Furniss Harkness v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13999
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Furniss Harkness, a Naval Reserve chaplain, was not recommended for promotion to Captain by the 2007 reserve selection board and petitioned the Secretary for a special selection board (SSB) under 10 U.S.C. § 14502.
- The Secretary denied his initial SSB request; Harkness then sued in federal court asserting (1) arbitrariness of the Secretary’s decision, (2) an Establishment Clause challenge to Navy chaplain promotion procedures, and (3) bad faith.
- The Secretary later granted an SSB; that SSB again declined to recommend Harkness for promotion (and he later sought a second SSB).
- The district court dismissed Harkness’s Establishment Clause claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding he failed to exhaust administrative remedies required by § 14502(g).
- The Fourth Circuit panel (Cole, J.) affirmed, holding § 14502 provides the exclusive route for judicial review of reserve non-promotion claims and that Harkness failed to present his Establishment Clause claim adequately to the Secretary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 14502(g) bars federal-court jurisdiction over a reserve officer’s constitutional challenge to promotion procedures | Harkness: Constitutional claims are not exempt and should be heard in federal court without exhausting § 14502 because they challenge ongoing/future boards and assert fundamental rights | Government: § 14502(g) bars any claim “based in any way” on failure to be selected until presented to Secretary/SSB; constitutional claims fall within that broad bar | Held: § 14502(g) is exclusive and precludes federal jurisdiction until claim presented to Secretary or acted on by SSB |
| Whether Harkness’s Establishment Clause claim is the type Congress intended to channel into § 14502 scheme | Harkness: Claim is collateral and aimed at future boards, so not the sort Congress meant to channel | Government: Claim directly challenges a non‑promotion and errors that § 14502(b) contemplates (including constitutional defects) | Held: Claim is not wholly collateral and is the sort Congress intended to be addressed within the statutory scheme |
| Whether Harkness adequately presented his Establishment Clause claim to the Secretary when requesting an SSB | Harkness: The petition conveyed the essence of the constitutional challenge and lack of statistical evidence earlier made full articulation impossible | Government: Petition focused on board-staffing irregularities and did not put Secretary on notice of an Establishment Clause challenge | Held: Harkness did not present the constitutional claim with sufficient specificity to give the Secretary a meaningful opportunity to address it |
| Whether barring federal review now denies Harkness any forum for a colorable constitutional claim | Harkness: Immediate judicial review required for constitutional rights | Government: Statutory route allows administrative presentation then judicial review if Secretary rejects or after SSB action | Held: The statute does not deny a forum; Harkness may present the claim to the Secretary and seek federal review after § 14502’s procedures are exhausted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re England, 375 F.3d 1169 (D.C. Cir.) (describing Chaplain Corps history and organization)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts have limited jurisdiction)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (statutory exhaustion requirements must be honored)
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (Congress may channel review to administrative scheme)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (statute may not deny any judicial forum for colorable constitutional claim)
- In re Navy Chaplaincy, 697 F.3d 1171 (D.C. Cir.) (standing and review of chaplain promotion procedures)
- Juffer v. Caldera, 138 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C.) (§ 14502 construed as exclusive review route)