No. 21-686
Maria Esparraguera v. Department of the Army
Tags: administrative-law civil-service-reform-act constitutional-challenge due-process federal-circuit judicial-review merit-systems-protection-board senior-executive-service
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-03-25
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that neither it nor the MSPB may review a career senior executive's removal from the Senior Executive Service under 5 U.S.C. § 3592(a)(2).
Question Presented (AI Summary)
whether-the-federal-circuit-erred-in-holding-that-neither-it-nor-the-mspb-may-review-a-career-senior-executive's-removal-from-the-senior-executive-service-under-5-u.s.c.-§3592(a)(2)
Docket Entries
2022-03-28
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/25/2022.
2022-03-08
Reply of petitioner Maria Esparraguera filed. (Distributed)
2022-02-17
Brief of respondent Department of the Army in opposition filed.
2022-02-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 17, 2022.
2022-02-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 9, 2022 to February 17, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 9, 2022.
2022-01-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 10, 2022 to February 9, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 10, 2022.
2021-11-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 9, 2021 to January 10, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 9, 2021)
Attorneys
Department of the Army
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Maria Esparraguera
Lucas Michael Walker — MoloLamken LLP, Petitioner