United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Similarly, the AJ provided no citation connecting MacLean and Meeks to
deposition testimony that the text message’s secrecy status “did not matter” when
he discussed it. Again there is none. MacLean’s August 2, 2006 deposition
testimony referred to his conversation with supervisor Roger Scoffield, not a
member of the public.
2. There is a reasonable distinction between regulations restricting
release of specific, controlled information, compared to general,
uncontrolled information.
Both the AJ and Board emphasized that releasing information about a
general policy change on TSA/FAMS long distance coverage inherently means
communicating about individual flights, and that MacLean’s own testimony
repeatedly indicated he knew this. A49-50, 64; A22-23.
While it is a truism that a whole is the sum of its parts, there is no
contradiction if the rest of MacLean’s testimony is considered. He repeatedly
testified that providing specific details creates an improper SSI release. This was
because those details of where TSA/FAMS deploys its agents could alert terrorists
whether to target one undefended flight, instead of another with protection. That
not only was his belief, but his commitment to change after management breached
it regularly by exposing undercover agents. The AJ offers no citations where
MacLean attempted to be evasive about, parse or nuance this belief. There is
nothing in the record that MacLean believed challenging the consequences from
38