487 F.Supp.3d 20
D.D.C.2020Background
- Congress created the temporary National Commission on Military Aviation Safety in the 2019 NDAA to study military aviation mishaps and required a report; Commissioners are "deemed to be Federal employees" and are part of the excepted service.
- Senator Jack Reed (as Ranking Member) appointed Peter Mapes to the eight-member Commission on November 13, 2018.
- In late 2019 the Air Force raised complaints about Mapes’s conduct; Reed removed Mapes by letter on January 7, 2020, saying Mapes’s service was incompatible with other Commissioners.
- Mapes filed suit on January 28, 2020, against Reed and Commission Chairman Richard Cody, alleging violations of the 2019 NDAA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Constitution, and seeking reinstatement and pay for work performed after removal.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the district court evaluated only subject-matter jurisdiction and found the suit barred because the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) provides the exclusive review scheme for covered federal employment actions by excepted-service employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CSRA precludes district-court jurisdiction over Mapes’s challenge to his removal | Mapes argued the CSRA does not bar his suit and that district court review is available under the APA and directly under the 2019 NDAA | Defendants argued CSRA provides the exclusive review scheme for personnel actions of covered employees and thus precludes district-court jurisdiction | Court held CSRA is exclusive; dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether Mapes is covered by the CSRA (i.e., an "employee" in the excepted service subject to CSRA remedies) | Mapes contended the Commission’s silence on removal authority meant CSRA did not apply | Defendants pointed to the NDAA language deeming Commissioners "Federal employees" and the Commission being a temporary organization under title 5, placing members in the excepted service | Court held Mapes is in the excepted service and entitled to CSRA review for removals |
| Whether constitutional claims (separation-of-powers, due process) can be litigated in district court instead of under the CSRA | Mapes argued constitutional claims fall outside CSRA preclusion and can be heard in district court | Defendants argued Elgin and related precedents require constitutional employment claims by covered employees to be brought through the CSRA scheme | Court held constitutional claims must be pursued within CSRA framework and thus cannot be litigated in this district court action |
| Whether the Leedom exception permits district-court review despite CSRA preclusion | Mapes invoked Leedom v. Kyne to claim narrow judicial review when an agency acts beyond statutory authority | Defendants argued Leedom does not apply because CSRA provides alternative review and Mapes did not allege an obvious, clear statutory command was violated | Court held Leedom inapplicable: CSRA provides alternate review and Mapes showed no extreme, clearly proscribed statutory violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Elgin v. Dep't of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (holding CSRA precludes district-court suits seeking to vindicate constitutional rights when CSRA provides review)
- Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (describing CSRA’s framework for personnel actions and review)
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (discussing CSRA as an integrated scheme replacing older remedies)
- Grosdidier v. Chairman, Bd. of Governors, 560 F.3d 495 (D.C. Cir.) (CSRA is the exclusive remedial regime for federal employment disputes)
- Nyunt v. Chairman, Bd. of Governors, 589 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir.) (CSRA bars district-court suits by covered employees; Leedom exception narrow)
- Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (establishing narrow exception allowing judicial review when agency acts in plain excess of statutory authority)
- Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir.) ("what you get under the CSRA is what you get")