Quote (Surfpunk @ Aug 12 2022 12:19pm)
That is not what Navy v Egan determined. That ruling was based on the fact that the Navy removed Egan for cause under § 7512, and as such, the the review board didn't have the authority to review the substance of his clearance denial. Nuclear material would be covered as a national security concern under § 7532, and had the Navy removed Egan under 7532, the whole case would have been moot. As such, nothing in that case would give the President plenary authority outside of the Atomic Energy Act to declassify nuclear secrets.
Navy v Egan is one of the only court precedents to even entertain the concept of Presidential powers of classification, and that's why its being cited alongside EPA v Mink as the only two pieces of guidance anyone actually has on what the legality is. There's no actual substantive ruling setting formal precedent. And Navy v Egan suggested that no piece of legislation can infringe on the executive's declassification authority because that would be implicitly unconstitutional, including the Atomic Energy Act. That's why I made the point a hundred times this thread that this is all uncharted legal territory and there's no way to argue any clear violation of law or clearly permitted conduct, its resolutely grey area. Because to repeat myself, no functional democracy should ever need to settle precedent on issues like this, it shouldn't be tested in the first place.