) ; 5B W ri g h t & M il ler, Feder alP r act i ce & P ro ce d u re § 1 3 5 7 (3d ed
. 2 0 0 4 ) (sam e). T h e re f o re , C o u n t I w a s p ro p e rly d ism iss e d b e c a u se it f a il e d to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f c o u l d b e g ra n te d
. See P ort A uthor i t y of N

. Y

. & N

. J. v. A r cadi an C or

p. , 189 F. 3d 305, 312 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) ( sta tin g d ism iss a l u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) is appr opr i at e w her e “a compl ai nts t at es a c l ai m bas ed upon a w r ong forw hi ch ther e i s cl ear l y no r emedy , ora cl ai m w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff i s w i t houtr i ghtorp o w ert o as s er tand forw hi ch no r el i ef could pos s i bl

y be gr ant ed ” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). E l-G a n a yn i’s e q u a l p r o tec tio n c laim u n d e r th e F if th A m e n d m e n t f

a ils f o r sim ilar r e a so n s. T h is c o u rt w o u ld a p p ly t he McD onnel lD ougl as - B ur di ne b u rd e n -sh if tin g f ra m e w o rk to th a t c la im
. See, e. g. , R o d e v . D e lla c ip re te , 845 F. 2d 1195, 1205 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( appl y i ng McD on nell D ou glas f

r a m e w o rk to eq u al pro tecti o n claim ); Stew artv. R utgers , 120 F. 3d 426, 431- 32 ( 3d C i r . 1997) (ap p ly i ng fr amew or k t o cl ai m of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on i n empl oym ent )
. U nder t hat fr amew or k, t o pr ove t hatt he dec i s i on t o s us pen d and r evoke hi s s ecur i t ycl ear ance w a s b a se d o n h is re lig io n a n d n a tio n a l o rig in , E l-G a n a yn i w o u ld h a v e t o f i r s te s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f

a c i e c a s e o f

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . Stew art , 120 F. 3d at 432. T he bur den w oul d t hen s hi ftt o t he D O E to com e forw ar d w i t h a n o n -d is c ri m in a to ry e x p la n a tio n f o r i ts d e c is io n . Id

. F in a lly , E lG an ay n i cou ld o ff

er e v iden ce d e m o n str ati n g that the D O E ’s n o n -d is c ri m in a to ry e x p la n a tio n w a s a p re te x t. Id

.26 C ountII fail s b ec au se th e leg al fram ew o rk g o v ern ing that c laim , lik e th e f

ra m e w o rk g o v e rn in g C o u n t I, w o u ld in e v itab ly i nvol ve s crut i ny of t he mer i t s of the D O E ’ s deci s i on t o r evoke E l-G a n a yn i’s c lea ra n c e . E v e n a ss u m in g th a t E l-G a n a yn i co u ld es t abl i s h hi s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, nei t her t he s econd nor t hi r d s t eps coul d pr ocee d w i t houtrun ni ng headl ong i nt o Egan . As expl ai ned above , nei t herE l

- G anayni nora cour t co ul d compel th e D O E to o f

f e r a “ n o n -d isc rim in a to rye x p lan a tio n ” f o r its deci s i on t o r evoke E l

- G anayni ’ s cl ear ance . T he D O E cannotbe h eld to a “b u rde n ” to justi fy the d ec isi o n to rev o k e E l- G an ay n i’ s cl ea rance unde rt he McD onnel lD ougl as - B ur di ne fra m ew o rk b ec au se th e D O E h as no d u tyto justi fythat d ec isi o n , p eriod
. It is b ey ond j udi ci al r evi ew . Fors i m i l arr eas ons , E l

- G anayni c o u ld n e v e r e sta b lish th a t th e D O E ’s n a tio n a l se c u rity e x p lan a tio n w a s a p re tex t f o r a d isc rim in a to ry m o tiv e . H e c o u ld nevergathert he evi dence nece s s aryt o pr ove that cl ai m , and even i f he c oul d, no fac t fi nder coul d be per m i t t ed t o w ei gh t he m e rits o f th e D O E ’s d e c isio n to d e c id e w h e th e r it w a s a p re tex t. Egan f o rb id s it. S e e B ra zil , 6 6 F .3 d a t 1 9 7 . T h u s, a s w ith C o u n t I , Egan s t ands as an “i ns uper abl e bar ” t o r el i ef on C ount II , a n d it m u s t b e d i s m i s s e d f o r f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im
. See B ent on , 5 2 4 F .3 d a t 8 7 0 ; P or tA uthor i t y of N

. Y

. & N. J. , 189 F. 3d at312. IV
. I n C ountI I I , E l

- G anayni al l eges due pr oces s vi ol at i ons and vi ol at i ons of the A PA , bot h ar i s i ng fr om t he D O E ’ s al l egedI n anyevent , s uch a claim w oul d be mer i t l es s . T he 6 “r equi r ement s of due pr oces s do notappl yunl es s [the pl ai nt i ff] c a n f irst sh o w th a t [ h e ] h a s a c o g n iz a b le lib e rtyo r p ro p e rty i nt er es ti n hi s s ecur i t ycl ear ance . ” D or f m ont , 913 F. 2d at1403; J a m il , 9 1 0 F. 2 d a t 1 2 0 9 ( a f f i r mi n g s u mma r y j u d g me n tfor d e f e n d a n ts o n d u e p ro c e ss c laim b e c a u se n o c o g n iza b le lib e rty o r prop ertyi nter estw as atst ake). N o o ne, i ncludi ng E lG an ay n i, h as a ri g h t t o a se cu ri ty clea ran ce , an d “[ w ]he re the re i s no r i ght , no pr oces s i s due undert he C ons t i tut i on. ” D or f m ont , 9 1 3 F .2 d a t 1 4 0 3
. 27 fai l ur e t o fol l ow i t s ow n r egul at i ons i n r evoki ng hi s cl ear ance . A t th e o u tset , w e n o te th at th ere is no d isp u te a s to the c o u rt ’s j ur i s di ct i on over t he al l egat i ons i n C ountI I I
. T he governm ent conce des , as i t m us t , t hat t he A PA gr ant s fede r al cour t s “t he pow ert o r evi ew w hether an age ncyfol l ow ed i t s ow n r egul at i ons and pr ocedur es dur i ng t he revocat i on pr oces s . ” St ehney , 101 F .3 d a t 9 3 2
. C ount I I I of E l

- G anayni ’ s compl ai ntr efe r ence s bot h t he Due Pr o c e s s Cl a u s e o f t h e Fi f t h Am e n d me n ta n d th e APA
. To t he ext ent C ount I I I al l eged a due pr oces s vi ol at i on, E l

- G anayni abandone d t hatcl ai m ator al arg u m ent
. A l l t hatr emai ns of 6 C ountI I I , t hen, i s E l

- G anayni ’ s cl ai m un d er the A PA t hatt he D O E fai l e d t o f

o l l o w i t s o wn r e g u l a t i o n s , 1 0 C. F. R. § § 7 1 0
. 1- 7 1 0 .3 6 (th e “ R e g u latio n s” ), an d E x e c u tiv e O rd e r 1 2 9 6 8 in r evoki ng hi s cl ear ance . T he D i s t r i ct C our t di s agr eed, as do w e. B eca us e the D O E fol l o w ed t he appl i cabl e R egul at i ons and28 E x ec u ti v e O rde rs i n rev o k ing E l- G an ay n i’ s clea ran ce , C o u n t I II f a ils to s ta te a c la im a n d w a s p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d
. A
. I n r evi ew i ng t he D O E ’ s act i ons i n t hi s cas e, w e not e that w e ow e “gr eatdefe r ence ” t o t he D O E ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of E x e c u tiv e O rd e r 1 2 9 6 8 b e c a u se th e D O E h a s b e e n c h a rg e d w ith a d m in is te ri n g th a t O rd e r. See U dal l v. Tal lm an , 380 U
. S. 1, 16 ( 1965)
. Si m i l ar l y , w e w i l l “gi ve s ubs t ant i al d efer ence t o an a g e n c y ’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f i t s o wn r e g u l a t i ons , ” Thom as J e fferso n U

n iv. v . Sh a la la , 51 2 U
. S
. 50 4, 51 2 (199 4), and m ust a c c e p t th e a g e n c y ’s in terp re ta tio n a s “ c o n tro lli n g ” u n les s it is “pl ai nl y err oneous or i ncons i s t ent w i t h t he r egul at i on. ” I d. ; s ee als o Morrison v. Mad ison D earbo rn C ap i tal Pa rtners , 463 F. 3d 3 1 2 , 3 1 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). E l

- G anayni ar gues t hatt he D O E ’ s i nt erpr et at i ons of the re lev a n t E x e c u tiv e O rd e rs a n d R e g u latio n s a re n o t en tit led to defe r ence bec a u s e i t s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n s r a i s e “ s e r i ous cons t i tut i onal conce rns. ” A ppel l ant ’ s R epl yB r . at11. E l

- G anayni does not s t at e w hi ch of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w oul d be vi ol at ed byt he A gency ’ s i nt erpr et at i ons , but pr es um abl y , he i s ar gui ng t hathe h a s a d u e p ro c e ss rig h t to re v ie w u n d e r th e R e g u latio n s. T h is a r gu mentc on fl a t e s El

- G a na yni ’ s s t a tut ory r i gh t s un de r t he A PA and hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . E l

- G anayni m ayhave a r i ghtunder th e A P A to ju d icia l r e v iew o f w h e th e r th e D O E “ f

o llo w e d its o w n re g u la tio n s a n d p ro c e d u re s d u ri n g th e re v o c a tio n p ro c e s s ,”29 St ehney , 101 F. 3d at93 2 , buthe has no due pr oces s r i ghtt o a s e c u ri ty cl e a ra n c e . Id

. a t 9 3 6 . T h e re f o re , ev e n if

w e w e re to acc epthi s ar gum entt hatan age ncyi nt erp reta t i on t hatr ai s es “s er i ous cons t i tut i onal concerns ” i s notent i t l ed t o defe r ence , th a t ru le w o u ld n o t b e a p p lic a b le h e re . B
. T h e R egu l at i on s i m plem ented tw o E xecu t i ve O rder s. T he firstw as E xecut i ve O r der10865, t i t l ed “Saf eguar di ng C l as s i fi ed I nform at i on w i t hi n I ndus t r y . ” S e e 1 0 C .F .R . § 710. 1( b)
. I s s u ed in 1960, i tdes cr i bes cert ai n m i ni m um p ro c e d u re s re q u ir e d in c le a ra n c e re v o c a ti o n p ro c e e d in g s . See E x ec . O rde r 1 0 8 6 5 § § 3 -5, 2 5 F ed
. R eg . 1 5 8 3 (F eb
. 2 0 , 1 9 6 0 ). T he O r der al s o pr es erves t he author i t yof the hea d of an a gency to b yp a ss a n y p ro c e d u re o th e rw ise p ro v id e d u n d e r th e O rd e r, if he det erm i nes t hats uch pr ocedur es “c annotbe i nvoked cons i s t ent l yw i th t he nat i onal s ecur i t y . ” E xecut i ve O r der10865 § 9. T he age ncyhead’ s det erm i nat i on t hatthe us e of s uch p ro c e d u re s is in c o n s is ten t w ith n atio n a l s e c u ri ty is “ c o n c lu s iv e .” Id

. T he s econd Exec u ti ve O r deri m pl ement ed byt he R egul at i ons w as E xecut i ve O r de r1 2 9 6 8
. Th a tO r deres t abl i s hes “a un i form F ederal personn el securi t yprogram for em ploy ees” undercons i der at i on fors ecur i t ycl ear ance s . E xec. O r der12968, Pr eambl e, 60 Fed. R eg. 40245 ( A ug. 2, 1995)
. Sect i on 5. 2( a) of the O rde r gra n ts certain p roc ed u ral ri g h ts to i n d ividu als w h o are30 deni ed s ecur i t ycl ear ances. A m ong t hos e ar e the r i ghtt o a w r i t t en expl anat i on of t he bas i s fort he deni al of a c l ear ance ; t he r i ghtt o r eques tcert ai n document s upon w hi ch a de ni al i s bas ed; t he r i ghtt o r epr es ent at i on, att he i ndi vi dual ’ s ow n expen s e, dur i ng r evoca t i on pr ocee di ngs ; t he ri ghtt o r epl yi n w r i t i ng t o a r evoca t i on deci s i on; t he r i ght t o appea l t hat deci s i on; and t he r i ghtt o appea rper s onal l ybefor e the age n cyand pr es ent e v id e n c e . See E xec. O r der 12968 § 5. 2( a) ( 1)

- ( 7)
. Sect i on 5. 2( c) or der s agenc yheads t o i s s ue r egul at i ons t o i m pl ementt he pr ocedur es des cr i bed i n Sect i on 5. 2( a)
. E xec. O rde r 12968 § 5
. 2 (c). D esp it e S ec ti o n 5
. 2 (a)’s p rov isi o n o f w h at ap p ea rs t o be gener ous pr ocedur al r i ght s , Sect i on 5. 2( d) of the O r derr es erves agenc yheads ’ br oad pow ert o bypas s t hos e pr ocedur es . U nder S e c tio n 5 .2 (d ), “w h e n th e h e a d o f a n a g e n c yo r pr in c ip a l d e p u ty per s o n a l l yc e r t i f

i e s t h a ta p r o c e d u r e s e tf o r t h i n t h i s s e c t i on cannotbe m ade avai l abl e i n a par t i cul ar cas e w i thoutdamagi ng t he nat i onal s ecur i t yi nt er es t s of the U n it ed St at es . . . t he par t i cul arpr ocedur e s hal l notbe made avai l abl e. ” Exec. O r der 12968 § 5. 2( d)
. A cert i fi cat i on underSect i on 5. 2( d) , li k e t he compar abl e ce r t i fi cat i on avai l abl e under Sect i on 9 of Execut i ve O r der 1 0 8 65, i s “conc l us i ve. ” Id

. Si m i l ar l y , Sect i on 5. 2( e) cl ar i fi es t hatnot hi ng i n Sect i on 5. 2( a) l i m i t s t he author i t yof the head of an age ncyt o denyorr evoke a s ecur i t ycl ear ance “p u r s uantt o anyl aw orot herE xecut i ve O r der , ” i f the age ncy head det erm i nes t hatt he pr ocedur es des cr i bed i n Sect i on 5. 2( a) “ca nnotbe i nvoked i n a mannert hati s cons i s t entw i t h nat i onal s ecur i t y . ” Execut i ve O r der12968 § 5. 2( e)
. I f the age ncyhead m akes s uch a de t erm i nat i on, t hatt oo i s “conc l us i ve. ” Id

.31 A s n o ted, th e D O E h as im p lem en ted E x ec u ti v e O rde rs 10865 and 12968 t hr ough r egul at i ons found at10 C
. F. R
. § 710 et s eq. T h e R eg u lat ion s p rov ide , in te ra lia , t hatan i ndi vi dual w hos e cl ear ance i s underr evi ew has t he r i ghtt o be r epr es ent ed b ya p e rso n o f

h is ch o o sin g ; th e rig h t to p re se n t ev id e n c e o n h is o w n b eh alf; an d the ri g h t t o cro ss-ex am ine w itn esse s, w h ere p o s s ib le
. See 1 0 C .F .R . § 7 1 0 .2 6 (a )-(d )
. D e s p ite th e ir pr ovi s i on of ex t ens i ve pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons , t he R egul at i ons do not purpor t t o al t er t he S ecr et aryof Ener gy ’ s author i t yover s ecur i t ycl ear ance s . B yt hei row n t erm s , t he R egul at i ons do not lim it th e S e c re tar y o f E n e rg y ’s “ re sp o n sib ili ty a n d p o w e rs . . . t o

. . . re v o k e a c c e ss to re stric ted d a ta, n a tio n a l se c u rity i nfo rm at i on , or speci al m at e rial ” t o the ext ent otherw i se perm i t t ed byl aw . 10 C
. F. R
. § 710. 31( c)
. T hus , as l ong as t he S ecre taryof E nergyhas s om e val i d s our ce of author i t yfor r evoki ng a cl ear ance, h e maydo s o cons i s t entw i t h t he R e g u la tio n s . E l

- G anayni ’ s cl ear ance w as perm anent l y r evoked byt he B odm an C er t i fi cat i on on N ovember24, 2008. I ti s undi s put ed t hat he di d notr ece i ve the ful l pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons pr es cr i bed by S ec t i on 5. 2( a) and the R egul at i ons . T he B odm an C er t i fi cat i on ci t ed E xecut i ve O r der 10865 § 9 and E x ecut i ve O rder12 96 8 § 5
. 2(d) as authori t yfor bypassi ng t ho se p ro c e d u re s. S e c re tar yB o d m a n c e rtifie d : I n acc or dance w i t h Sect i on 9 of t he E x ec ut i ve O r der10865 .
. . and Sect i on 5. 2( d) of Execut i ve32 O r d e r1 2 9 6 8
. . . I c e r t i f yt h a tt h e p r o c e d u r e s s et for t h i n Sect i on 3, 4, and 5 of E xecut i ve O r der 10865, i n Sect i on 5. 2( a) of t h e Execut i ve O r der 1 2 9 6 8 , a n d i n t h e [ DOE] r e g u l a t i o n s a t 1 0 C. F
. R. § 7 1 0
. 2 6 -71 0
. 3 0 ca n n o t b e m ad e a v ail ab le t o D r. E l

- G anayni w i t houtdamagi ng the i nt er es t s of nat i onal s ecur i t y by r e v e a l i n g c l a s s i fi ed in f o rm a tio n . T h is c e rt if

ic a tio n is c o n c lu s iv e . T he ce r t i fi cat i on al s o s t at ed thatt he pr oce d u res cont empl at ed bySect i on 5. 2( a) co u ld notbe “i nvoked i n a m a n n e r . . . c o n sis ten t w ith n a tio n a l se c u rity ,” p u rsu a n t to S ec ti o n 5
. 2 (e). F inally , the c erti fica ti o n rev o k ed E l- G an ay n i’ s cl ear ance w i t houtfur ther pr oces s , al s o pur s uantt o Sect i on 5. 2( e)
. B eca us e Sect i on 5. 2( e) r equi r es s om e “ot herl aw or E xecut i ve O r der ” t o author i ze the r evoca t i on of a c l ear ance , t he B o d m a n C e rtific a tio n c ited 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 1 6 5 a s a u th o rityto t erm i nat e “El

- G anayni ’ s acc es s t o cl as s i fi ed i nform at i on i n t he i nt er es tof nat i onal s ecur i t y . ” W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B o d m a n C e rtific a tio n p ro p e rly r evoked El

- G anayni ’ s s ecur i t y cl ear ance under Sect i on 5. 2( e) of E xecut i ve O r der12968. T o do s o , S ec ret aryB odm an w as r equi r ed t o (1) det erm i ne thatt he us ual s ecur i t ycl ear ance pr ocedur es coul d notbe “i nvoked i n a mannert hati s cons i s t ent w i t h nat i onal s ecur i t y ” under( 2) “any l aw orot herE xecut i ve O rder ” t hat gr ants th e po w er t o revok e securi t ycl earances. E xec. O r der12968 § 5. 2( e)
. T he Secr et arys at i s fi ed bot h ofA lth o u g h th e B o d m a n C e rtific a tio n d o e s n o t sp e c if y , it 7 ap p e ars tha t Se cre taryB o d m an reli ed u p o n S ec ti o n 2 1 6 5 (a). S e c tio n 2 1 6 5 (a ) p ro v id e s a s f o llo w s: N o arr angements hal l be m ade unders ect i on 2051 of this ti t l e, no contr acts hal l be made or c o n tin u e d in e f

f e c t u n d e r s e c tio n 2 0 6 1 o f th is t i t l e, and no l i cens e s hal l be i s s ued unders ect i on 2 13 3 o r 2134 of thi s t i t l e, un l ess the p ers on w i th w hom s uch arr angementi s m ade, t he contr act or orpr os pect i ve c ont r act or , ort he pr os pect i ve li ce ns ee a gr ees i n w r i t i ng nott o perm i tany in d iv id u a l to h a v e a c c e ss to R e stric ted D a ta u n til the D i r ect orof the O ffi ce of Per s onnel M a n a g e me n ts h a l l h ave made an i nves t i gat i on and rep o rtto the C o m m issi o n o n the c h ara cter, asso ci at i ons , and l oy al t yof s uch i ndi vi dual , and t he C o m m i s s i on s hal l have de t erm i ned that p e rm itt in g su c h p e rso n to h a v e a c c e ss to R es t r i ct ed D ata w i l l notendange rt he comm on 33 tho se re q u ir em en ts he re. First , as re q u ir ed b y S ec ti o n 5
. 2 (e), S e c re tar yB o d m a n d e ter m in e d th a t E l-G a n a yn i’s s e c u r ity cl ear ance pr ocee di ngs coul d notcont i nue w i t houtdamagi ng t he i nt er es t s of nat i onal s ecur i t ybyr evea l i ng c l as s i fi ed i nform at i on. T hatdet erm i nat i on w as “conc l us i ve. ” Exec. O rder12968 § 5. 2( e)
. Second, t he Secr et ary ci t ed 42 U
. S. C
. § 2165 as a “l aw o r o th e r E x e c u tiv e O rd e r” e m p o w e rin g h im to re v o k e E lG anayni ’ s cl earan ce . E l

- G anayni cont ends t hatt hi s w as 7d e f e n s e a n d s e c u r i t y. 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 1 6 5 (a ) ( 2 0 0 6 ).
34 in v a lid , b e c a u se 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 1 6 5 d o e s n o t p e rta in to se c u rity cl ear ance r evoca t i ons . Sect i on § 2 165( a) does di s cus s t he D O E ’ s author i t yt o r evoke s ecur i t y cl ear ance s , i n t hat i tr equi r es a n a g e n c y t o d e t e r mi n e t h a t p e r mi t t i ng a con tract or t o have acc es s t o R es t r i ct ed D at a “w i l l notendange rt he comm on defe ns e and secu ri ty
. ” 42 U
. S. C
. § 2165( a)
. W e nee d not d e c i d e w h e t h e rS e c t i o n 2 1 6 5 w a s a n a p p r o p r i a t e a u t h o r i t y, h o w e v e r, b e c a u s e in a n yc a se A rticle II o f th e C o n stitu tio n is c lea rlya so u rc e o f

“ law ” p e rm it ti n g th e re v o c a tio n o f E lG a n a yn i’ s s e c u ri ty c le a ra n c e . See Egan , 484 U
. S. at527 ( ci t i ng U .S . C o n s t. a r t. I I, § 2 ). Egan m akes cl eart hatundert he C ons t i tut i on, t he Pr es i d ent , and byext ens i on hi s des i gnees i n t he E x e c u tiv e b ra n c h , h a v e th e a u th o rityto “ c o n tro l ac c e ss to i nform at i on bear i ng on nat i onal s ecur ity , and t o det erm i ne w h e th e r a n in d iv id u a l is s u f f ic ie n tly tru s tw o rt h y t o [ m e ri t]
. . . acc es s t o s uch i nform at i on[. ] ” Id. T h is a ut hor i t yexi s t s by vi r tue of the “c ons t i tut i onal i nves t m entof pow er i n t he Pr es i dentand exi s t s qui t e apa r tfr om anyexpl i ci tcongr es s i onal gr ant
. ” Id

. R egar dl es s of w hether Sect i on 2 1 6 5 empow er ed S ec retaryB o d m an to rev o k e E l- G an ay n i’ s clea ran ce , A rt icl e II cl ear l y di d, s o t he r evoca t i on of El

- G anayni ’ s cl ear ance w as not in c o n s is te n t w ith S e c tio n 5 .2 (e ).35 W e f u rth e r c o n c lu d e th a t S e c re tar yB o d m a n p ro p e rly in v o k e d S e c tio n 5 .2 (d ) to b yp a ss th e p ro c e d u re s d e sc rib e d in Sect i on 5. 2( a) and the R egul at i ons . Sect i on 5. 2( d) al l o w s t he Secr et ary to sus pend a pr ocedur e otherw i s e pr ovi ded by E xecut i ve O r derand r egul at i on, by cert i fy i ng t hat i t “ca nnotbe m ade a vai l abl e i n a part i cul arcas e w i t houtdamagi ng t he nat i onal s ecur i t yi nt er es t s of the U ni t ed S tat es . ” That ce rt ifi ca tio n is co n clus ive. E x ec . O rde r 12 9 6 8 § 5
. 2 (d). C e rtifyi n g th a t th e u su a l p ro c e d u re s c o u ld n o t b e m a d e a v a ilab le d u e to n ati o n al sec u ri tyco n ce rns is p rec isel y w h at S ec retary B o d m a n d id in E l- G a n a yn i’ s c a s e . E l- G an ay n i raises tw o arg u m en ts ag ains t the S ec retary ’s r el i ance on Sect i ons 5. 2( d) and 5. 2( e)
. Fi r s t , he ar gues t hatt he R eg u lat ion s su p e rs e d e E x e c u tiv e O rd e r 1 2 9 6 8 , a n d in p a rt ic u lar, th e a u th o rityd e sc rib e d in S e c tio n s 5 .2 (d ) a n d (e ). A c c o rd in g to E l

- G anayn i, t he R egul at i ons w er e the D O E ’ s offi ci al i nt erpr et at i on and i m pl ement at i on of E xecut i ve O r der1 2 9 68, an d theyco n tai n n o thing im p lem e n ti n g S ec ti o n 5
. 2 (d) a n d (e). T her efor e, he cont ends , Sect i ons 5. 2( d) and (e) have be en su p p lan ted b yth e R e g u latio n s an d a re n o lo n g e r e f f e c tiv e . E lG a n a yn i ar g u e s th a t if th e S e c re tar yo f E n e rg yw a n ted to pr es erve hi s br oad pow er s underSect i ons 5. 2( d) an d ( e) , he s houl d have e xpl i ci t l yi ncorpor at ed thos e pow er s i nt o t he R e g u la tio n s . E l

- G anayni ’ s ar gum enti s not per s uas i ve. N ot hi ng i n t he l anguage of the R egul at i on s sugge s t s t hatt heys uper s ededN ordoes anyt hi ng i n t he R egul at i ons s ugges tt hatt hey 8 w er e i nt ended t o aff

ectt he Secr et ary ’ s pow er s underE xecut i ve O rd e r 1 0 8 6 5
. T h e E x e c u tiv e O rd e r is a d e leg a ti o n o f in h e re n tly 9 exec ut i ve auth o ri ty byt he Pr es i dentt o anotherm emberof the E x e c u tiv e B ra n c h
. See 3 U
. S. C
. § 301 ( author i zi ng t he Pr es i dentt o d eleg at e exe cut i ve func t i ons t o t he hea d of ag en cies). A n agenc yhead i s b o u nd byt he t erm s of that d eleg ati o n . See M

yer s v. U ni t ed Stat es , 272 U
. S. 52, 132- 34 ( 1926) ( not i ng t h at a gencyheads ar e s ubj ectt o Pr es i dent i al contr ol i n exec ut i on of del egat ed author i t y and ca n be r emoved f o rf a i l u r e t o f

o l l o w Pr e s i d e n t i a l o r d e r s )
. T h e Or d e r , b y i t s o wn t erm s , i s “ef

fec t i ve i m m edi at el y ” as of i t s i s s uance . E xec. O r der 12968, § 7. 2( f)
. T he del egat ion of exec ut i ve author i t yt o t he Secr et ary , i ncl udi ng t he author i t yt o r evoke s ecur i t ycl ear ance s 36 anyt hi ng i n E xecut i ve O r der12968. T o t he contr ary , t he 8 R egul at i ons s t at e that“[n] ot hi ng i n t h ese p roce dur es s hal l be deemed t o l i m i toraff

ectt he r es pons i bi l i t yand pow er s o f the S ec retary
. . . to d en yo r rev o k e a cc ess to R estri cted D ata [ o r] nat i onal s ecur i t y i nform at i on” under anyot herl aw orE xecut i ve O rd e r. 1 0 C .F .R . § 7 1 0 .3 1 (c ). E v e n th o u g h th e R e g u latio n s d id n o t exp li cit ly inco rpo rate the lang u ag e o f S ec ti o n 5
. 2 (d) o r (e), t heydi d notpurpor t to s uper s ede thos e pr ovi s i ons ei t her
. T he R egul at i ons expl i ci t l yl eft u n d i s turbed the Secr et ary ’ s pr ee x istin g a u th o rityo v e r c lea ra n c e s, in c lu d in g h is a u th o rityto rev o k e tho se c learan ce s u n d er S ec ti o n 5
. 2 (d) a n d (e) w h ere req u ir ed bynat i onal s ecur i t y . I n s hor t , not hi ng i n t he 9u n d e r S e c tio n 5 .2 (d ) a n d (e ), w a s th e re f o re im m e d ia te ly eff ect i ve i r r es pect i ve of t he pr om ul gat i on of the i m pl ement i ng regul at i on s. 37 R egul at i o n s pr ecl udes t he Secr et aryfr om i nvoki ng Sect i ons 5. 2 (d) and (e) , so S ecret aryB od m an’s r el i ance o n those p ro v isio n s in re v o k in g E l-G a n a yn i’s c lea ra n c e d id n o t v io late th e R e g u la tio n s o r t h e A P A
. Second, E l

- G ana yn i a r g u e s th a tth e Bod ma n Cer t i fi cat i on im p ro p e rlyb yp a ss e d a ll of the Sect i on 5. 2( a) p ro c e d u re s, in vi ol at i on of the pl ai n l anguage of S ect i on 5. 2( d)
. H e not es t hat Sect i on 5. 2( d) r efe r s t o t he S ec reta r y ’ s author i t yt o deny“a pr ocedur e” s etfor t h i n Sect i on 5. 2( a) , upon a fi ndi ng t hat“the par t i cul arpr ocedur e” c annotbe ut i l i zed w i t houtdamagi ng n a tio n a l se c u rity. A c c o rd in g to E l-G a n a yn i, th e re f e re n c e s in Sect i on 5. 2( d ) t o i ndi vi dual pr ocedur es m eans t hatSect i on 5 .2 (d ) c a n n o t b e u se d , a s it w a s in th e B o d m a n C e rtific a tio n , to effect a bl ank etden i al of all of the S ect i on 5. 2(a) proced ures. H e cont ends t hatSect i on 5. 2( d) r equi r es t he D O E t o cert i fyt hat eac h par t i cul arpr ocedur e underSect i on 5. 2( a) cannotbe made a v a i l a b l e , a n d e x p l a i n t h a t c o n c l u s i o n t o t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r . We d isa g re e . U n d e r S e c tio n 5 .2 (d ), th e S e c re tar yn e e d o n lysta te t hata “pr ocedur e s etfor t h i n t hi s s ecti on” ca nnotbe made a v a ilab le. A s th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyn o ted , this c e r t i f i c a t i o n d o e s n o t r e q u ir e a n y p a r t i c u l a rd e g r e e o f s p e c i f i c i t y. H e re , S e c re tar yB o d m a n c e rtifie d th a t th e p ro c e d u re s s e t f o rth i n E xecut i v e O r der10865, Sect i on 5. 2( a) of Execut i ve O r der38 1 2 9 6 8 , a n d th e re g u latio n s a t 1 0 C .F .R . § 7 1 0 .2 6

— 7 1 0 .3 0 c o u ld n o t b e m a d e a v a ilab le to E l-G a n a yn i in a m a n n e r c o n sis ten t w ith n ati o n al sec u ri ty
. W h ile B o d m a n d id n o t l istea ch an d ev ery p roc ed u re a v ail ab le un d e r e ac h o f th o se p rov isi o n s, w e a re s at i s fi ed that hi s i dent i fi cat i on of the pr ocedur es t hatcoul d not be us ed w as s uffi ci ent t o s at i s fy Sect i on 5. 2( d)
. E s s ent i al l y , t he Secr et arycons t rued a s i ngul art erm i n S ec t i on 5. 2( d)

— “the p a rt ic u la r p ro c e d u re ”

— a s a ls o e n c o m p a s s in g th e p lu ra l, i.e ., a ll of the pr ocedur es enumer at ed i n Sect i on 5. 2( a)
. W e ca nnots ay th a t th is in terp re tatio n o f S e c tio n 5 .2 (d ) w a s “ p lain ly err oneous . ” S e e U

da ll , 3 8 0 U .S . a t 1 7 -1 8
. A c c e p tin g a s tru e a ll o f th e f a c tu a l alle g a tio n s in E lG anayni ’ s co m pl ai nt , w e conc l ude thathi s s ecur i t ycl ear ance w as r evoked i n acc or dance w i t h E xecut i ve O r der12968 and D O E re g u latio n s. T h e re f o re , C o u n t I I I f

a il s to sta te a c laim undert he A PA , and w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed byt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt
. V. Fort h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m t h e j u d g me nt o f th e D istric t C o u rt.