US Justices: Federal workers’ constitutional claims barred

Listen to this article

The Merit Systems Protection Board provides the exclusive avenue of judicial review for federal employees’ adverse employment action challenges, even when those employees argue that a federal statute is unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

The case involves a group of former federal employees who claimed they were wrongly fired for failing to register with the Selective Service system, a requirement for federal employment. Some claimed that they did register, and others claimed they were never told of the registration requirement.

The employees appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, a body created by the Civil Service Reform Act to hear appeals of adverse employments actions by federal employees. They claimed the Selective Service requirement violated their Equal Protection rights because only men were required to register with the Selective Service. They also claimed the registration requirement was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder – a law that deemed an alleged violator guilty without a trial.

The MSPB dismissed the complaints, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims.

The fired workers then filed suit in federal district court. The court granted summary judgment to the employees on the Bill of Attainder claim. But the 1st Circuit reversed, holding that under the CSRA, federal employees can only challenge the constitutionality of employment decisions that are before the MSPB, and may thereafter appeal adverse decisions to the Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court granted the workers’ petition for certiorari and heard arguments in the case in February.

In a 6-3 ruling, the justices affirmed the 1st Circuit’s holding. In an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the majority stated that it is “fairly discernible” from the CSRA that Congress intended covered employees appealing covered agency actions to proceed exclusively through the statutory review scheme, even in cases in which the employees raise constitutional challenges to federal statutes.

“Given the painstaking detail with which the CSRA sets out the method for covered employees to obtain review of adverse employment actions, it is fairly discernible that Congress intended to deny such employees an additional avenue of review in district court,” Thomas wrote.

A dissent by Justice Samuel Alito Jr. was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.

U.S. Supreme Court. Elgin v. U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, No. 11-45.