Elgin v. Department of Treasury (11-45)

argument 11-45

Elgin v. Department of Treasury

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central jurisdictional question about the Civil Service Reform Act in Elgin v. Treasury?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in case eleven forty five, Elgin versus Department of the Treasury. Mr Schwartz.

Edward C. Schwartz 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court The question in this case is whether it is fairly discernible From the Civil Service Reform Act. that Congress revoked the district court jurisdiction to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. in actions brought by federal employees. The answer is no for several reasons. First The Civil Service Reform Act doesn't say that it precludes Section thirteen thirty one jurisdiction. Congress could have said so. Congress didn't say so. And there's no inference of pr preclusion. of the petitioners' claims that's fairly discernible from the scheme itself. That's because challenges to constitutionality of statutes are just not the type of claims. that are reviewed through the CSRA scheme.

Edward C. Schwartz 0:57

Because of this The Merit Systems Protection Board dismisses challenge challenges to constitutionality of a statute routinely. as outside of its authority.

Anthony M. Kennedy 1:06

Mr. Schwartz, suppose um uh employee is fired and he has a variety of different kinds of claims. constitutional and statutory. What would you think happens then? Does he bring the constitutional claims in one court, but the statutory claims in another court? Excuse me, in the in the uh commission?

Edward C. Schwartz 1:27

Uh no, Your Honor. I believe that uh uh because of normal rules against splitting of claims, the employee w would have to make a decision.

Anthony M. Kennedy 1:36

Well, that seems just as bad. In other words, that then you it's not inefficient necessarily, but your scheme would force the employee to choose between her constitutional claims and her statutory claims. That is correct. W why would we do that?

Edward C. Schwartz 1:54

Because of the importance of making the constitutional claims uh uh uh available. in in in a in a in a for judicial review. Um that is that's just one one of the uh the options that the employee would have to weigh.

Samuel A. Alito 2:11

Why would you make that concession? Why wouldn't it be possible? in that for an employee to choose uh i i if the employee had both constitutional and non constitutional claims, perhaps that employee could take advantage of the review scheme that's outlined by the government, but in the situation where there's purely a challenge to a statute. The employee would have the option of bringing the claim in one of the district courts.

Edward C. Schwartz 2:38

Uh that that certainly is a possibility, Your Honor. And and it is a possibility. uh that the employee could bring his constitutional claim in the district court and still pursue his statutory claim before the Marit Systems Protection Board. Uh however, I'd like to point out that uh w while this is an interesting hypothetical We don't have to look at hypotheticals in this situation because we have in the Third Circuit since nineteen eighty six and in the District of Columbia Circuit since nineteen ninety five. Um Uh those two circuits permit Federal employees to bring their constitutional claims in the circuit court. We were unable to find a single instance in which uh there's been one of these mixed claims of a constitu uh constitutional claim and a statutory claim uh brought in the in those

Antonin Scalia 3:28

cases did the uh did the plaintiffs also have nonconstitutional claims which they were pursuing in the uh Federal circuit?

Edward C. Schwartz 3:36

We we are unable to to to to find any example of offering the other thing.

Antonin Scalia 3:44

is a constitutional claim, I suppose, uh the system you propose would work. You go to the district court. But where where you have both, uh

Edward C. Schwartz 3:54

It's a problem. I and I I agree that that is a more difficult situation. Uh but it's not the situation presented by the facts of this case at least.

Anthony M. Kennedy 4:04

But y you suggested that it's a situation that doesn't often arise, and I guess that puzzles me. Why wouldn't it often arise?

Edward C. Schwartz 4:11

Uh I don't know why it doesn't often arise. It it it might be that that that people prefer To leave their claims in the Marit Systems Protection Board.

Anthony M. Kennedy 4:23

Uh is fired because of his or her religion. And he goes to MS P B. This is a f First Amendment claim. MS P has to say, well this is not adequate clause and give and then they find something else in the statute, it can't look at the constitutional aspect of the case.