Sujit Choudhry: Revocation of Security Clearance

Sujit Choudhry serves as the Center for Constitutional Transitions as a director. He earned his degree in law from three institutions; the University of Oxford, Harvard Law School, and the University of Toronto. Sujit Choudhry initially used to be an advisory party in the constitution-building processes of countries such as Egypt, Sri Lanka, Nepal, South Africa, Ukraine, Tunisia, Libya, and Jordan. He has participated in a United Nations experts meeting in Geneva to discuss transitional justice and mass barbarism. Sujit Choudhry recently featured the act of the president in revoking the security clearance for former security personnel.

Trump, the US President, declared that he was putting into consideration the revoking of all former officials of the national security. During the annunciation of the initial list, the White House Press Secretary explained that the action was taken against the targeted individuals since they had monetized and politicized their security clearances and services to the public. According to Sujit, there are some individuals whose security clearances were not revoked since they have vast useful knowledge from their in-depth experience, which is feasible in advising the security officials currently in office.

Sujit Choudhry highlights a commentator’s opinion who argued that the president has unrestricted authority to revoke a clearance, quoting the Supreme Court case Department of the Navy versus Egan of 1988. Sujit notes that the Court is reluctant in the issues involving the national security and Executive in military affairs unless the Congress states otherwise. The argument from the case supported the revocation of clearances by the president for whatever reason. Some interesting information stems out from the Webster versus Doe Case.

A Central Intelligence Agency employee had his clearances revoked for being openly gay. This violated his rights had been violated under the Equal Protection Clauses and Due Process. Sujit Choudhry notes the court ruling that a customized constitutional claim could limit the authority to revoke security. There are notable differences between the two cases and the intentions of the president. In the Webster Case, the revocation was made by the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and not the president. The repeal was made in line with the director’s statutory authority, which authorizes termination whenever deemed necessary or according to the interests of the state.

Read more about Sujit Choudhry here https://www.linkedin.com/company/sujit-choudhry