About: Elgin v. Department of Treasury

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- Rule:
- Inverse Functional Properties:
- "Same As":

About: Elgin v. Department of Treasury Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon

http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FElgin_v._Department_of_Treasury

Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) gives exclusive jurisdiction for claims under the Act to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Additionally, the Court held that the Act bars federal district courts from ruling on matters related to the act including adverse employment actions of the federal departments, and allows the Merit Systems Protection Board to hear constitutional arguments for wrongful employee severance and adverse employment actions. It was a 6–3 decision, with the majority opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas. The case greatly limited the recourse of federal employees to the courts for adverse employment practices, allowing such r

Attributes	Values
rdf:type	Thing case Legal Case unit of work Legal case yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesOfTheRobertsCourt yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Case107308889 yago:Event100029378 yago:Happening107283608 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity Supreme Court of the United States case
rdfs:label	Elgin v. Department of Treasury (en)
rdfs:comment	Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) gives exclusive jurisdiction for claims under the Act to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Additionally, the Court held that the Act bars federal district courts from ruling on matters related to the act including adverse employment actions of the federal departments, and allows the Merit Systems Protection Board to hear constitutional arguments for wrongful employee severance and adverse employment actions. It was a 6–3 decision, with the majority opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas. The case greatly limited the recourse of federal employees to the courts for adverse employment practices, allowing such r (en)
foaf:name	(en) Michael B. Elgin, et al., Petitioners v. Department of the Treasury, et al. (en)
dcterms:subject	Gender issues in the military United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court United States public employment case law 2012 in United States case law Conscription in the United States
Wikipage page ID	36682714 (xsd:integer)
Wikipage revision ID	1067749697 (xsd:integer)
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage	Rostker v. Goldberg Gender issues in the military F. Supp. 2d United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts United States Merit Systems Protection Board United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 Clarence Thomas Equal Protection Clause United States public employment case law 1st Cir. 2012 in United States case law D. Mass. Administrative law judge Conscription in the United States Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution L. Ed. 2d Bill of attainder Supreme Court of the United States National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System Certiorari Exclusive jurisdiction U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Selective Service F.3d U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Department of the Treasury U.S. LEXIS
Link from a Wikipage to an external page	https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case%3Fcase=18350580706386462124 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/1/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/801976/elgin-v-department-of-treasury/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-45 https://www.leagle.com/decision/2009727594wfsupp2d1331705 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20110408052 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20100903530 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-45 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-45.pdf
sameAs	Elgin v. Department of Treasury Elgin v. Department of Treasury Elgin v. Department of Treasury Elgin v. Department of Treasury
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Reflist dbt:UnitedStatesCode dbt:Usc dbt:Wikisource-inline dbt:Ussc dbt:US_Appointments_Clause
Dissent	Alito (en)
JoinDissent	Ginsburg, Kagan (en)
JoinMajority	Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor (en)
LawsApplied	Civil Service Reform Act of 1978; ; (en)
oyez	https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-45
ParallelCitations	172800.0 (second)
Prior	25920.0 (second)
USPage	1 (xsd:integer)
USVol	567 (xsd:integer)
ArgueDate	0001-02-27 (xsd:gMonthDay)
ArgueYear	2012 (xsd:integer)
case	Elgin v. Department of Treasury, (en)
courtlistener	https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/801976/elgin-v-department-of-treasury/
DecideDate	0001-06-11 (xsd:gMonthDay)
DecideYear	2012 (xsd:integer)
fullname	Michael B. Elgin, et al., Petitioners v. Department of the Treasury, et al. (en)
Holding	The CSRA gives exclusive jurisdiction to suits rising under the act to the MSPB, with appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and further appeals to the Supreme Court. Federal District Courts cannot rule on issues regarding the act or on adverse employment actions of the federal departments. The MSPB can hear constitutional arguments for adverse employment actions. (en)
italic title	force (en)
justia	https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/1/
Litigants	Elgin v. Department of Treasury (en)
majority	Thomas (en)
other source	Supreme Court (en)
other url	https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-45.pdf
has abstract	Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) gives exclusive jurisdiction for claims under the Act to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Additionally, the Court held that the Act bars federal district courts from ruling on matters related to the act including adverse employment actions of the federal departments, and allows the Merit Systems Protection Board to hear constitutional arguments for wrongful employee severance and adverse employment actions. It was a 6–3 decision, with the majority opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas. The case greatly limited the recourse of federal employees to the courts for adverse employment practices, allowing such recourse only to a few, specific courts as aforementioned. (en)

Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024

Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 67 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software