A federal appeals court has dealt a final blow to a former immigration officer’s lawsuit, ruling that judges do not have the authority to second-guess the Executive Branch when it pulls a job offer due to security clearance delays.
The decision, handed down Thursday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, solidifies the government’s broad “final say” in determining who is trustworthy enough to handle national security information.
The case centers on Dored Shiba, a former Immigration Information Officer who had a rocky history with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). After being fired in 2014 following an internal investigation, Shiba attempted to rejoin the agency in 2019 as a citizenship and immigration assistant in Chicago.
Though he was tentatively selected for the role, the job required a security clearance. His background investigation hit a wall when investigators discovered “serious issues” that required more inquiry. After a year of silence and no clearance in sight, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rescinded the job offer.
READ: MS NOW’s ‘Morning Joe’ Rips Pentagon Chief Mid-Briefing Over NATO ‘Cocktail Party’ Dig
Shiba sued, alleging the delay wasn’t about security at all. Instead, he claimed it was “pretext for retaliation” because he had previously filed disability discrimination complaints against the agency.
The court’s ruling relied heavily on a 1988 Supreme Court precedent, Department of the Navy v. Egan. That case established that security clearance decisions are “sensitive and inherently discretionary” and belong solely to the Executive Branch.
Writing for the three-judge panel, Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes noted that even though Shiba’s offer was rescinded due to a delay rather than a formal denial, the legal protection for the government remains the same.
“Resolving the merits of his claim—and in particular, his claim of pretext—would require the court to second-guess the agency’s reasons for withholding a security clearance,” Sykes wrote. “That’s exactly what Egan prohibits.”
While the court agreed with the lower court’s decision to toss the case, it made a significant technical distinction regarding jurisdiction.
The lower court had dismissed the case for lack of “subject-matter jurisdiction,” essentially saying the court didn’t have the power to hear the case at all. The Seventh Circuit corrected this, clarifying that while courts can hear such cases, they must immediately defer to the Executive Branch’s expertise on security matters.
READ: “Retribution” At Risk? Former Georgia Rep. MTG Blames Trump As Virginia 10-1 Map Hits Legal Wall
The court compared this to “consular nonreviewability”—the rule that prevents judges from overturning visa denials made by officials overseas.
Shiba had urged the court to follow a narrow exception used in Washington D.C. courts, which allows lawsuits if a security referral is based on “knowingly false” information. Shiba pointed to a 2011 referral from a supervisor he claimed was biased.
The court rejected this, noting that Shiba wasn’t actually suing over that old referral, but rather the 2019 job rescission. The court also pointed out that the 2011 investigation actually found Shiba had committed other misconduct, including lying on a previous employment application.
With this ruling, the Seventh Circuit joins several other regions in affirming that when it comes to national security clearances, the courtroom door is effectively locked.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
