The D.C. Circuit released two opinions this week, and I’ll be covering the one that isn’t about the Second Amendment. In Lee v. Garland, the FBI terminated the plaintiff’s security clearance and fired him. The plaintiff alleged violations of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Title VII.

The court (per Katsas, J.) unanimously held that the plaintiff’s claims were nonjusticiable. Of particular note, the court held that Department of Navy v. Egan (which involved a statutory claim under the Civil Service Reform Act) bars constitutional challenges to adverse clearance decisions. The court distinguished Webster v. Doe on the ground that it involved an agency head’s statutory authority to fire employees, not the president’s “core Article II powers.” Although the court’s reasoning swept broadly, it ultimately applied a narrower rule: Congress must speak clearly if it wishes to restrict the president’s power to deny or revoke security clearances. Finding no clear statement, the panel applied the political question doctrine and concluded that Lee’s constitutional claims were nonjusticiable.