Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Fausto

Supreme Court of the United States
1988 U.S. LEXIS 574, 484 U.S. 439, 98 L. Ed. 2d 830 (1988)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The comprehensive and integrated remedial scheme of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) demonstrates a clear congressional intent to preclude judicial review for adverse personnel actions against federal employees who are deliberately excluded from the Act's provisions.


Facts:

  • Joseph A. Fausto was a nonpreference eligible employee in the excepted service, working for the Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
  • In November 1980, FWS notified Fausto of its intent to dismiss him for several reasons, including unauthorized use of a Government vehicle.
  • FWS removed Fausto in January 1981 but failed to inform him of his grievance rights under Department of the Interior regulations.
  • After being notified of his rights much later, Fausto filed a formal grievance.
  • In June 1982, FWS determined that the removal was improper and that most charges were minor.
  • FWS rescinded the removal but retroactively imposed a 30-day suspension for the vehicle misuse.
  • Fausto sought backpay for the 30-day suspension period through an internal agency appeal, which the Secretary of the Interior ultimately denied.

Procedural Posture:

  • Joseph A. Fausto filed an action in the U.S. Claims Court under the Back Pay Act to recover pay for his 30-day suspension.
  • The Claims Court dismissed the suit, holding that the CSRA provided the exclusive remedies for federal employees.
  • Fausto, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the United States as appellee.
  • The Federal Circuit reversed the Claims Court, ruling that the CSRA did not preclude suits traditionally available under the Tucker Act for employees not covered by the Act's remedial provisions.
  • The Court of Appeals denied the Government's petition for a rehearing en banc.
  • The United States, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, by failing to provide an administrative or judicial remedy for a nonpreference excepted service employee challenging a suspension, implicitly preclude that employee from seeking judicial review in the Claims Court under the pre-existing Tucker Act and Back Pay Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Scalia

Yes. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) precludes judicial review for employees it deliberately excludes from its remedial schemes. The CSRA is a comprehensive and elaborate framework that was intended to replace the prior 'haphazard' and 'patchwork' system of administrative and judicial review for personnel actions. Congress carefully delineated which categories of employees would receive which protections, and its deliberate exclusion of nonpreference excepted service employees from the review procedures in Chapter 75 for major adverse actions was a 'considered congressional judgment' to deny them that review. To allow such employees to sue under older statutes would undermine the CSRA's structure by giving a disfavored class of employees greater review rights for minor suspensions than preferred employees and by frustrating the Act's goal of centralizing review in the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the Federal Circuit. The CSRA does not repeal the Back Pay Act, but it alters its application by rendering the Claims Court no longer an 'appropriate authority' to review the underlying personnel actions for which the CSRA provides no remedy.


Dissenting - Justice Stevens

No. The CSRA does not implicitly repeal the pre-existing judicial remedy available to nonpreference excepted service employees under the Tucker Act. The principle that repeals by implication are strongly disfavored requires a clear and manifest congressional intent to repeal, which is absent here; the CSRA contains no text withdrawing this remedy. The CSRA was enacted to reform the cumbersome appeals process for competitive service and preference eligible employees, not to strip away the limited, pre-existing rights of others. In fact, the Act granted new protections to excepted service employees in some areas, making it illogical to assume Congress silently intended to remove old ones. The majority's reliance on precedent is misplaced, and allowing this narrow form of judicial review—limited to agency violations of its own procedures, not the merits of the decision—poses no threat to the CSRA's structure and does not create the 'inverted preference' the majority fears.


Concurring - Justice Blackmun

Yes. The CSRA is an 'integrated scheme' that replaces the prior patchwork system. However, the Court's aversion to finding implied repeals of remedies or judicial review should be just as strong when the repealed remedy originates in case law as when it originates in a specific statutory text. Courts should not lightly set aside judicially recognized remedies, such as Bivens actions, without clear congressional intent.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the CSRA as the exclusive framework for addressing federal employee personnel disputes, establishing that its comprehensive nature implies preclusion of all other remedies for the subjects it covers. The Court's holding demonstrates that when Congress creates a detailed remedial scheme, a deliberate omission of a remedy for a specific group will be interpreted as a prohibition of that remedy, rather than a preservation of older, alternative avenues of relief. This significantly narrows the ability of certain federal employees to seek judicial review of adverse personnel actions, forcing them to rely exclusively on the rights, however limited, granted within the four corners of the CSRA.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Fausto (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"