The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision to uphold the Securities and Exchange Commission's indefinite suspension of Stefani Gibson from her position as Personnel Security Specialist.
In the case *Gibson v. SEC*, decided February 6, 2026, the Federal Circuit rejected Gibson's petition for review in a nonprecedential opinion. Circuit Judge Cunningham wrote for the three-judge panel that included Chief Judge Prost and Judge Stark.
Gibson had challenged the Merit Systems Protection Board's final order from January 5, 2024, which adopted an initial decision affirming the SEC's action to indefinitely suspend her. The suspension stemmed from issues related to Gibson's security clearance requirements for her specialized position.
According to court documents, the SEC hired Gibson in July 2014 to work as a Personnel Security Specialist. A critical qualification for this position was maintaining a Top Secret security clearance, which Gibson was required to hold as part of her job responsibilities at the federal securities regulator.
The case originated when Gibson appealed the SEC's disciplinary action to the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent federal agency that hears appeals from federal employees facing adverse personnel actions. The Board's administrative law judge initially ruled against Gibson in November 2017, and the Board's final order in January 2024 adopted that initial decision.
Gibson's legal challenge went through multiple stages before reaching the Federal Circuit. In June 2016, the Merit Systems Protection Board denied Gibson's request to amend her appeal to include review of a reassignment action, indicating there were additional personnel matters beyond the suspension.
Peter Broida of Arlington, Virginia, argued for Gibson before the Federal Circuit. The government was represented by Daniel Bertoni from the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department's Civil Division, along with attorneys Albert S. Iarossi, Patricia M. McCarthy, Brett Shumate, and Amanda Tantum.
The Federal Circuit's jurisdiction in this case stems from its authority to review certain Merit Systems Protection Board decisions, particularly those involving federal employees in specialized positions requiring security clearances. The court has specific jurisdiction over personnel security cases that involve national security considerations.
The court's brief opinion provided few details about the specific circumstances that led to Gibson's indefinite suspension. The record indicates the case involved her ability to maintain the Top Secret clearance required for her position, though the court did not elaborate on the underlying security concerns.
Federal employees in positions requiring security clearances face unique challenges when clearance issues arise. Personnel Security Specialists like Gibson play crucial roles in government agencies, conducting background investigations and security assessments for other federal employees and contractors seeking clearances.
The SEC, as a federal financial regulatory agency, employs numerous personnel who require security clearances due to their access to sensitive market information, enforcement investigations, and national security-related financial data. The agency's Personnel Security Specialists are responsible for ensuring the integrity of these clearance processes.
Indefinite suspensions represent serious disciplinary actions in federal employment law. Unlike temporary suspensions, which have defined end dates, indefinite suspensions can effectively end a federal employee's career if the underlying issues cannot be resolved.
The Merit Systems Protection Board serves as an important check on federal agencies' personnel actions, providing federal employees with due process rights when facing adverse employment decisions. However, the Board's decisions can be appealed to federal courts, as Gibson did in this case.
The Federal Circuit's decision to mark this opinion as nonprecedential means it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases. Nonprecedential opinions are typically used for routine matters that don't establish new legal principles or when the court applies well-established law to specific facts.
Gibson's case represents the challenges federal employees face when security clearance issues arise during their careers. The intersection of national security requirements and employment law creates complex situations where agencies must balance personnel needs with security obligations.
The timing of this decision, nearly 12 years after Gibson's initial hiring and more than nine years after the underlying disciplinary action, illustrates the lengthy process federal employees may face when challenging adverse personnel actions through the administrative and judicial systems.
For federal employees in similar positions requiring security clearances, this case underscores the importance of maintaining clearance eligibility throughout their careers. The consequences of clearance-related issues can be severe, potentially resulting in indefinite suspension or termination from positions that require such authorizations.
The Federal Circuit's affirmance of the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision closes this chapter of Gibson's legal challenge, though the court's nonprecedential designation limits the broader impact of the ruling on federal personnel security law.