Elgin v. Department of the Treasury
183 L. Ed. 2d 1
| SCOTUS | 2012Background
- CSRA provides exclusive administrative and judicial review for major adverse federal personnel actions.
- Petitioners are former competitive service employees discharged for failing to register with the Selective Service under 5 U.S.C. § 3328.
- Petitioners challenged Section 3328 as unconstitutional (bill of attainder and sex discrimination) and sought equitable relief.
- MSPB review is the first-step forum for covered actions, with Federal Circuit review of MSPB decisions.
- District courts traditionally have jurisdiction over constitutional claims, but the CSRA scheme directs review to the Federal Circuit for MSPB decisions.
- Lower courts held (and petitioners contend) that CSRA preclusion does not apply to facial constitutional challenges to statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CSRA preclude district court review for constitutional claims? | Elgin argues Webster heightened preclusion standard applies. | Respondents argue CSRA framework precludes district court review. | Yes; CSRA exclusivity forecloses district court jurisdiction. |
| Is preclusion fairly discernible from CSRA’s text/structure/purpose? | CSRA channels review but not explicitly bars district court suits. | CSRA's integrated scheme implies exclusive review. | Fairly discernible preclusion; exclusive CSRA scheme applies. |
| Can MSPB/Federal Circuit provide meaningful review of constitutional claims? | MSPB lacks authority to decide constitutionality. | Federal Circuit can adjudicate constitutional claims on appeal. | Yes; meaningful review within CSRA is available. |
| Are petitioners’ claims wholly collateral to the CSRA scheme? | Claims aimed at facial invalidity of statute, outside MSPB’s expertise. | Constitutional claims relate to remedy for removal; within CSRA scheme. | No; claims are within CSRA’s exclusive framework. |
| Would district court suits avoid meaningful review or cause duplicative proceedings? | District-forum review avoids potential MSPB record limitations. | CSRA prevents duplicative review and claim-splitting. | Preclusion furthers integrated CSRA review; district court suit not allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) (integrated CSRA review; primacy of MSPB/Federal Circuit)
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994) (preclusion based on statute’s structure; meaningful review in chosen forum)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (heightened preclusion standard when Congress intends no judicial review)
- Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477 (2010) (agency-expertise and exclusive review; fairly discernible intent)
- McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) (preclusion not inferred when administrative review lacks merit to constitutional claims)
- Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983) (constitutional claims arising from employment context within comprehensive framework)
- Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1 (2000) (consideration of statutory schemes and preclusion in Medicare context)
- Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974) (constitutional challenges to benefits not precluded by administration of benefits)