Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Maria Esparraguera v. Department of the Army

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2019-2293 · judgment December 4, 2020


Certiorari denied · March 28, 2022
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

In Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012), this Court held that, where the Civil Service Reform Act directs a federal employee to the Merit Systems Protection Board in connection with a personnel action, judicial review of that action must occur exclusively in the Federal Circuit. Id. at 10-21. The Court also explained that, “in an appeal from agency action within the MSPB’s jurisdiction,” the Federal Circuit’s “authority to decide particular legal questions” is not “derivative of the MPSB’s authority.” Id. at 18. The Court thus held that the Federal Circuit may review constitutional challenges to personnel actions within the MSPB’s jurisdiction, whether or not the MSPB has authority to decide those challenges. Ibid. When a career senior executive is removed from the Senior Executive Service (“SES”) for “less than fully successful executive performance,” the Civil Service Reform Act entitles her to “an informal hearing before an official designated by the Merit Systems Protection Board.” 5 U.S.C. § 3592(a), (a)(2). In the decision below, the Federal Circuit held that the “informal hearing” afforded by § 3592(a) does not permit MSPB review of a career senior executive’s removal from the SES. The court of appeals then held that, because the MSPB cannot decide the legality of such removals, the Federal Circuit cannot do so either—even with respect to constitutional challenges. The question presented is: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that neither it nor the MSPB may review a career senior executive’s removal from the Senior Executive Service under 5 U.S.C. § 3592(a)(2). (i)

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Lucas Michael Walker
MoloLamken LLP

For respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Mar 28 2022
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Mar 09 2022
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/25/2022.
  3. Mar 08 2022
    Reply of petitioner Maria Esparraguera filed. (Distributed)
  4. Feb 17 2022
    Brief of respondent Department of the Army in opposition filed.
  5. Feb 02 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 17, 2022.
  6. Feb 01 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 9, 2022 to February 17, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
  7. Jan 04 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 9, 2022.
  8. Jan 03 2022
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 10, 2022 to February 9, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
  9. Nov 18 2021
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 10, 2022.
  10. Nov 16 2021
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 9, 2021 to January 10, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
  11. Nov 05 2021
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 9, 2021)