Elgin v. Department of Treasury
United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 1 (2012)
- Written by Kelly Nielsen
Facts
Federal law required all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 22 to register for the draft. Another statute barred from federal employment anyone who had knowingly and willfully failed to register. Michael Elgin (plaintiff), a former federal employee, was fired for failing to register. Pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), which established a comprehensive framework for reviewing personnel actions taken against federal employees, Elgin challenged his termination before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Elgin argued that the statute under which he was discharged was unconstitutional. The MSPB dismissed Elgin’s appeal on the grounds that the board lacked jurisdiction and the power to rule on the constitutionality of a statute. Rather than appealing to the Federal Circuit as prescribed by the CSRA, Elgin filed suit in federal district court, again challenging the constitutionality of the statute under which he was discharged. The government (defendant) responded that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the CSRA channeled such claims exclusively through the MSPB and the Federal Circuit. The district court concluded that it had jurisdiction but dismissed Elgin’s claims. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Alito, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


