This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential order, and one dismissal. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in case involving claims under the Tucker Act. The nonprecedential order dismisses a case for lack of jurisdiction. Here are the introductions to the opinion and order.

Tippins v. United States (Precedential Opinion)

Between 2010 and 2014, the United States Coast Guard convened Active Duty Enlisted Career Retention Screening Panels (CRSPs) to select enlisted service members for involuntary retirement.  This process did not follow the procedures and standards of then-applicable 14 U.S.C. § 357(a)–(h), which (before those provisions were repealed in 2016) addressed involuntary retirement of certain Coast Guard service members with specified seniority.  Several former Coast Guard service members, after being involuntarily retired through the CRSP process, brought this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, asserting that their retirements were contrary to law because the Coast Guard proceeded without following § 357(a)–(h).  The government responded by invoking § 357(j), which stated that § 357(a)–(h) did not apply to a “reduction in force.”  The applicability of that exception to the CRSPs is the issue on appeal. 

The Claims Court held, on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, that the involuntary retirements were unlawful because the CRSPs were not part of a “reduction in force.”  Tippins v. United States, 154 Fed. Cl. 373, 375, 378–83 (2021) (Tippins I).  On the government’s motion for reconsideration, the Claims Court reiterated its conclusion and entered partial final judgment for the six named plaintiffs.  Tippins v. United States, 157 Fed. Cl. 284, 292 (2021) (Tippins II).  The government appeals.  We affirm.

Beck v. McDonough (Nonprecedential Order)

Appellant, Wanda Beck, on behalf of her late husband, Arthur T. Beck, appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of an earlier effective date for service connection for major depressive disorder.  J.A. 1.  For the reasons below, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.