Is the 'conduct unbecoming' standard unconstitutionally vague and violative of due-process in a case involving free-speech concerns?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner, who was employed as an Administra, tive Law Judge (ALJ) by Respondent, was the subject | of removal proceedings for “conduct unbecoming of an ALJ.” Petitioner asserted that such a charge was void for vagueness citing other federal circuit decisions such as Bence v. Breier, 501 F. 2d 1185 (7th Cir. , 1974). See also this Court’s decisions in Grayned uv. | City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) and Airport | Commission v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569 (1987); | as well as Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) a } case dealing with when it is permissible to circum| scribe speech by public sector employees, and impose | discipline upon them for it. His removal was also sought because he followed the Program Operations Manual System in resolving | cases, which the Respondent contended he had no right to do. The Questions Presented are: 1. Is the “conduct unbecoming” standard for subjecting an employee to disciplinary proceedings unconstitutionally vague, and therefore violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the ~ United States Constitution in a situation where free speech concerns are implicated? 2.Is an ALJ, employed by the Respondent, required to follow the Respondent’s Program Operations Manual System (POMS) and if so, does doing so insulate him from discipline for matters covered by the POMS?