FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, yesterday the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense, one of the two cases decided by the Federal Circuit that it is reviewing this term. With respect to petitions, the Supreme Court granted a petition in a veterans case, Bufkin v. McDonough. In addition, five new petitions were filed, four new briefs in opposition to petitions were filed, four new waivers of the right to respond were filed, and one reply brief was filed. Finally, the Court denied five petitions. Here are the details.

This morning the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrow v. Department of Defense, one of two cases decided by the Federal Circuit that the Supreme Court is reviewing during its current term. In this case, the Court reviewed the Federal Circuit’s holding that the deadline for a federal employee to appeal an adverse judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. Vacating the judgment of the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court today held that the deadline is not jurisdictional. The Court, however, did not reach the question of whether, as a result, equitable tolling is available, instead remanding the case for the Federal Circuit to rule on that issue. Here is the introduction to the Court’s opinion. We will provide an opinion summary next week.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court issued its opinion last week in Rudisill v. McDonough, a veterans case. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, and the Court denied a petition in another pro se case. Here are the details.

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.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a veterans case and a pro se case. Additionally, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case, and a reply brief was filed in a veterans case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board, Harrow v. Department of Defense. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case and two reply briefs were filed in a patent case and in a veterans case. Additionally, the Court denied petitions in a patent case and a pro se case. Here are the details.

This past Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Court is reviewing the Federal Circuit’s dismissal of an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In particular, the Supreme Court will consider whether the statutory deadline to file an appeal from the MSPB is jurisdictional. This is our argument recap. 

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in a case originating at the Merit Systems Protection Board, Harrow v. Department of Defense. With respect to petitions, one new petition was filed in a design patent case, a brief in opposition was filed in a veterans case, and the Court denied a petition in a pro se case. Here are the details.

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument next week in Harrow v. Department of Defense, a case concerning the Merit Systems Protection Board and whether a filing deadline is jurisdictional. With respect to petitions, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, a waiver of right to respond was filed in a pro se case, two briefs in opposition were filed in a patent case and in a veterans case, and an amicus brief was filed in a Merit Systems Protection Board case. Finally, the Court denied petitions in a pro se case and in a patent case. Here are the details.

On Monday, March 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Harrow v. Department of Defense. In this case, the Court will review the Federal Circuit’s resolution of an appeal from a judgment of the Merit Systems Protection Board. In particular, the Supreme Court will consider whether the statutory deadline to file an appeal from the MSPB is jurisdictional. The statutory provision in question is 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). This is our argument preview.