U.S. Code » Title 2 » Chapter CHAPTER 24— CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE-RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

2 U.S.C. § 1407

Judicial review of Board decisions and enforcement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 2 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Jurisdiction(1) Judicial reviewThe United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have jurisdiction over any proceeding commenced by a petition of—(A) a party aggrieved by a final decision of the Board under section 1406(e) of this title in cases arising under part A of subchapter II,(B) a charging individual or a respondent before the Board who files a petition under section 1331(d)(4) of this title,(C) the General Counsel or a respondent before the Board who files a petition under section 1341(c)(5) of this title, or(D) the General Counsel or a respondent before the Board who files a petition under section 1351(c)(3) of this title.The court of appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction to set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), to determine the validity of, or otherwise review the decision of the Board.(2) Enforcement

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have jurisdiction over any petition of the General Counsel, filed in the name of the Office and at the direction of the Board, to enforce a final decision under section 1405(g) or 1406(e) of this title with respect to a violation of part A, B, C, or D of subchapter II.

(b) Procedures(1) Respondents(A) In any proceeding commenced by a petition filed under subsection (a)(1)(A) or (B), or filed by a party other than the General Counsel under subsection (a)(1)(C) or (D), the Office shall be named respondent and any party before the Board may be named respondent by filing a notice of election with the court within 30 days after service of the petition.(B) In any proceeding commenced by a petition filed by the General Counsel under subsection (a)(1)(C) or (D), the prevailing party in the final decision entered under section 1406(e) of this title shall be named respondent, and any other party before the Board may be named respondent by filing a notice of election with the court within 30 days after service of the petition.(C) In any proceeding commenced by a petition filed under subsection (a)(2), the party under section 1405 or 1406 of this title that the General Counsel determines has failed to comply with a final decision under section 1405(g) or 1406(e) of this title shall be named respondent.(2) Intervention

Any party that participated in the proceedings before the Board under section 1406 of this title and that was not made respondent under paragraph (1) may intervene as of right.

(c) Law applicableChapter 158 of title 28 shall apply to judicial review under paragraph (1) of subsection (a), except that—(1) with respect to section 2344 of title 28, service of a petition in any proceeding in which the Office is a respondent shall be on the General Counsel rather than on the Attorney General;(2) the provisions of section 2348 of title 28, on the authority of the Attorney General, shall not apply;(3) the petition for review shall be filed not later than 90 days after the entry in the Office of a final decision under section 1406(e) of this title; and(4) the Office shall be an “agency” as that term is used in chapter 158 of title 28.(d) Standard of reviewTo the extent necessary for decision in a proceeding commenced under subsection (a)(1) and when presented, the court shall decide all relevant questions of law and interpret constitutional and statutory provisions. The court shall set aside a final decision of the Board if it is determined that the decision was—(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not consistent with law;(2) not made consistent with required procedures; or(3) unsupported by substantial evidence.(e) Record

In making determinations under subsection (d), the court shall review the whole record, or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.

(Pub. L. 104–1, title IV, § 407, Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 35.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Parts A, B, C, and D of subchapter II, referred to in subsec. (a), were in the original references to parts A (§§ 201–207), B (§ 210), C (§ 215), and D (§ 220), respectively, of title II of Pub. L. 104–1, Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 7, 13, 16, 19, which are classified principally to parts A, B, C, and D, respectively, of subchapter II of this chapter. For complete classification of parts A, B, C, and D to the Code, see Tables.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2023 · leading case: U.S. Capitol Police v. Off. of Compliance, 908 F.3d 748 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
U.S. Capitol Police v. Off. of Compliance, 908 F.3d 748 (Fed. Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “" However, the Police contends this court has jurisdiction under 2 U.S.C. § 1407 (a)(1)(D). 2 That section provides this court with jurisdiction "over any proceeding commenced by a petition of .”
Duncan v. Off. of Compliance, 541 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “We have jurisdiction over this appeal of a final decision of the Board pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 1407 . II. DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction The CAA provides legislative branch employees with the protection of various labor and employment statutes, and it prohibits reprisal against any…”
Nova v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 981 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “See 2 U.S.C. §1407 (c)(3) (providing a 90-day deadline for chal- lenges to final decision of the Office of Compliance); 7 U.”
Banks v. Off. of Senate Sergeant-At-Arms, 222 F.R.D. 7 (D.D.C. 2004). “2 U.S.C.A. § 1407 (a)(1). Congress has elected to shield portions of this process from public inquiry.”
U.S. Capitol Police v. Off. of Compliance, 916 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “We have jurisdiction over the Police's petition under 2 U.S.C. § 1407 (a)(1)(D) and over the OOC's application for enforcement pursuant to 2 U.”
Waters v. United States Capitol Police Bd., 216 F.R.D. 153 (D.D.C. 2003). “2 U.S.C.A. § 1407 (a)(1). Congress has elected to shield portions of this process from public inquiry.”
Off. of the Architect of the Capitol v. Off. of Compliance, & Juanita Johnson, 361 F.3d 633 (Fed. Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “We have jurisdiction to consider AOC’s petition under 2 U.S.C. § 1407 (a). “The court shall set aside a final decision of the Board if it is determined that the decision was — (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance *639 with law; (2)…”
Bastien v. Off.-Sen. Campbell, 390 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2004). “The CAA provides for judicial review, see 2 U.S.C. § 1407 , and it allows plaintiffs to opt out of some Board proceedings and instead file suit in federal district court.”
Sherry M. Britton v. Off. of Compliance, & Off. of Architect of the Capitol, 412 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “2 U.S.C. § 1407 (a)(1)(A) (2000). Britton appeals the Board rulings that affirmed the dismissal of her claims and dismissed her second petition.”
U.S. Capitol Police v. Off. of Compliance, 913 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “The order specifies that the Police cease and desist from failing to fully implement the arbitrator's May 13, 2014, award, as supplemented by the arbitrator's June 17, 2014, order. The Police petitions this court for review of the Board's decision, and the OOC for its part…”
Morris v. Off. of Compliance, 608 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “” 1 Congress used similar limiting language in 2 U.S.C. § 1407 , which grants jurisdiction to this court to hear appeals filed by “the General Counsel or a respondent before the Board .”
Gerard J. Schmelzer v. Off. of Compliance, & Off. of the Chief Admin. Officer of the United States House of Representatives, 155 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Schmelzer petitions for review by this court pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 1407 (a). II The CAA makes certain labor and employment laws applicable to the legislative branch of the government.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.