Walpin v. Corporation for National & Community Services
394 U.S. App. D.C. 40
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Walpin, former CNCS Inspector General, was removed in June 2009 after a coercive ultimatum from the White House counsel.
- The President notified Congress of removal via letters dated June 11, 2009; Congress was informed about loss of confidence in Walpin.
- Walpin filed a mandamus action claiming the 30-day Congress-notice requirement was violated by the removal/transfer.
- The district court dismissed for lack of a clear right to relief; Walpin appealed.
- The panel reviews whether Walpin has a clear right to mandamus to compel restoration under the Inspector General Act, as amended by IGRA.
- Walpin argues the removal notice violated 3(b) and thus entitles relief; the district court held no clear right to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walpin has a clear right to mandamus relief to enforce 30-day Congress notice. | Walpin | CNCS | No clear right; mandamus not warranted. |
| Whether the administrative leave before removal constitutes removal triggering 3(b) notice. | Walpin | CNCS | Administrative leave did not constitute removal; 30-day notice issued after removal. |
| Whether the President's stated reasons in the notice satisfy 3(b)'s requirement to communicate reasons for removal. | Walpin | CNCS | Reasons stated (no longer has fullest confidence) suffice under 3(b). |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate where a statutory notice requirement exists but other remedies may be available. | Walpin | CNCS | Mandamus unavailable where no clear right to relief is shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. U.S. Postal Serv., 696 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir.1983) (no right to continued duty during notice period absent explicit protection)
- In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723 (D.C.Cir.2005) (mandamus requires clear right and duty; en banc standard)
- Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973 (D.C.Cir.1996) (no mandamus where statutory protections lacking)
- Natural Res. Def. Council v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288 (D.C.Cir.1988) (statutory reporting discretion; review limited)
- Baptist Mem'l Hosp. v. Sebelius, 603 F.3d 57 (D.C.Cir.2010) (mandamus and statutory interpretation in executive actions)