FedCircuitBlog

This morning, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here is the opinion’s introduction.

The Federal Circuit issued an opinion in late February in a case that attracted an amicus brief, Beaudette v. McDonough. This is a veterans case in which the Federal Circuit reviewed whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in issuing a writ of mandamus to allow the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to hear appeals of adverse decisions pertaining to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers. In an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore that was joined by Judges Dyk and Stoll, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Federal Circuit held that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims properly issued the writ of mandamus because the “Beaudettes had no adequate alternative means to obtain the relief requested” and the Board of Veteran’s Appeals “has the authority under 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c) to determine the types of appeals within its jurisdiction.” This is our opinion summary.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion. The opinion comes in a case brought under the Indian Tucker Act and involving several claims related to water rights and water-related infrastructure, including breach of trust, breach of contract, and takings claims. The panel affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which had held in favor of the United States on all of the plaintiff-appellant’s claims. Notably, Judge Reyna concurred in part and dissented in part. Here is the introduction to the majority opinion and Judge Reyna’s opinion.

After two days without releasing any opinions or orders on its website, this morning the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. That’s it. Here’s a link to the dismissal.

Late last month the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Boyer v. United States, an Equal Pay Act case that we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case, the Federal Circuit reviewed a decision by the Court of Federal Claims to grant the government’s motion for summary judgment rejecting a pay discrimination claim under the Equal Pay Act. In an opinion by Judge Dyk joined by Judges Chen and Stoll, the Federal Circuit reversed. The court found that “the EPA applies equally to the United States as to other employers and that mere reliance on prior compensation standing alone is not an affirmative defense to a prima facie case under the EPA, unless the employer can demonstrate that the prior pay itself was not based on sex.”

For the second day in a row the Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders on its website.

The Federal Circuit did not release any opinions or orders today on its website.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions and two nonprecedential dismissals. One of the opinions, in a case that attracted an amicus brief, addresses a petition for review from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The other opinion addressed an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.

This morning, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions. Both address pro se appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are their introductions.

Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case previously decided by the Federal Circuit. In a seven to two decision, the Court reversed and remanded the Federal Circuit’s ruling in the case, finding that “[v]eterans who separately accrue benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills are entitled to both benefits” up to a 48-month aggregate benefits cap. Justice Jackson authored the Court’s majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Barrett, filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, filed a dissenting opinion. This is our opinion summary.