U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart F— Labor-Management and Employee Relations › Chapter CHAPTER 72— ANTIDISCRIMINATION; RIGHT TO PETITION CONGRESS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— EMPLOYEES’ RIGHT TO PETITION CONGRESS

5 U.S.C. § 7211

Employees’ right to petition Congress

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

The right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). · cites it 14× “In this case, for example, respondent argues that he was dismissed in retaliation for his testimony to Congress — a violation of 5 U. S. C. § 7211 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) and 18 U.”
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). · cites it 6× “388 (1971)) claim under the First Amendment and his "inferred" statutory causes of action under 5 U. S. C. § 7211 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) and 18 U.”
Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980). · cites it 4× “" 5 U. S. C. § 7211 (1976 ed., Supp. II). (Emphasis added.”
Converting v. United States Dep't of Just., 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “, and the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7211 . See generally Complaint, Convertino, No.”
Richard L. Windsor v. The Tennessean, 719 F.2d 155 (6th Cir. 1984). “Plaintiff alleged that defendants were civilly liable for violating the first amendment and both 5 U.S.C. § 7211 and 18 U.S.C. § 1505 . Although the court mentioned that Barr had granted federal officials absolute immunity from suits at common law, id.”
Convertino v. United States Dep't of Just., 393 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2005). · cites it 2× “, the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 7211 , and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (“Count I”).”
Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees v. United States, 695 F. Supp. 1196 (D.D.C. 1988). · cites it 5× “§§ 701-706 , and 5 U.S.C. § 7211 , which guarantees to federal employees the right to petition Congress.”
Kay Coles James Dir. of the Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Elisabeth Von Zemenszky, & Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 284 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “§ 7201-7204 ), the right to petition Congress ( 5 U.S.C. § 7211 ), work injury compensation ( 5 U.”
Charbonnet v. Gerace, 457 So. 2d 676 (La. 1984). “[7] 5 U.S.C. § 7211 (4) prohibits membership in organizations which assert the right to strike against the United States government.”
Hardy v. Hamburg, 69 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 5 U.S.C. § 7211 . The defendants argue there is no private right of action under this statute.”
Bordell v. Gen. Elec. Co., 732 F. Supp. 327 (N.D.N.Y. 1990). · cites it 7× “Plaintiffs further allege that the newsletter violates 5 U.S.C. § 7211 , which protects employees’ right to petition Congress, and Public Law 100-440, Section 619 of the Treasury, Postal Service and General Appropriations Act of 1989.”
Braun v. United States, 707 F.2d 922 (6th Cir. 1983). “2d 396 (1982), but that court declined to address them specifically: Petitioners also have urged us, prior to the remand, to rule on the legal sufficiency of respondent’s “implied” causes of action under 5 U.S.C. § 7211 and 18 U.S.C. § 1505 and his Bivens claim under the First…”
Show all 22 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.