No. 21-686

Maria Esparraguera v. Department of the Army

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2021-11-09
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-law civil-service-reform-act constitutional-challenge due-process federal-circuit judicial-review merit-systems-protection-board senior-executive-service
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-03-25
Question Presented (AI Summary)

whether-the-federal-circuit-erred-in-holding-that-neither-it-nor-the-mspb-may-review-a-career-senior-executive's-removal-from-the-senior-executive-service-under-5-u.s.c.-§3592(a)(2)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED In Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012), this Court held that, where the Civil Service Reform Act directs a federal employee to the Merit Systems Protection Board in connection with a personnel action, judicial review of that action must occur exclusively in the Federal Circuit. Id. at 10-21. The Court also explained that, “fn an appeal from agency action within the MSPB’s jurisdiction,” the Federal Circuit’s “authority to decide particular legal questions” is not “derivative of the MPSB’s authority.” Jd. at 18. The Court thus held that the Federal Circuit may review constitutional challenges to personnel actions within the MSPB’s jurisdiction, whether or not the MSPB has authority to decide those challenges. Ibid. When a career senior executive is removed from the Senior Executive Service (“SES”) for “less than fully successful executive performance,” the Civil Service Reform Act entitles her to “an informal hearing before an official designated by the Merit Systems Protection Board.” 5 U.S.C. §3592(a), (a)(2). In the decision below, the Federal Circuit held that the “informal hearing” afforded by § 3592(a) does not permit MSPB review of a career senior executive’s removal from the SES. The court of appeals then held that, because the MSPB cannot decide the legality of such removals, the Federal Circuit cannot do so either—even with respect to constitutional challenges. The question presented is: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that neither it nor the MSPB may review a career senior executive’s removal from the Senior Executive Service under 5 U.S.C. §3592(a)(2). (i)

Docket Entries

2022-03-28
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/25/2022.
2022-03-08
Reply of petitioner Maria Esparraguera filed. (Distributed)
2022-02-17
Brief of respondent Department of the Army in opposition filed.
2022-02-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 17, 2022.
2022-02-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 9, 2022 to February 17, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 9, 2022.
2022-01-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 10, 2022 to February 9, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 10, 2022.
2021-11-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 9, 2021 to January 10, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 9, 2021)

Attorneys

Department of the Army
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Maria Esparraguera
Lucas Michael WalkerMoloLamken LLP, Petitioner
Lucas Michael WalkerMoloLamken LLP, Petitioner