U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART II— CIVIL SERVICE FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES › Chapter CHAPTER 15— POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES

5 U.S.C. § 1508

Judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
A party aggrieved by a determination or order of the Merit Systems Protection Board under section 1504, 1505, or 1506 of this title may, within 30 days after the mailing of notice of the determination or order, institute proceedings for review thereof by filing a petition in the United States District Court for the district in which the State or local officer or employee resides. The institution of the proceedings does not operate as a stay of the determination or order unless—(1) the court specifically orders a stay; and(2) the officer or employee is suspended from his office or employment while the proceedings are pending.A copy of the petition shall immediately be served on the Board, and thereupon the Board shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record on which the determination or order was made. The court shall review the entire record including questions of fact and questions of law. If application is made to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence may materially affect the result of the proceedings and that there were reasonable grounds for failure to adduce this evidence in the hearing before the Board, the court may direct that the additional evidence be taken before the Board in the manner and on the terms and conditions fixed by the court. The Board may modify its findings of fact or its determination or order in view of the additional evidence and shall file with the court the modified findings, determination, or order; and the modified findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. The court shall affirm the determination or order, or the modified determination or order, if the court determines that it is in accordance with law. If the court determines that the determination or order, or the modified determination or order, is not in accordance with law, the court shall remand the proceeding to the Board with directions either to make a determination or order determined by the court to be lawful or to take such further proceedings as, in the opinion of the court, the law requires. The judgment and decree of the court are final, subject to review by the appropriate United States Court of Appeals as in other cases, and the judgment and decree of the court of appeals are final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States on certiorari or certification as provided by section 1254 of title 28. If a provision of this section is held to be invalid as applied to a party by a determination or order of the Board, the determination or order becomes final and effective as to that party as if the provision had not been enacted.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 406; Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, § 906(a)(6), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1225.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

 

5 U.S.C. 118k(c).

July 19, 1940, ch. 640, § 4 “Sec. 12(c)”, 54 Stat. 768.

Sections 346 and 347 of title 28 referred to in former section 118k(c) were repealed by the Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 39, 62 Stat. 862, and are now covered by section 1254 of title 28. The titles of the courts are changed to conform to title 28.

In the reference to filing a written petition, “written” is omitted as unnecessary.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–454 substituted “Merit Systems Protection Board” and “Board” for “Civil Service Commission” and “Commission”, respectively, wherever appearing.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2021 · leading case: BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (2021). “Sometimes, the City ob- serves, Congress does exactly that, expressly directing courts to resolve “all” legal issues in certain cases.”
Molina-Crespo v. United States Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 547 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Molina then sought review of the Board's decision in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1508 . The parties filed for summary judgment, and the district court ruled in favor of the MSPB.”
Lisa B. Williams v. U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., & Off. of Special Couns. Governor's Off. for Individuals With Disabilities, 15 F.3d 46 (4th Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “Because we find that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1508 (1988), a stay may be issued only when an employee is suspended from office while the proceedings on the merits are pending, we reverse and remand.”
Crespo v. United States Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 486 F. Supp. 2d 680 (N.D. Ohio 2007). · cites it 4× “(ECF No. 21.) The respective Motions and the Petition have been fully briefed and are now ripe for adjudication.”
Robert D. Alexander v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 165 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 1999). “1967); 5 U.S.C. § 1508 . In reviewing the district court’s order, we must make an independent decision from the administrative record employing the same standai’d of review as the district court.”
Benton Cnty. v. Friends of Benton Cnty., 653 P.2d 1249 (Or. 1982). “…Stat 844 (1940), 15 USC § 80a-42(a) (1976); Hatch Political Activity Act Amendments, § 12(c), 54 Stat 768 (1940), now 5 USC § 1508 (1980 Supp); Natural Gas Act, § 19(b), 52 Stat 831 (1938), 15 USC § 717r(b) (1976); Federal Power Act, 49 Stat 860 (1935), 16 USC § 825 l (b)…”
Fela v. US, Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 730 F. Supp. 779 (N.D. Ohio 1989). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1508 , both Mr. Fela and the City individually appealed the Board’s decision by filing suit in this Court (Case No.”
Dickson v. United States, 831 F. Supp. 893 (D.D.C. 1993). · cites it 2× “§ 1391 , as well as under 5 U.S.C. § 1508 , but does not mention any statute or rule to obtain jurisdiction over the other Defendants, nor mention the capacity in which he is suing them.”
In re the Arbitration between Blackburne & Governor's Off. of Emp. Relations, 664 N.E.2d 1222 (NY 1996). “The Board also informed the parties of their right to file a petition for review in United States District Court within 30 days (see, 5 USC § 1508 ). By letter dated August 4, 1993, OASAS notified Blackburne that his employment was terminated effective August 6, 1993 in…”
Rain & Hail Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Crop Ins., 229 F. Supp. 2d 710 (S.D. Tex. 2002). “” 5 U.S.C. § 1508 (j). Moreover, § 6912(e), which requires administrative exhaustion for claims against the FCIC, also places no limitation on the type of recovery available.”
State of Minnesota, Dep't of Jobs & Training v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 875 F.2d 179 (8th Cir. 1989). “On cross motions for summary judgment the district court in the instant case found that the Board’s decision to remove Kehoe was not in accordance with the law and accordingly reversed the Board’s removal order. In reviewing this decision on appeal, this court must render an…”
Smyth v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 291 F. Supp. 568 (E.D. Wis. 1968). · cites it 2× “§ 118k (c) (now 5 U.S.C. § 1508 ). The civil service commission then filed a motion for summary judgment.”
Show all 26 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.