No. 24A507

Martin Akerman v. Merit Systems Protection Board, et al.

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: N/A
Status: Denied
Type: A
Experienced Counsel
Tags: due-process judicial-oversight national-security posse-comitatus userra whistleblower-protection
Latest Conference: 2025-01-17
Question Presented (from Petition)

Does the whistleblower protection provision of the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
(USERRA), codified at 38 U.S.C. § 4311(b), require the waiver of
court fees for federal employees engaged in protected
whistleblowing activities, ensuring access to judicial review

without financial barriers?

Does the denial of access to information under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) constitute a violation of a
whistleblower's right to transparency, accountability, and due
process, particularly when the information requested is

essential to the petitioner's defense and the public interest?

Should the Second Amendment be interpreted to encompass
access to information and the tools necessary to defend against
disinformation and abuses of power, particularly when these
actions are used to suppress whistleblower rights and obscure

illegal detentions under the pretext of national security?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and the Posse Comitatus Act protect federal employees from unlawful detention and information suppression under the pretext of national security

Docket Entries

2025-01-21
Application (24A507) denied by the Court.
2024-12-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025.
2024-12-31
Application (24A507) referred to the Court.
2024-11-26
Application (24A507) refiled and submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.
2024-11-25
Application (24A507) denied by The Chief Justice.
2024-11-18
Application (24A507) to suspend the effect of the denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Martin Akerman
Martin Akerman — Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board, et al.
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent