In June 2014, Vanessa Enoch and Avery Corbin attended a pretrial hearing at the Hamilton County Courthouse.

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that most of Texas’s immigration enforcement legislation, Senate Bill 4, can remain in effect after hearing constitutional challenges from various Texas cities, counties, and officials.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ holdings with regard to the test of whether an agency has carried its burden to prove whether the agency would have taken the same personnel action against an employee irrespective of the employee’s protected disclosures, and with regard to whether an employee may be disciplined for the manner in which he or she communicates a protected disclosure.

For the second time in less than three years, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether requiring public sector employees who are non-paid members of the bargaining unit to pay an “agency fee” to subsidize union activities is unconstitutional.

After years in waiting, the Supreme Court ruled on District of Columbia v. Wesby, and found that DC police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment after arresting 21 individuals at a party for unlawful entry. In doing so, the Court clarified that probable cause determinations are made from a reasonable officer’s consideration of the surrounding circumstances.

A Special Agent at the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms filed an Individual Right of Action appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that his supervisors retaliated against him after he disclosed his suspicion that another agent had improperly shot at a fleeing suspect, provided an inaccurate report of the shooting incident, and had committed perjury during the subsequent criminal trial.

A Program Analyst at the Department of Veterans Affairs was indicted by a Federal grand jury on 50 counts of making false statements related to health care matters.

While the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (“WPEA”) protects whistleblowers from retaliation for disclosing a violation of law, rule, or regulation, the statute does not define those terms. In its first whistleblower retaliation case since Congress allowed whistleblower appellants from Board decisions to file in any U.S. Court of Appeals for a five-year trial period, the Fourth Circuit grappled with the definition of “rule” and its applicability to non-mandatory provisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied petitions for writ of certiorari on Garcia v. Bloomberg and Robinson v. U.S., two cases on which FEDagent previously reported.

On October 6, 2017, two petitions for writs of certiorari were filed with the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to determine whether the time period for a federal employee to appeal a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is purely jurisdictional, and therefore cannot be “equitably tolled” under any circumstances.

On October 26, 2017, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, after granting the Department of Justice’s petition for rehearing en banc, vacated its prior decision, and found that preference-eligible FBI employees appealing an adverse action to the Merit Systems Protection Board may not raise an affirmative defense of whistleblower reprisal, nor may they file an individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal to bring whistleblower claims to the Board.

On October 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc filed by the Department of Defense, and vacated the court’s panel opinion in Federal Education Association-Stateside Region v. Department of Defense. 841 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016), reversing an arbitrator’s opinion after finding a due process violation. In its October 13, 2017 order, the appeals court requested that the parties address the relevant cases and issues, but specifically requested that the parties address the court’s decisions in Sullivan v. Department of Navy, 720 F.2d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and Ryder v. United States, 585 F.2d 482 (Ct. Cl. 1978).

In a consolidated multidistrict class action against the Office of Personnel Management following a severe data breach of OPM’s cybersecurity that affected millions of federal employees and former federal employees, federal employees and the union alleged gross negligence and a violation of constitutional rights to informational privacy, but the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case on September 19, 2017. On October 12, 2017, the employees appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit.

A West Virginian is asking the Supreme Court to consider whether the test for conducting a search in conjunction with a lawful Terry stop requires a particularized basis for believing the person poses a present danger to officer safety.

On September 28, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether agency fee arrangements imposed by public unions on non-member public employees are constitutional.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the FBI ordered hundreds of illegal aliens to be taken into custody to determine whether the detainees had connections to terrorism.

A former federal employee terminated by the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) appealed his termination from both agencies under Title VII and also contended that NOAA violated a criminal statute that prohibits making false statements when the Agency allegedly lied about why he was terminated.

The Supreme Court is considering whether to hear a case asking whether, when officers permit individuals to exercise First Amendment rights to speech and peaceful assembly, officers must provide fair warning prior to arresting demonstrators for participation in the demonstration.

After the Merit Systems Protection Board found that a retired federal employee failed to prove that the recovery of overpaid benefits from the Federal Employee Retirement System (“FERS”) would be against equity and good conscience, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the MSPB’s decision, finding that the Administrative Judge’s analysis (which the full Board accepted) was not supported by substantial evidence, was erroneous, and that recovery of the overpayment was unconscionable given the “inexplicable” three-year delay by OPM to finalize the retiree’s benefits, and the additional four-year delay between the retiree’s request for reconsideration and OPM’s decision.

A retired Air Force Veteran’s divorce decree awarded his ex-wife 50 percent of the veteran’s future Air Force retirement pay, but thirteen years after the divorce, the veteran was found partially disabled due to an earlier service-related injury, and elected to give up an equal amount ($250 monthly) of retirement pay in order to receive disability pay – thereby reducing the value of his ex-wife’s 50 percent share by 50 percent of $250.