|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-45||1st Cir.||Feb 27, 2012||Jun 11, 2012||6-3||Thomas||OT 2011|
Holding: The Civil Service Reform Act provides the exclusive avenue to judicial review when a qualifying federal employee challenges an adverse employment action by arguing that a federal statute is unconstitutional.
Plain English Summary: With a few exceptions, federal law requires all male U.S. citizens between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five to register for the draft. A different federal law bars from the civil service (which encompasses most of the jobs within the executive branch) anyone who knowingly refused to do so. The lead petitioner in this case was Michael Elgin, a former federal employee who was fired when the government discovered that he failed to register for the draft. Elgin tried to challenge the law in court, arguing among other things that the law violates the Constitution because women are not required to register for the draft – and therefore can never be fired for failing to do so. At issue before the Court was not whether Elgin is correct, but instead how he gets to raise his challenge. By a vote of six to three, the Court sided with the federal government, which argued that a former federal employee like Elgin must first bring his claims to a federal agency (the Merit Systems Protection Board, or MSPB), rather than a court – even if the MSPB isn’t allowed to decide constitutional claims like his. The Court reasoned that, even if the MSPB can’t decide Elgin’s claims, the federal appeals court that reviews the MSPB’s decisions – the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – can. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Congress meant to allow litigants like Elgin to bypass the procedure it created for most other employment-related claims.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 11, 2012. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
Merits Briefs for the Petitioner
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
Merits Briefs for the Respondents
The Senate has advanced Biden's nomination of Elizabeth Prelogar to be solicitor general, the top lawyer who represents the administration at the Supreme Court.
Final confirmation vote expected tomorrow. Just in time for Prelogar to argue on Monday in the Texas abortion case?
Invoked, 53-42: Motion to invoke cloture on Executive Cal. #413 Elizabeth Prelogar to be Solicitor General of the United States.
It's the Great Pumpkin, Chief Justice Roberts.
Our new homepage banner, created by @Courtartist.
A week from today, the Supreme Court will hear argument on the scope of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. It's a case that could ultimately determine the fate of many gun-control measures around the country. Here's our preview, from @AHoweBlogger:
In major Second Amendment case, court will review limits on carrying a concealed gun in public - SCOTUSblog
The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” On Nov. 3, the Suprem...
The court has rescheduled oral argument in Shinn v. Ramirez, an important case involving habeas rights and the death penalty, for Dec. 8.
#SCOTUS also issues revised December argument calendar, adding Shinn v. Ramirez (moved to December from November to accommodate Texas cases) on Dec. 8: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/10-26-21-Amended-DEC-2021-Monthly-Argument-Session-Calendar.pdf
#SCOTUS issues order on divided argument in next week's Texas abortion cases, allows Texas to file one consolidated (but oversized) brief for both cases: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/102621zr_o7jp.pdf
Happening now outside SCOTUS: Several dozens supporters of expanding the size of the court are holding a rally. Speakers include Sen. Ed Markey, Sen. Tina Smith, and Rep. Mondaire Jones.