The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Robert J. MacLean, a federal air marshal, was unfairly fired for leaking sensitive information that he believed endangered the public. The case, Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, will be heard sometime during the court’s term that begins next October.
In 2003, MacLean was working for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as an air marshal. He was briefed about a potential terrorist attack and, shortly thereafter, received notice from TSA that the agency was reducing the number of undercover air marshals on overnight trips due to budget deficits. MacLean voiced his concerns to his boss, who told him to keep quiet. Instead, MacLean leaked the information to MSNBC. Within the next day, the Department of Homeland Security had canceled the manpower reduction order.
MacLean, whose identity had been concealed after the leak, was fired by TSA in 2006 when his identity was discovered. MacLean appeared on an NBC Nightly News program, regarding a different incident, but his disguise was inadequate.
A lower court ruled that MacLean was entitled to argue that he was protected by whistleblower laws. However, the government is asking the Supreme Court to reverse that decision, arguing it “effectively permits individual federal employees to override the TSA’s judgments about the dangers of public disclosure.”
MacLean’s response portrays him as a hero who prevented a potential tragedy and helped change government policy. MacLean had previously argued that TSA’s plan to eliminate the use of air marshals on overnight trips was not considered sensitive information by the agency because it had been sent unencrypted to his cellphone.
If you have any questions about the case discussed above or would like to discuss other employment law matters, please contact me or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
