This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Oral argument in this case was heard before the Supreme Court of the United States at 10:03 a.m.
According to Harvey A. Schwartz, the case concerns whether the Civil Service Reform Act revokes district‑court jurisdiction to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional in actions brought by Federal employees.
Background and question before the Court
According to Harvey A. Schwartz, the central question is whether it is fairly discernible from the Civil Service Reform Act that Congress revoked district‑court jurisdiction to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional in actions brought by Federal employees.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Michael B. Elgin) Position
According to Harvey A. Schwartz, the petitioner argues that the Civil Service Reform Act does **not** revoke district‑court jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges brought by federal employees.
Respondent (Department of the Treasury) Position
According to Mr. Feigin, the respondent contends that the Merit Systems Protection Board lacks authority to decide the constitutionality of a federal statute, though it may adjudicate as‑applied challenges.
According to Mr. Feigin, the respondent also argues that the statute does not distinguish between different types of constitutional arguments.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked whether an employee with both constitutional and statutory claims would bring the constitutional claims in one court and the statutory claims in another.
Justice Scalia asked whether the plaintiffs also had non‑constitutional claims that they were pursuing in the Federal Circuit.
Justice Alito inquired about jurisdiction over an as‑applied constitutional claim versus a facial constitutional claim before the Merit Systems Protection Review Board.
Justice Ginsburg asked when the government changed its position on whether the MSPB has jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of a statute.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts thanked counsel and noted that the case was submitted.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 9552809cdfc415d3b8fb-r1-0a2ac402f7b9b4a1.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.