Search Site

Supreme Court Poised to Hear TSA Whistleblower Case

The Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) plays a crucial role in our national safety infrastructure. Yet the agency has been subjected to significant criticism — and even been the butt of jokes — for the last several years. In 2003, Air Marshal Robert MacLean went to the media to expose what he felt was a risky and unwise decision by TSA to stop posting air marshals on certain overnight flights, despite a current and credible hijacking threat. For his actions he was fired from his position after more than 12 years of federal service. The United States Supreme Court is now poised to determine whether TSA’s actions were within the strictures of the law.

On May 19, 2014, the Court granted certiorari to the case Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean to decide whether his firing violated the federal Whistleblower Protection Act. The case is not as straightforward as it may seem and contains several competing arguments:

  • MacLean contends that TSA’s actions posed “a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety” and that his conduct was therefore protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
  • The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contends that the material MacLean disclosed to the media was “sensitive security information” and prohibited from disclosure under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. Therefore, MacLean would fall under an exception to the Whistleblower Protection Act that removes protection when the whistleblower’s disclosure was “specifically prohibited by law.”
  • The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court that most recently heard the case, sided with MacLean, finding that MacLean’s disclosure was not “specifically prohibited by law” because the information involved was only designated as sensitive by DHS and was not specifically defined as sensitive in any statute.

This case illustrates a difficult situation where both disclosure and nondisclosure can put the public at risk. Because the moral and legal imperative of whistleblowing is not always black and white, anyone contemplating whistleblowing should consult with an experienced Texas whistleblower attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Awards & Honors
Our Office
  • Dallas Office
    4514 Cole Ave
    Dallas, Texas 75205
    Phone: 214-306-8045
    Fax: 469-729-9926
As Seen In
In his new book, "Standing Up to China: How a Whistleblower Risked Everything for His Country," former client & Author, Ashley Yablon, quotes Attorney Steve Kardell about Whistelblower Law.
  • "Steve Kardell was terrific in representing me in some very adversarial discussions with Citigroup and also later represented me in my testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission."  -Richard Bowen, Citigroup Whistleblower

  • "Incredible knowledge of employee related concerns and equally brilliant knowledge of health care regulations, standards of practice. I would recommend this firm to anyone."  -V.B.

  • "Reaching out to Steve Kardell was the best decision I made. His ability to provide immediate insight and direction was very powerful, and a huge relief during a very stressful time period. For anyone struggling with a whistleblower situation, I would highly recommend at least speaking with Steve. After a 10 minute call with him, I had a better understanding of what I was dealing with. Even better, he gave me some immediate hope. In the end Steve did a better job than I thought was possible. Steve was able to get in contact with people in my organization, that I didn’t have access to. Because of his years of experience, he already has contacts in many organizations in Dallas. The entire situation was handled peacefully. I was impressed by his ability to “keep the peace”–rather than creating a battle with the organization. The reason I didn’t reach out to a lawyer initially, was because I thought it would mean an immediate end to any hope of a positive relationship with the company. Steve was able to address my concerns, and in the end I was able to continue to work for them."  -KS

  • "Never thought my career would end like it did after 30 years of service. I was part of the first round of the so called reduction of force. I asked myself how can I be part of this with 30 years of seniority. How did they pick these 90 plus employees? Now, the culture of this organization made you question every decision they made. It wasn’t what you knew it’s was a culture of who you know. Nonetheless, I did not accept their severance package. I immediately starting looking for an attorney who would take on my case. After the initial call to Steve I had hope again. He was open and honest about everything and reassured me he would do his best for me, and he did. I had an awesome outcome. Thanks Steve you’re the best."  -S.S.