## Facts

- The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) created an integrated scheme for review of certain federal personnel actions, including removals, with administrative review in the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- A federal statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3328, bars executive-branch employment for individuals who knowingly and willfully failed to register for Selective Service as required by the Military Selective Service Act.
- Michael Elgin and other covered federal employees were removed or constructively removed from federal employment based on § 3328 after determinations that they had not registered.
- The employees asserted that § 3328 was unconstitutional, alleging it functioned as a bill of attainder and violated equal protection principles when combined with male-only Selective Service registration.
- Elgin pursued an MSPB appeal; an administrative law judge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning the removal rested on an absolute statutory bar and stating the MSPB lacked authority to rule on the constitutionality of a federal statute.
- The employees filed suit in federal district court seeking relief on their constitutional claims; the district court ultimately rejected the claims on the merits.
- The First Circuit vacated and ordered dismissal for lack of district court jurisdiction, holding that the CSRA review route applied even when the employee challenges the constitutionality of the statute authorizing the removal.

## Issues

1. Whether the CSRA’s review scheme precludes federal district court jurisdiction over constitutional challenges brought by covered employees contesting a covered adverse action (removal).
2. Whether employees may bypass the CSRA review path by framing their challenge as a facial attack on the statute authorizing their removal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the First Circuit and held that the CSRA precluded district court jurisdiction over the employees’ claims.
- The Court concluded it was fairly discernible that Congress intended the CSRA to provide the exclusive avenue of judicial review for covered employees challenging covered adverse employment actions, even when the claim is that a federal statute is unconstitutional.
- The employees were required to proceed through the CSRA route: MSPB review followed by Federal Circuit review.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress establishes a comprehensive remedial scheme for federal employment disputes, courts generally treat that scheme as exclusive for matters within its scope.
- The CSRA channels challenges to covered adverse actions into a specialized administrative-and-appellate process, and exclusivity does not depend on whether the employee’s claim is statutory or constitutional.
- Even if the MSPB cannot invalidate a federal statute, the CSRA process can still accommodate constitutional litigation by allowing record development and subsequent judicial review in the Federal Circuit.
- The adequacy inquiry focuses on congressional intent to channel review, not on whether an employee prefers initial adjudication in district court.

## Conclusion

Covered federal employees challenging covered removals must use the CSRA’s MSPB-to-Federal Circuit review process, and federal district courts lack jurisdiction even when the employees’ central argument is that the statute authorizing the removal is unconstitutional.


Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012)