Did the Court of Appeals commit constitutional error in holding that In re Navy Chaplaincy's denial of Petitioners' systemic challenges to the Navy promotion procedures also foreclosed Petitioners' individual claims of retaliation, constructive discharge and interference with religious speech

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Background and Context The petitioners are 21 Navy Non-liturgical (a.k.a., “Evangelical”) chaplains, see Glossary. They are the remainder of a group of 65 Non-liturgical chaplains who challenged Navy denominational prejudice and favoritism, most evident in chaplain promotions, in three separate cases filed in 1999, 2000 and 2006, consolidated into In re Navy Chaplaincy, 07-m c-269 (D.D.C.). In 2006, the district court informally separated Petitioners’ claims into systemic claims against promotion procedures and other policies and individual claims including retaliation, constructive discharge, and interference with Petitioners’ religious speech. The district court granted summary judgment to the Navy in 2018 on the systemic claims, and then severed Petitioners’ never previously addressed individual claims. In responding to the Navy’s motion to dismiss the severed claims, the district court held its decision on the systemic claims was res judicata for Petitioners’ individual claims, which the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed. ii The Questions Presented for Review are: 1. Did the Court of Appeals commit constitutional error in holding that In re Navy Chaplaincy’s denial of Petitioners’ systemic challenges to the Navy promotion procedures also foreclosed Petitioners’ individual claims of retaliation, constructive discharge and interference with religious speech when the retaliation claims had never been reviewed and Inspector General investigations showed board members used promotion board procedures as tools for anonymous retaliation? 2. Did the Court of Appeals unlawfully deny Petitioners judicial review of a colorable constitutional claim when it held res judicata also applied to the Chaplaincy’s denial of Petitioners’ discovery?