Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/159536796/Lacson-v-DHS-and-TSA
Timestamp: 2014-03-08 03:14:50
Document Index: 334929483

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 105', '§ 44917', '§ 1601', '§ 114', '§ 1520', '§ 1520']

P. 1Lacson v. DHS and TSALacson v. DHS and TSARatings: (0)|Views: 9,295|Likes: 0Published by fedsmithFollowing a recent appeals court decision, an Air Marshal remains in hot water and most probably will lose his job over posts he made on the Internet that revealed sensitive Transportation Security Administration information.Following a recent appeals court decision, an Air Marshal remains in hot water and most probably will lose his job over posts he made on the Internet that revealed sensitive Transportation Security Administration information.More info: categoriesBusiness/LawPublished by: fedsmith on Aug 11, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/159536796/Lacson-v-DHS-and-TSA08/30/2013pdftextoriginal United States Court of Appeals
Argued January 17, 2013Decided July 23, 2013Unsealed July 30, 2013 No. 11-1447J
ETITIONER v.U
,R ESPONDENTS
On Petition for Review of an Order Of the Transportation Security Administration
Lawrence Berger argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner.
, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,argued the cause for respondents. With him on the briefs were
, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Mark B. Stern
and Sharon Swingle
, Attorneys.Before: G
: Like many people, Jose Lacson posted things online that he should not have. The problem isthat, unlike most people, Lacson was a Federal Air Marshal.And the things he posted did not concern relationships goneawry or parties that he should have avoided. Instead, he wroteabout the number of air marshals the Transportation SecurityAdministration (TSA) had hired in recent years, the locations of their assignments, and the rates of attrition at various TSA field offices. Upon discovering Lacson’s online pastime, TSAdetermined that Lacson had disclosed Sensitive SecurityInformation and fired him.Lacson asks us to set aside TSA’s order by invoking another time-honored online tradition: he claims that he made it all up.That is, he maintains that the facts he posted were not true and hence did not really disclose sensitive information.Unfortunately for Lacson, determining the facts is generally theagency’s responsibility, not ours. And because substantialevidence supports TSA’s determination that three of the four postings at issue were true, we affirm the bulk of the agency’sorder. However, there is no evidence -- substantial or otherwise-- to support TSA’s determination regarding the fourth posting.We therefore set that determination aside.IMany transportation security failures came to light after the9/11 terrorist attacks, including the revelation that the federalgovernment employed only 33 armed and trained Federal Air Marshals.
R EPORTOF THE
TTACKS UPON THE
, at 85 (2004). Congress responded by enactingthe Aviation and Transportation Security Act, whichdramatically expanded the scope of the Federal Air Marshal program and placed it under the control of a new agency, the
3TSA. Pub. L. No. 107-71, § 105(a), 115 Stat. 597, 606-07(2001) (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 44917). Thefollowing year, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which (among many other things) enlarged TSA’sauthority to shield information from disclosure when itdetermined the release of that information would be “detrimentalto the security of transportation.” Pub. L. No. 107-296,§ 1601(b), 116 Stat. 2135, 2312 (codified as amended at 49U.S.C. § 114(r)). TSA thereafter promulgated regulationsdefining Sensitive Security Information (SSI) to include“[i]nformation concerning the deployments, numbers and operations of . . . Federal Air Marshals,” 49 C.F.R.§ 1520.5(b)(8)(ii), and providing that any unauthorized releaseof such information by federal employees could be grounds for “appropriate personnel actions,”
§ 1520.17.TSA hired Jose Lacson as a Federal Air Marshal in 2002.He worked out of the agency’s Miami field office for the nexteight years. Starting in 2005, Lacson habitually posted on theonline forum Officer.com, using the screen name“INTHEAIRCOP.” He openly identified himself on the forumas a Federal Air Marshal and used a Federal Air Marshal badgeas his avatar. Some of his posts contained musings on life as anair marshal, as well as banter with other forum participants.Other posts discussed TSA’s hiring practices. In particular,several posts written in 2010 purported to reveal the number of air marshals TSA had hired in recent years, the locations of their assignments, and the rates of attrition at various field offices.TSA discovered these posts in June 2010 and traced themto Lacson. Lacson admitted that he was indeed “INTHEAIRCOP.” He swore, however, that many of his posts-- including the detailed figures concerning air marshal staffing-- were false. Lacson denied that he knew or even had access tothe true numbers, locations, or attrition rates of his colleagues.
More From This User Human Resources Memo on Benefits for Gay Feds
Brison v. VA
Richard Erickson v US Postal Service, 2013 MSPB 101
IRS v FLRA No 12-1456. Decision from the US Court of Appe...
Best Places to Work in the Federal Government 2013