30 F.4th 503
5th Cir.2022Background
- President Biden issued Executive Order 14043 (Sept. 9, 2021) directing agencies to require COVID-19 vaccination for federal employees, with medical and religious exceptions; the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force issued implementation guidance and set vaccination deadlines.
- Feds for Medical Freedom and other organizations/individuals sued in December 2021 seeking a nationwide pre-enforcement injunction, arguing the President exceeded his authority.
- The district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs likely to succeed and that the equities favored them; it rejected the Government’s contention that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) precluded district-court review.
- The Government appealed and the Fifth Circuit expedited the appeal and considered the CSRA jurisdictional issue first.
- The Fifth Circuit majority vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding the CSRA channels these employment-related claims to the MSPB and Federal Circuit.
- Judge Barksdale dissented, arguing the CSRA does not govern a pre-enforcement, government-wide presidential directive and that the district court had jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CSRA bars district-court jurisdiction over this pre-enforcement challenge | EO challenge is outside CSRA because no agency has taken an adverse action; district court may hear pre-enforcement constitutional claims | CSRA’s integrated scheme covers employment-related challenges and forecloses district-court review for covered employees facing personnel actions | CSRA precludes district-court jurisdiction; case must proceed through MSPB/Federal Circuit remedies |
| Whether plaintiffs would be deprived of meaningful review if forced into the CSRA scheme | CSRA review would be inadequate or unavailable (some may comply and never get review); pre-enforcement relief in district court is necessary | MSPB plus exclusive Federal Circuit review afford meaningful, adequate review and remedies (reinstatement, backpay) | Federal Circuit/MSPB provide meaningful review; no exception to CSRA warranted |
| Whether the claim is truly collateral to CSRA (i.e., not an employment/personnel dispute) | Challenge is to the EO generally — a statutory/constitutional collateral claim outside CSRA | The relief sought (avoid discipline/termination) is employment-related and within CSRA’s remedial scope | Claim is not collateral; it seeks to avoid personnel actions and thus fits within CSRA’s exclusive scheme |
| Whether MSPB lacks expertise to adjudicate the plaintiffs’ constitutional and threshold employment questions | Constitutional and administrative-law questions are unsuited to MSPB; district court is appropriate forum | MSPB routinely addresses threshold employment questions; its expertise can resolve many preliminary issues before reaching constitutional claims | MSPB has relevant expertise; that supports CSRA exclusivity and dismissal of district-court suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012) (CSRA’s review scheme is exclusive for covered employment actions and precludes district-court suits asserting statutory or constitutional challenges)
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) (CSRA created an integrated, exclusive administrative and judicial review system for civil-service personnel disputes)
- Cochran v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 20 F.4th 194 (5th Cir. 2021) (discusses when to presume Congress did not intend to preclude district-court review and distinguishes structural relief from substantive relief)
- Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) (distinguishes structural remedies from remedies that provide individual redress)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (ripeness and imminence principles relevant to claims of inevitable injury)