721 F.3d 633
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- Mahoney is an ALJ at HUD who alleged agency actions interfered with decisional independence
- Alleged actions: selective case assignment based on political considerations, ex parte communications, and DOJ advance notice on elections
- Alleged failures: docket-number provision and access to legal-research resources
- OPA/CSRA cites: Civil Service Reform Act governs federal employment and provides exclusive remedies
- District court dismissed for lack of standing; government argued CSRA deprives court of subject-matter jurisdiction
- Panel affirms the district court’s dismissal on the CSRA preclusion ground
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSRA precludes suit challenged by Mahoney | Mahoney argues some actions fall outside CSRA’s scope | Government argues CSRA provides exclusive remedies and precludes review | CSRA precludes the suit; district court lacked jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 931 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (discusses exhaustion/standing under CSRA framework)
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1988) (establishes exclusive remedial regime for federal employment)
- Filebark v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 555 F.3d 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (CSRA preclusion of APA review for employment actions)
- Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (exhaustive remedial scheme limits APA review for personnel actions)
- Nyunt v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors, 589 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (CSRA exclusive remedial regime for federal employment)