Supreme Court rules in favor of fired whistleblower
Source: AP-Excite
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court says a former air marshal who was fired after leaking plans to the media about security cutbacks can seek whistleblower protection.
The justices ruled Wednesday that Robert MacLean did not violate the law when he revealed in 2003 that the Transportation Security Administration planned to save money by cutting back on overnight trips for undercover air marshals.
MacLean says he leaked the information to an MSNBC reporter after agency supervisors ignored his safety concerns. His disclosure triggered outrage in Congress and a quick reversal of the policy.
FULL short story at link.
Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150121/us--supreme_court-fired_air_marshal-ab5eefb0af.html
marym625
(17,997 posts)Good news!
Saucepan of Kerbango
(48 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)we'll see if anything stupid comes this year but as roe v wade came from a Republican supreme court , they likely looked at their own ass too.. and they've already got 2 misteps that keep getting heavier. Citizens united and the civil rights act
happyslug
(14,779 posts)a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant for employment because of (A) any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences
(i) any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or
(ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety,
if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs.
also specifically prohibited by law under Section 2302(b)(8)(A). (Emphasis added.)
The answer is no. Throughout Section 2302, Congress repeatedly used the phrase law, rule, or regulation. For example, Section 2302(b)(1)(E) prohibits a federal agency from discriminating against an employee on the basis of marital status or political affiliation, as prohibited under
any law, rule, or regulation. For another example, Section 2302(b)(6) prohibits an agency from granting any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regulation. And for a third example, Section 2302(b) (9)(A) prohibits an agency from retaliating against an employee for the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation.
In contrast, Congress did not use the phrase law, rule, or regulation in the statutory language at issue here; it used the word law standing alone. That is significant because Congress generally acts intentionally when it uses particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another. Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983). Thus, Congresss choice to say specifically prohibited by law rather than specifically prohibited by law, rule, or regulation suggests that Congress meant to exclude rules and regulations. The interpretive canon that Congress acts intentionally when it omits language included elsewhere applies with particular force here for two reasons. First, Congress used law and law, rule, or regulation in close proximityindeed, in the same sentence. §2302(b)(8)(A) (protecting the disclosure of any violation of any law, rule, or regulation . . . if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law). Second, Congress used the broader phrase law, rule, or regulation repeatedlynine times in Section 2302 alone. See §§2302(a)(2)(D)(i), (b)(1)(E), (b)(6), (b)(8)(A)(i), (b)(8)(B)(i), (b)(9)(A), (b)(12), (b)(13), (d)(5). Those two aspects of the whistleblower statute make Congresss choice to use the narrower word law seem quite deliberate.
The Court went on and later states:
This statute does not prohibit anything. On the contrary, it authorizes somethingit authorizes the Under Secretary to prescribe regulations. Thus, by its terms Section 114(r)(1) did not prohibit the disclosure at issue here.
The dissent did NOT object to the ruling on the regulations, but on the ruling that the underlying law did NOT authorize such a ban itself.
elleng
(130,908 posts)The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)If our government does it, we have a right to know. the ONLY possible exceptions would be covert agents and genuinely secret technologies.
mpcamb
(2,871 posts)11 years. 9 since his firing.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Justice, and it only took a decade.