Elgin v. Department of Treasury

2012 United States Supreme Court case

Elgin v. Department of Treasury

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued February 27, 2012
Decided June 11, 2012
Full case name| Michael B. Elgin, et al., Petitioners v. Department of the Treasury, et al.
Citations| 567 U.S. 1 (more)

132 S. Ct. 2126, 183 L. Ed. 2d 1, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4461, 115 FEP Cases 257, 33 IER Cases 1505, 80 U.S.L.W. 4417

Case history
Prior| Appeal of removal dismissed, unpublished (MSPB); partial summary judgment granted sub nom. Elgin v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D. Mass. 2009); reconsidered and vacated, 697 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D. Mass. 2010); affirmed, 641 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2011); cert. granted, 565 U.S. 962 (2011).
Holding
The CSRA gives exclusive jurisdiction to suits rising under the act to the MSPB, with appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and further appeals to the Supreme Court. Federal District Courts cannot rule on issues regarding the act or on adverse employment actions of the federal departments. The MSPB can hear constitutional arguments for adverse employment actions.
Court membership

Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia * Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas * Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer * Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor * Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority| Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor
Dissent| Alito, joined by Ginsburg, Kagan
Laws applied
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978; 5 U.S.C. § §3328; 5 U.S.C. § §7512

Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) gives exclusive jurisdiction for claims under the Act to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[1] Additionally, the Court held that the Act bars federal district courts from ruling on matters related to the act including adverse employment actions of the federal departments, and allows the Merit Systems Protection Board to hear constitutional arguments for wrongful employee severance and adverse employment actions.[2] It was a 6–3 decision, with the majority opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas. The case greatly limited the recourse of federal employees to the courts for adverse employment practices, allowing such recourse only to a few, specific courts as aforementioned.

## Prior to the Supreme Court

[edit]

Michael B. Elgin and several other employees of the U.S. Department of the Treasury were fired for willingly and knowingly failing to register for the Selective Service, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3328, which forbids any federal executive employees who committed such an omission.[1] Elgin challenged his discharge before the Merit Systems Protection Board, claiming such a requirement is unconstitutional being a bill of attainder and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since only males are required to enroll in the Selective Service System. The Merit Systems Protection Board referred the case to an administrative law judge, who dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that an employee is not entitled to Merit Systems Protection Board review of agency action that is based on an absolute statutory bar to employment. The same administrative law judge also ruled that the Merit Systems Protection Board did not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of statutes.

Rather than appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as is required by the CSRA, Elgin and several other petitioners appealed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The court denied Elgin's claims, holding that the act and Elgin's severance was constitutional.[3] Elgin appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which ruled that federal district courts have no jurisdiction over the matter.[4][5] Elgin appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

## See also

[edit]

* Rostker v. Goldberg
* National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System

## References

[edit]

1. ^ a b Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012).
2. ^ Favreau, JM (June 11, 2012). "Elgin v. Department of Treasury: Employees Covered by CSRA May Not Challenge Dismissal in District Court". Peer, Gan, and Gisler LLP. Retrieved August 10, 2012.
3. ^ Elgin v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D. Mass. 2009); reconsidered and vacated, 697 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D. Mass. 2010);
4. ^ Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 641 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2011).
5. ^ "No district court jurisdiction for federal employee challenging adverse employment action (6-3)". Law Memo. Retrieved August 10, 2012.

## External links

[edit]

* Works related to Elgin v. Department of Treasury at Wikisource
* Text of Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)

* v
* t
* e

United States Appointments Clause case law

Appointment of Officers

* Marbury v. Madison (1803)
* United States v. Le Baron (1856)
* Mimmack v. United States (1878)
* United States v. Corson (1885)
* United States v. Eaton (1898)
* Quackenbush v. United States (1900)
* United States v. Smith (1932)
* NLRB v. SW General, Inc. (2017)
* Ortiz v. United States (2018)
* FOMBPR v. Aurelius Investment, LLC (2020)

| Officers vs. Employees|

* United States v. Hartwell (1867)
* United States v. Mouat (1888)
* United States v. Smith (1888)
* Auffmordt v. Hedden (1890)
* Burnap v. United States (1920)

|

Inferior Officers|

* United States v. Germaine (1878)
* Ex parte Siebold (1879)
* Freytag v. Commissioner (1991)
* Edmond v. United States (1997)
* Lucia v. SEC (2018)
* United States v. Arthrex, Inc. (2021)

Recess Appointments|

* NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014)

Challenges to Appointments|

* Ryder v. United States (1995)
* Carr v. Saul (2021)

Appointments by Congress|

* Shoemaker v. United States (1893)
* Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands (1928)
* Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
* MWAA v. CAAN (1991)
* Weiss v. United States (1994)

Removal of Officers

* Ex parte Hennen (1839)
* Blake v. United States (1880)
* Crenshaw v. United States (1890)
* McAllister v. United States (1891)
* Keim v. United States (1900)
* Reagan v. United States (1901)
* Shurtleff v. United States (1903)

| Limits on Removal Power|

* United States v. Perkins (1886)
* Parsons v. United States (1897)
* Myers v. United States (1926)
* Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1936)
* Wiener v. United States (1958)
* Morrison v. Olson (1988)
* Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010)
* Selia Law v. CFPB (2020)
* Collins v. Yellen (2021)

|

Removal by Congress|

* Bowsher v. Synar (1986)

Jurisdiction stripping

* Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich (1994)
* Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010)
* Elgin v. Department of Treasury (2012)
* Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (2023)

Ratification

* FEC v. NRA Political Victory Fund (1994)

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template