U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart F— Labor-Management and Employee Relations › Chapter CHAPTER 75— ADVERSE ACTIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— NATIONAL SECURITY

5 U.S.C. § 7532

Suspension and removal

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Notwithstanding other statutes, the head of an agency may suspend without pay an employee of his agency when he considers that action necessary in the interests of national security. To the extent that the head of the agency determines that the interests of national security permit, the suspended employee shall be notified of the reasons for the suspension. Within 30 days after the notification, the suspended employee is entitled to submit to the official designated by the head of the agency statements or affidavits to show why he should be restored to duty.(b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, the head of an agency may remove an employee suspended under subsection (a) of this section when, after such investigation and review as he considers necessary, he determines that removal is necessary or advisable in the interests of national security. The determination of the head of the agency is final.(c) An employee suspended under subsection (a) of this section who—(1) has a permanent or indefinite appointment;(2) has completed his probationary or trial period; and(3) is a citizen of the United States;is entitled, after suspension and before removal, to—(A) a written statement of the charges against him within 30 days after suspension, which may be amended within 30 days thereafter and which shall be stated as specifically as security considerations permit;(B) an opportunity within 30 days thereafter, plus an additional 30 days if the charges are amended, to answer the charges and submit affidavits;(C) a hearing, at the request of the employee, by an agency authority duly constituted for this purpose;(D) a review of his case by the head of the agency or his designee, before a decision adverse to the employee is made final; and(E) a written statement of the decision of the head of the agency.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 529.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

 

5 U.S.C. 22–1 (less 3d–5th provisos).

Aug. 26, 1950, ch. 803, § 1 (less 3d–5th provisos), 64 Stat. 476.

 

 

July 29, 1958, Pub. L. 85–568, § 301(c), 72 Stat. 432.

The application of this section is covered by the definition in section 7531.

In subsection (a), the words “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 652 of this title” are omitted but are carried into section 7501(c). The words “in his absolute discretion” are omitted as unnecessary in view of the permissive grant of authority. The word “reinstated” is omitted as it is commonly used in other statutes to denote action different from that referred to here.

In subsections (b) and (c), the words “remove” and “removal” are coextensive with and substituted for “terminate the employment”, “termination”, and “employment is terminated”, as appropriate.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 10× “5 U.S.C. § 7532 (c). IV. EGAN’S APPLICATION TO THIS CASE The Board and Northover urge this court to limit Egan’s application to security clearance determinations, reasoning that national security concerns articulated in that case pertain to access to classified information only.”
Bloch v. Powell, 227 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7532 (a), which authorizes the head of a federal agency to suspend an employee when “necessary in the interests of national security,” the defendant suspended the plaintiff without pay on February 7, 1990 and issued a proposed removal action.”
Dep't of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). · cites it 4× “" 5 U. S. C. § 7532 (b). The employee is entitled under this procedure to "a written statement of the charges against him," "an opportunity.”
Berry v. Conyers, 692 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 16× “5 U.S.C. § 7532 (c). III. EGAN’S APPLICATION TO CONYERS AND NORTHOVER The Board and Respondents urge this court to limit Egan’s application to security clearance determinations, reasoning that national security concerns articulated in that case pertain to access to classified…”
John Doe v. Caspar Weinberger, Sec'y, Dep't of Def., 820 F.2d 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 16× “WALD, Chief Judge: Is an employee of the National Security Agency (NSA) entitled to a hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 7532 before being fired from his job even though a security clearance is a prerequisite for employment at the agency and the agency has revoked his clearance pursuant…”
John Doe v. Richard B. Cheney, Sec'y of Dep't of Def., 885 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1989). · cites it 7× “After the district court’s award of summary judgment to NSA, a panel of this court reversed and held that Doe was entitled to the procedural protections spelled out in 5 U.S.C. § 7532 for NSA employees removed for national security considerations.”
Bloch, Felix S. v. Powell, Colin L., 348 F.3d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “No criminal charges were brought against Bloch, but the Department initiated a removal proceeding under 5 U.S.C. § 7532 . That statute provides that the head of a federal agency may suspend an employee without pay “when he considers that action necessary in the interests of…”
Thomas E. Egan v. Dep't of the Navy, 802 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1986). · cites it 8× “The Board held that it “has no authority to order reinstatement of a security clearance”, that 5 U.S.C. § 7532 “is not the exclusive basis for removals based upon security clearance revocations”, and that the appropriate remedy if the Board finds that the agency failed to afford…”
Carlucci v. Doe, 488 U.S. 93 (1988). · cites it 5× “See 5 U. S. C. §7532 . The section provides that the head of an agency “may suspend without pay” an employee when he considers such action “necessary in the interests of national security,” see § 7532(a), and “may remove” the suspended employee if such action is “necessary or…”
Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974). · cites it 2× “[46] 5 U. S. C. § 7532 (c) (2). [47] Title 5 U.”
Elgin v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, 641 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 7532 ; see id. § 7512(A) (exempting a section 7532 removal); Egan, 484 U.”
James B. King, Dir., Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Raymond Alston, & Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 75 F.3d 657 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “The agency presumably could also have acted pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7532 . Under this section, an agency may take immediate action to suspend an employee without pay if the agency considers the action necessary in the interest of national security.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— 5 U.S.C. § 7532(b) — 1 case
Dep't of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). “" 5 U. S. C. § 7532 (b). The employee is entitled under this procedure to "a written statement of the charges against him," "an opportunity.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.