October Term 2014 · Docket 13-894

Does a federal statute alone prohibit disclosing air marshal cuts?

The dispute centers on whether a whistleblower law requires specific regulations to protect security data.

Official caption
Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Gershengorn argued the statute directly prohibits detrimental disclosures.

    Mr. Katyal argued the law restrains agencies, not empowers them.

    Justice Kennedy asked if statutes alone create disclosure prohibitions.

    Justice Scalia stated the conduct is prohibited by regulations.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the scope of federal whistleblower protections. It asks if a general statute suffices to ban specific security disclosures.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 4, 2014.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants the disclosure ruled unlawful under the statute.

The employee wants the disclosure protected as a lawful whistleblower act.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government argues the statute directly prohibits detrimental security disclosures.

The employee argues the law restrains agencies rather than empowering them.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked about prior confidential notice distribution.

Chief Justice Roberts asked if specific flight cuts could be stated publicly.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This defines the boundary between public safety and employee speech rights.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON