Citation network
United States Vs. Fausto
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 25, 1988
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 439 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. FaustoSearch
-
U.S. 439 (1988) United States v. FaustoSearch
-
that, under the CSRA, a nonpreference eligible in the excepted service has no right to appeal to the MSPB. Fausto v. DepartmentSearch
-
Block v. CommunitySearch
-
traditionally used for so-called nonstatutory review of agency action, including suits for mandamus, see, e.g., Taylor v. UnitedSearch
-
States Civil Service Comm'n, 374 F.2d 466 (CA9 1967), injunction, see, e.g., Hargett v. SummerfieldSearch
-
U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29 (1957), and declaratory judgment, see, e.g., Camero v. McNamaraSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
could maintain an action in the Court of Claims of the sort respondent seeks to maintain here. See, e.g., Ainsworth v. UnitedSearch
-
repetition of essentially the same review on appeal in the court of appeals, was wasteful and irrational. See Polcover v. SecretarySearch
-
protections of Chapter 75 -- including judicial review -- for personnel action covered by that chapter. In Block v. CommunitySearch
-
evidence that Congress intended to preclude consumers from obtaining judicial review. Similarly, in United States v. ErikaSearch
-
from what we have elsewhere found to be an indicator of nonreviewability, the structure of the statutory scheme. Block v. CommunitySearch
-
Southern R. Co. v. SeaboardSearch
-
Lindahl v. OPMSearch
-
Circuit as demonstrating the pre-CSRA right to Court of Claims review involved a probationary employee. See Greenway v. UnitedSearch
-
to believe otherwise. Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSearch
-
Nutrition Institute, 467 U.S. at 467 U. S. 351 (quoting Data Processing Service v. CampSearch
-
to which amicus appeals is the doctrine that repeals by implication are strongly disfavored, Rodriguez v. UnitedSearch
-
not be held to have implicitly repealed an earlier one unless there is a clear repugnancy between the two, Georgia v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Wood v. UnitedSearch
-
that Congress will specifically address language on the statute books that it wishes to change. See, e.g., Morton v. MancariSearch
-
with some circularity of reasoning) that it was such a court because it had jurisdiction to award backpay. Ainsworth v. UnitedSearch
-
who are given review rights by Chapter 75, cannot expand these rights by resort to pre-CSRA remedies. Cf. Pinar v. DoleSearch
-
Carducci v. ReganSearch
-
long has recognized that the Constitution itself supports a private damages action against a federal official, Bivens v. SixSearch
-
U. S. 388 (1971), and that the courts' common law power to vindicate constitutional rights, see Davis v. PassmanSearch
-
flaws in the reasoning of the majority. I In important respects respondent's case is similar to Vitarelli v. SeatonSearch
-
See Batchelor v. UnitedSearch
-
Greenway v. UnitedSearch
-
Watson v. UnitedSearch
-
the conclusion that Congress did not intend to repeal that remedy. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. CurranSearch
-
the CSRA is given added support by the strong presumption favoring judicial review of administrative action. See Bowen v. MichiganSearch
-
To support this remarkable conclusion, the majority places primary reliance on our decisions in Block v. CommunitySearch
-
Nutrition Institute, 467 U. S. 340 , 467 U. S. 345 -348 (1984), and United States v. ErikaSearch
-
do not have, and have never had, a generalized right to challenge their removals under the Tucker Act. Batchelor v. UnitedSearch
-
Court, which inherited the Court of Claims' authority to exercise general jurisdiction over Tucker Act claims. Lindahl v. OPMSearch
-
As we explained in United States v. TestanSearch
-
See Rodriguez v. UnitedSearch
-
quoting Radzanower v. ToucheSearch
-
Ross & Co., 426 U. S. 148 , 426 U. S. 154 (1976), in turn quoting United States v. UnitedSearch
-
Ruckelshaus v. MonsantoSearch
-
measure is necessary to the harmonious operation of the two statutes. See St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church v. SouthSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial