United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 14, 2022 Decided March 14, 2023 No. 21-5266 FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT v. KIRAN AHUJA, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, AND OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, APPELLEES Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:19-cv-00735) Ryan E. Griffin argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. Anna O. Mohan, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Charles W. Scarborough, Attorney, and Allison Kidd- Miller, Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Thomas G. Pulham, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, entered an appearance. 2 Before: HENDERSON and PILLARD, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge PILLARD. PILLARD, Circuit Judge: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers retirement benefits for civilian employees of the U.S. government. OPM typically pays retirement benefits to retirees themselves. But when a retiree’s benefits are subject to division pursuant to a divorce decree, OPM divides them between the retiree and his or her former spouse according to the terms of the decree. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (Association) brought this action against OPM in district court, claiming that OPM’s method of apportioning one type of retirement benefit, the Annuity Supplement, violates the Administrative Procedure Act. OPM moved to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds. As a general matter, the Civil Service Reform Act and Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act preclude district court review of challenges to federal employee retirement benefits determinations. Those statutes provide for administrative review, with final agency decisions subject to appeal directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The district court acknowledged that federal employees’ claims for retirement benefits are generally routed through that system of review, but held that the Association’s claims fell within an exception allowing pre-enforcement challenges to agency rules to proceed in district court. Exercising jurisdiction, the district court dismissed one of the Association’s counts for failure to state a legally cognizable claim and, after the administrative record was filed, granted summary judgment to OPM as to the others. 3 Our de novo review persuades us that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the Association’s claims. We therefore vacate the district court’s orders and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. BACKGROUND A. Statutory Framework The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 5 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., established a comprehensive system for administrative and judicial review of personnel actions involving federal employees. United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 455 (1988); Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps. v. Sec’y of Air Force (AFGE I), 716 F.3d 633, 636 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The system involves two levels of review. In general, a claimant seeking to challenge a personnel action may first appeal to the Merit Systems …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals