Injunctive Relief for Constitutional Violations: Does the Civil Service Reform Act Preclude Equitable Remedies?
Vol: 90, Issue: 8, Page: 2612-2645
1992
- 714Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage714
- Downloads600
- Abstract Views114
Artifact Description
This Note argues that the federal courts retain power to furnish equitable relief for constitutional violations to ensure adequate protection of federal employees' rights. Statutory procedures and remedies available under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) and related legislation should preempt judicially created equitable relief only where the government or federal agency affirmatively demonstrates that these procedures are constitutionally sufficient. Part I canvasses the current lower court response to the question of preclusion and notes the various routes taken by the courts in inferring congressional intent to preempt. This Part discusses varying interpretations of the Civil Service Reform Act, the comprehensive legislation which some courts have recently held evinces Congress' intent to preclude judicially created remedies. Part II charts the organization and procedural scheme of the civil service under the Act, calling attention to weaknesses in the statute which have hindered achievement of its objectives. Finally, Part III focuses on the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional guarantees. The discussion highlights the traditional role injunctive relief has played in implementing constitutional protections. This Note concludes that judicially created equitable relief for constitutional deprivations promotes efficient operation of the civil service and, more importantly, ensures adequate protection of federal employees' constitutional rights.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know