A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision could have wide-ranging impacts on future appeals by federal employees to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).

The Supreme Court, in a May 26, 2026 decision, reversed a lower circuit court ruling that the Fourth Circuit violated “party-presentation principles” by deciding issues the parties had not raised. The “party presentation principle” provides that courts rely on the parties to frame the issues for a decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.

In its decision in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Congress, through the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), created the ability for federal employees to channel covered claims to the MSPB, but without conditions based on current MSPB functionality.

Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges

The Supreme Court case, referenced as Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges (Margolin) in court records, began as National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, with the Supreme Court case defendant reference reflecting the current Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) director (Daren K. Margolin, who succeeded former director Sirce E. Owen).

This case was a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision decided on June 3, 2025, which attempted to introduce a limiting principle under which the power of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) to strip district courts of jurisdiction would depend on the MSPB and Office of Special Counsel (OSC) actually functioning as Congress designed. The Fourth Circuit had held that CSRA jurisdiction-stripping operates only when the MSPB and OSC function as Congress designed, and remanded for factual inquiry into whether the administrative scheme remained functional given the removal of MSPB members and the Special Counsel.

However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in Margolin, holding that the Fourth Circuit violated party-presentation principles by deciding “a case different from the one [respondent] advanced.” The Supreme Court explained that “as respondent conceded … our precedent establishes that Congress, through the CSRA, intended to channel covered claims to the MSPB.”

The Court also found that the Fourth Circuit improperly “transformed respondent’s argument that the CSRA did not channel its claims into one that the CSRA might not—in light of current conditions—channel any claims. And the court did so without giving either side a chance to address its theory.”

The Supreme Court’s reversal definitively rejected the conditional functionality framework and reaffirmed that CSRA jurisdiction depends on whether claims are covered by the statute, not on current MSPB functionality or independence. Still, whether courts must dismiss union cases and channel them through the MSPB or FLRA remains a deeply contested question, with different circuits taking different approaches.

How the Supreme Court’s Decision Could Impact Future Federal Employee Dismissals and Need for MSPB Appeals

This Supreme Court ruling could impact future potential dismissals and MSPB appeals brought by federal employee unions, including those against the Trump administration, particularly in terms of potential dismissal and the need to appeal through the MSPB or similar agencies.

While previous constitutional decisions have raised questions about the MSPB’s independence, the Supreme Court’s decision in Margolin clarifies that such constitutional questions do not affect whether the CSRA channels covered claims to the MSPB.

When courts are channeling claims to the MSPB or FLRA, the channeling argument has succeeded in some contexts. In National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Trump (770 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2025)), for example, the district court dismissed union claims challenging the Trump administration’s mass probationary firings and RIF-related executive orders, holding that the FSLMRS requires unions to bring labor-management disputes before the FLRA as the exclusive initial forum. The case refers to two related, but distinct sets of litigation filed in 2025 in which the NTEU and allied federal employee unions challenged executive actions by President Trump aimed at dramatically restructuring the federal workforce.

A second, earlier case challenged the mass termination of probationary employees, large-scale reductions in force (RIFs), and a “deferred resignation” program. The Supreme Court has not issued a ruling directly in NTEU v. Trump; however, the Court has weighed in on a closely related executive order in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, 145 S. Ct. 2635 (2025), and Executive Order 14251 litigation remains actively pending in the D.C. Circuit.

The court reasoned that even if the FLRA could not decide constitutional claims, those claims could still receive meaningful judicial review on appeal to a federal court of appeals.

Similarly, in American Foreign Service Association v. Trump (768 F. Supp. 3d 6 (D.D.C. Feb. 2025)), the district court channeled claims by unions representing (USAID) employees through the CSRA/FSLMRS framework, finding the claims were not wholly collateral to the statutory review provisions and that meaningful judicial review remained available.

Additionally, in New Mexico v. Musk (2026 WL 799635 (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2026)), the district court held that nonprofit organizations’ claims challenging mass Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)-related firings of federal employees were within the CSRA framework, not subject to district court jurisdiction, because the firings of federal employees are “precisely the type of personnel action regularly adjudicated by the MSPB.”

In a nutshell, when courts are rejecting channeling, a significant counter-trend has emerged, where courts have declined to channel federal employee union claims through administrative bodies in cases involving large-scale, structural challenges to Trump administration actions.

Supreme Court Decision’s Impact on Limitations on Appeals to the MSPB, FLRA for Similar Cases

In the Margolin decision, the Supreme Court’s opinion did not reach the merits of whether the CSRA continues to channel claims under current circumstances. While the decision was an opinion issued in the name of the court, known as a “per curium” decision, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, concurred separately to address the merits, explaining that the CSRA’s channeling framework remains legally operative as a matter of statutory law regardless of whether the MSPB currently holds a quorum or the OSC’s leadership has changed.

The per curiam opinion relied on the bedrock principle of party presentation, which it characterized as “the ‘rule that points not argued will not be considered'”—one that “distinguishes our adversarial system of justice from an inquisitorial one.” Because courts are essentially passive instruments of government, they rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.

Role of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 in Federal Employment Cases

It is important to note that that the role of the CSRA is key in this Supreme Court case, and that the CSRA previously established a comprehensive and exclusive scheme for resolving federal employment disputes in which aggrieved covered employees may appeal adverse personnel actions to the MSPB, with procedural rights to hearing and representation under 5 U.S.C. § 7701.

The specific adverse personnel actions that trigger appeal rights—including removals, suspensions of more than 14 days, reductions in grade or pay, and furloughs—are defined in 5 U.S.C. § 7512, which establishes the right of federal employees to appeal certain adverse personnel actions to the MSPB.

Most appeals from final MSPB orders go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but appeals involving certain prohibited personnel practices may be filed in the federal circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction under § 7703(b)(1)(B), and discrimination cases are governed by separate statutory provisions under § 7703(b)(2).

Appeals relating to more severe adverse actions, such as removal, are governed by Chapter 75 of the CSRA (5 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7543), which includes 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d)’s guarantee of MSPB appeal rights.

The statute also prohibits agencies from taking “any other personnel action” that violates the merit system principles, including actions that disregard an employee’s constitutional rights (under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(12)). This “prohibited personnel practices” provision under Chapter 23 (5 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2305) has proven critical in federal employment litigation.

The CSRA’s exclusivity is well-established. As the D.C. Circuit has summarized in Lacson v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (726 F.3d 170, 174 (D.C. Cir. 2013)), “federal employees are ordinarily not permitted to split a challenge to an adverse personnel action between the MSPB and a federal district court,” and the CSRA “generally requires employees to bring such claims first in an action before the MSPB and thereafter to the Federal Circuit.”

Courts have applied this principle broadly, holding that neither the APA, the Back Pay Act, nor § 1331 provide a workaround for CSRA preclusion.

For labor-management disputes, the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7135, channels collective bargaining and unfair labor practice claims to the FLRA, which can then be reviewed by a federal court of appeals under 5 U.S.C. § 7123. The CSRA’s administrative channeling scheme thus encompasses both the MSPB (for individual personnel actions) and the FLRA (for union-management disputes).

Federal Employees Looking Ahead

The Supreme Court’s reversal in Margolin definitively rejected the Fourth Circuit’s conditional functionality framework and reaffirmed that CSRA jurisdiction depends on whether claims are covered, not on current MSPB functionality.

The Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling in Margolin, on whether MSPB members can constitutionally have for-cause removal protections, will determine whether the CSRA’s adjudicatory independence is constitutionally mandated moving forward.

Margolin is the second Supreme Court decision within a year—following Clark v. Sweeney (607 U.S. 7 (2025)), to reverse the Fourth Circuit specifically for violating the party-presentation principle. The two decisions together signal the Supreme Court’s heightened attention to this doctrine and its willingness to summarily reverse appellate courts that stray from the questions actually presented by the litigants. The case also exists within a broader and fast-moving legal landscape concerning the independence of federal agencies and the scope of presidential removal power. Parallel litigation over the removals of the MSPB members and the Special Counsel—both relevant to the CSRA functionality issue the Fourth Circuit raised—continues in other courts.

The Margolin case likely will have significant ripple effects on the growing body of litigation in which federal employees and unions challenge whether the CSRA’s administrative review scheme remains functional following recent Executive Branch actions targeting the MSPB and FLRA.

Federal employees with potential appeals should stay tuned to the twists and turns that could follow in lower courts following the Supreme Court’s decision in Margolin and other future cases as they relate to appeals.

If you have additional questions about your future appeals after this U.S. Supreme Court ruling, our Tully Rinckey team of attorneys is available to assist you today. Please call 8885294543 to schedule a consultation or schedule a consultation online.