Bennett, Patsy F. v. Chertoff, Michael

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding Egan applicable where government offered sworn statement that plaintiff’s “termination was ‘due to her inability to sustain a security clearance’”
• stating that “[b]oth parties agree that TSA’s proffered reason for terminating Bennett was her falsification” of her employment application
• explaining that, “[w]hile Bennett claims that TSA’s security clearance explanation is pretextual, ... a court cannot adjudicate the credibility of that claim” because “[t]o do so would require the trier of fact to evaluate the validity of the agency’s security determination”
• “Bennett could not challenge the authenticity of TSA’s proffered reason-her inability to maintain a security clearance-without also challenging the validity of the reason, which is what Ryan prohibits.”
• “Because the authority to issue a security clearance is a discretionary function of the Executive Branch and involves the complex area of foreign relations and national security, employment actions based on denial of security clearance are not subject to judicial review.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).