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
According to Mr. Fletcher, the Federal Circuit generally has exclusive jurisdiction to review MSPB decisions, but Section 7703(b)(2) creates an exception that sends mixed cases to district courts.
Whether the Board’s decision on the merits of a civil service claim determines jurisdiction is irrelevant; jurisdiction depends on the nature of the allegations.
The case also raises whether an employee must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking district‑court review.
Background and question before the Court
According to Christopher Landau, a related question is whether the Board’s substantive decision on a civil‑service claim affects jurisdiction.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Anthony W. Perry) – Arguments
According to Christopher Landau, when the Board rejects an employee’s allegations about a civil‑service action, it makes a substantive merits decision, which does not determine jurisdiction.
According to Christopher Landau, exhaustion is a defense; if the Board’s decision is affirmed, there is a question whether the discrimination claim has been exhausted.
According to Mr. Landau, jurisdiction over a mixed question turns on the allegations, not merely on the outcome of the civil‑service action.
Respondent (Merit Systems Protection Board) – Arguments
According to Mr. Fletcher, the Federal Circuit generally has exclusive jurisdiction to review MSPB decisions, but Section 7703(b)(2) sends mixed cases to district courts.
According to Mr. Fletcher, employees have a right to a de novo trial on discrimination claims, which cannot be obtained in the Federal Circuit.
According to Mr. Fletcher, a tolling rule is needed to determine which forum the employee should use for the discrimination claim.
According to Mr. Fletcher, if an employee does not seek review of the Board’s decision, they may proceed directly to district court after exhausting administrative processes.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Sotomayor asked whether a finding that a suspension or furlough did not meet the required number of days is jurisdictional.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the settlement issue is jurisdictional.
Chief Justice Roberts asked about the problem if the case goes to district court versus the Federal Circuit and the resulting Chenery issues.
Justice Alito asked who wrote the statute at issue.
Justice Sotomayor asked what else besides furlough and suspension is jurisdictional.
Justice Gorsuch asked for clarification of § 7703(b)(2) regarding discrimination cases going to district court.
Justice Kagan asked whether an employee could simply ask the district court to decide the case.
- [1] b3bda5705de47b838581-r1-0b19dc6f02344cf2.pdf, p. 22
- [2] b3bda5705de47b838581-r1-0b19dc6f02344cf2.pdf, p. 44
- [3] b3bda5705de47b838581-r1-0b19dc6f02344cf2.pdf, p. 59
- [4] b3bda5705de47b838581-r1-0b19dc6f02344cf2.pdf, p. 43
- [5] b3bda5705de47b838581-r1-0b19dc6f02344cf2.pdf, p. 44
- [6] b3bda5705de47b838581-r1-0b19dc6f02344cf2.pdf, p. 46
- [7] b3bda5705de47b838581-r1-0b19dc6f02344cf2.pdf, p. 57
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Clarifying jurisdiction will determine whether employees must go to the Federal Circuit or can bring discrimination claims directly in district court.
According to Mr. Fletcher, the outcome affects the employee’s ability to obtain a de novo trial on discrimination claims, which is unavailable in the Federal Circuit.
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.
- b3bda5705de47b838581-r1-0b19dc6f02344cf2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.