Posted on 05/10/2017 1:04:01 PM PDT by Rusty0604
Sharon M. Helman, the former Director of the Phoe- nix Veterans Affairs Health Care System, appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB" or "Board"). The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs ("DVA") removed Ms. Helman from her position under 38 U.S.C. 713, and a MSPB administra- tive judge subsequently affirmed her removal. Ms. Hel- man sought review from the full Board. Citing 713(e)(2), the Board refused to take any further action on Ms. Helman's appeal. Ms. Helman timely petitioned for our review of the constitutionality of the statute governing her removal and the process afforded to her under that statute.We conclude that by prohibiting Board review under 713(e)(2), Congress vests significant authority in an administrative judge in violation of the Appointments Clause. We also conclude that 713(e)(2) and two related portions of 713(e) are severable and, thus, the proper remedy for the constitutional flaw in 713 is to sever those portions of the statute and leave the remainder of the statute intact. We remand for the MSPB to take appropriate action on Ms. Helman's petition for review of the administrative judge's initial decision.
I wonder if this title was misstated.
I didn’t find a layer of Federal Circuit appeals courts under the “13” that are like unto the 9th Circuit Court of appeals. They may have been talking about a federal district court.
Perhaps you understand it differently. If so, explain a bit if you could.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals
Interesting.
www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure
Here’s another search I tried:
Not trying to be argumentative here. I just want to understand.
This would seem to be the 9th, unless I’m just not getting it. I think that is the only Federal Circuit “appleals” court in the region.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Article III of the U.S. Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts. In the federal court system’s present form, 94 district level trial courts and 13 courts of appeals sit below the Supreme Court.
It sounds to me like there are district courts and appeals courts. Those appeals courts would be the 13 Federal District of Appeals courts.
I do see a military carve out and you mention a CAFC court. Was the CAFC in play here?
If not, this would seem to have on one Federal Circuit Court Handling Appeals, the 9th.
If I'm still missing it, don't give up.
The decision here was rendered by the CAFC. The OP says so — it’s how I found and linked to the decision itself.
Thank you. I missed that. I appreciate the correction.
There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals.
So, that accounts for 12 out of the 13. These are known as the "Circuit Courts of Appeal," e.g., "the 9th Circuit."
In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
This case is a direct appeal, without having gone through ANY Article III court. No federal district court was involved at all.
How did plaintiff manage to get a direct appeal? The opinion tells us ...
We generally have jurisdiction over appeals of a final decision of the MSPB under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(9), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7703(b)(1).
The judge’s argument is in the article but it is convoluted.
The good part of the ruling:
“parties will bear their own costs”
I can see the Appropriations Clause argument, but don’t think personnel actions rise to that level.
Right now there’s only one member on the 3 man Merit Systems Protection Board (no quorum). Dems will make Trump wait months to appoint anyone.
It would help if they listed it as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, if the CAFC is the proper abbreviation.
Thanks for the additional information.
Appointments Clause!
I think there is a link in the article.
The jurisdiction is spelled out in 28 USC 1295, if you are a glutton for punishment (or insomniac).
I checked all of the links before going on an idependent hunt. If one of the links is to the decision, I didn't find it (in the article). I did find the opinion and decision, and linked to it a post or two after the post you replied to.
If I understood the information, I would not have been asking questions. It bothers you that folks don’t understand this topic as well as you do?
Perhaps you should remain silent next time if this upsets you so much.
LOL
Not at all, of course not. Sorry you read some sort offense into my help. I'm happy to ignore you if you prefer. I figure the jurisdiction link was unnecessary, and by posting it with a "glutton for punishment (or insomniac)" preface, meant to mock Congress for such a complex jurisdictional statement.
Remove jurisdiction of the issue from court review. Yes, the Congress and President can do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.