Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207798/Mahmoud-Hegab-v-Letitia-Long-4th-Cir-2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:49:12+00:00

Document:
James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
wrote a separate concurring opinion.
ASSOCIATES, Oakton, Virginia, for Appellant. Bernard G.
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Neil H.
award him back pay, benefits, and attorneys fees. In his complaint, he alleged that he presented "overwhelming evidence"
review a security clearance determination.
secret security clearance with "sensitive compartmented information access."
placed on unpaid administrative leave.
security of the United States."
organization called Islamic Relief USA.
the evidence, but the agency nonetheless issued a final decision on March 4, 2011, revoking Hegabs security clearance.
your desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information.
and presented additional evidence about Islamic Relief USA.
and the information provided during your personal appearance failed to mitigate security concerns."
Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
v. Evers, 187 F.3d 348, 357-58 (4th Cir. 1999), and Guillot v.
Garrett, 970 F.2d 1320, 1326 (4th Cir. 1992).
responsible, and this must include broad discretion to determine who may have access to it." Egan, 484 U.S. at 529.
F.3d 145, 148-49 (4th Cir. 1996); Guillot, 970 F.2d at 1326.
whether the agency should have been able to make the necessary affirmative prediction with confidence." Egan, 484 U.S.
to such information." Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Cole v.
States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710 (1974)); see also Baker v.
the respect due coordinate branches of government").
at 148-49; Guillot, 970 F.2d at 1325-26.
his or her security clearance.
state a claim); Oryszak v. Sullivan, 576 F.3d 522, 526 (D.C.
are unsuccessful attempts to circumvent the undisputed proposition that we will not review the merits of a security clearance decision.
conflicts with Hegabs "obligation to protect sensitive or classified United States information."
gion, freedom of expression, and freedom of association."
information or were biased against Islam.
on the merits from constitutional claims).
therefore have been the product of an unconstitutional bias.
Reinbold, 187 F.3d at 357-58.
484 U.S. at 529, and in which courts should not intrude, id.
Davis, however, I believe Hegabs complaint states a colorable constitutional claim; such is now the holding of the court.
even in light of Hegabs colorable constitutional challenge.
the National Security Act, that statute did not preclude judicial review of an employees constitutional claims. Id. at 603604.
the Supreme Court has not so held.
unconstitutional policy. Since Hegab alleges no unconstitutional policy but only an assertedly unconstitutional individualized adverse determination, his claim fails.
revoke petitioners security clearance); Natl Fedn of Fed.
certainly could gain him money damages and attorneys fees.
I concur in the majority opinion but with an important difference in emphasis; hence, I offer these further thoughts.
not "clearly consistent with the interests of national security."
of speech and association.1 I do not regard Hegabs allegations as "conclusory"; rather, I regard them as "colorable"
legally insufficient); Hubbard v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 949 F.2d 453 (D.C.
Amendment retaliation claim instituted by rejected applicant for employment).
abundant narrative of the factual bases for his disagreement with the agencys decision. See Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir.
in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
and employment by, an Islamic faith-based organization."
deprived of jurisdiction to assess decisions exclusively comtradict the claim asserted.") (citing Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Practice & Procedure 1357 (2d ed. 1990)); see also Bennett v.
exactly what Hegab has done here, somewhat inartfully.
the Fourth Amendment," "not that the suspension of his . . . security clearance amounted to a constitutional violation").
Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 658 F.3d 402, 407 n.9 (4th Cir.
[political question doctrine] as constitutional"and thus, jurisdictional"or prudential." Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction 45 (5th ed.
claim" and that therefore subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.
continuing viability of the twenty-five year old Webster dictum.
reviewing the merits of those decisions. See, e.g., El-Ganayni v. U.S.
court] [could] do so without examining the merits of that decision," ElGanayni, 591 F.3d at 183, largely incoherent in any real-life application.
On the above understandings, I concur in the majority opinion.
2. Jo Chung vs. Pacific Commercial Co.

References: v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.