United States v. Fausto

PETITIONER: United States
RESPONDENT: Fausto
LOCATION: Wall Street Journal Corporate Headquarters

DOCKET NO.: 86-595
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 484 US 439 (1988)
ARGUED: Oct 07, 1987
DECIDED: Jan 25, 1988

Facts of the case

Question

Media for United States v. Fausto

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 07, 1987 in United States v. Fausto

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - January 25, 1988 in United States v. Fausto

William H. Rehnquist:

The opinion of the Court in No. 86-595, United States against Fausto will be announced by Justice Scalia.

Antonin Scalia:

This case comes here by writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Respondent, Joseph A. Fausto, became an employee of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior in 1978.

He was hired as an administrative officer for the Young Adult Conservation Corps camp at Virginia Beach, Virginia.

His position was to last for the duration of the Virginia Beach program, but not beyond September 30, 1982.

His status under the Civil Service Laws was not bad of a competitive service employee, but rather that of what is technically termed a nonpreference member of the excepted service, a category which is afforded a lower level of statutory protections against dismissal and other adverse actions.

Respondent was suspended from his job for 30 days for the unauthorized use of a government vehicle.

After unsuccessfully appealing his suspension to the Secretary of the Interior, he filed an action under the Back Pay Act in the Claims Court.

That Court dismissed the action on the ground that a nonpreference member of the excepted service has no right to judicial review of such a suspension under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and that Act provided the exclusive catalog of remedies available to him.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded holding at the CSRA did not preclude respondent from seeking the Claims Court review under the Tucker Act based on -- on the Back Pay Act which had been available before enactment of the CSRA.

On the merits, it found that respondent was entitled to back pay.

We reversed that judgment.

CSRA comprehensively overhauled the civil service system prescribing in great detail the protections and remedies available to civil servants affected by adverse personnel actions.

In light of the comprehensive nature of the Act, its attention throughout to the rights and remedies of nonpreference excepted service employees and the structure of the Act, we believe that the exclusion of these employees from the adverse -- from the adverse action provisions of the Act, which include the right of judicial review, represents a congressional judgment that they should not have a statutory entitlement to judicial review for the type of action involved here.

Justice Stevens has filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall.

Justice Blackmun who joins the opinion of the Court has also filed a concurrence.