5 U.S.C. § 7301
Presidential regulations
The President may prescribe regulations for the conduct of employees in the executive branch.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1969–2024 · leading case: Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152 (1990).
Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152 (1990). “There would certainly be no objection to this "we'll-look-at-all-the-circumstances-and-see-if-it-looks-dangerous" approach if it were applied in the exercise of the President's discretion-laden power to "prescribe regulations for the conduct of employees in the executive…”
Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983). “), printed in note following 5 U. S. C. § 7301 , gave all employees in the competitive service the right to appeal adverse actions to the Civil Service Commission, and made the administrative remedy applicable to adverse personnel actions other than removal and suspension…”
United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988). “), note following 5 U. S. C. § 7301 (1976 ed.) (extending CSC review to competitive service employees).”
Little v. Shell Expl. & Prod. Co., 690 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2012). “2635 (“Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch”); 5 U.S.C. § 7301 . Allowing federal employees to be relators is said to conflict with both these provisions.”
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. Trump, 318 F. Supp. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “In the majority opinion, the Court observed that this executive order was "plainly a reasonable exercise of the President's responsibility for the efficient operation of the Executive Branch" that is afforded by the Constitution, and the Court also found "express statutory…”
Old Dominion Branch No. 496 v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (1974). “Moreover, the Executive Order finds express statutory authorization in 5 U. S. C. § 7301 , which provides that "[t]he President may prescribe regulations for the conduct of employees in the executive branch.”
Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees-IAM v. Vilsack, 681 F.3d 483 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “15, 1986), reprinted in 5 U.S.C. § 7301 note (requiring agency heads to “establish a program to test for the use of illegal drugs by employees in sensitive positions,” as determined by “the nature of the agency’s mission and its employees’ duties .”
Local 1498, Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, a Labor Org. v. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, Afl/cio, 522 F.2d 486 (3rd Cir. 1975). “11491, § 18(d), as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 7301 (Supp.1975). 6 *491 Pursuant to this Executive Order an administrative regulation adopting the duties expressed in § 501(a) was promulgated.”
Alice Huff v. Pete Buttigieg, 42 F.4th 638 (7th Cir. 2022). “15, 1986), 5 U.S.C. § 7301 note, and the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, Pub.”
Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974). “11491, printed in note following 5 U. S. C. § 7301 , extends the Act’s protections to all nonpreference eligible employees in the classified service.”
Mark B. Harmon v. Richard L. Thornburgh, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 878 F.2d 484 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “391, 468-471, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 7301 note (1987). See also DOJ Plan at 1-2 (J.”
Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden, 63 F.4th 366 (5th Cir. 2023). “, concurring in the judgment) (describing “the President’s discretion-laden power” to regulate the Executive Branch under 5 U.S.C. § 7301 ); NTEU v. Bush, 891 F.2d 99 (5th Cir.”
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.