Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · U.S. Code · Title 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES · CHAPTER 77— APPEALS · § 7703

§ 7703. Judicial review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board

1,930 words·~9 min read·/usc/title-5/section-7703

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

(1)Any employee or applicant for employment adversely affected or aggrieved by a final order or decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board may obtain judicial review of the order or decision.
(2)The Board shall be named respondent in any proceeding brought pursuant to this subsection, unless the employee or applicant for employment seeks review of a final order or decision on the merits on the underlying personnel action or on a request for attorney fees, in which case the agency responsible for taking the personnel action shall be the respondent.
(A)Except as provided in subparagraph
(B)and paragraph
(2)of this subsection, a petition to review a final order or final decision of the Board shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board.
(B)A petition to review a final order or final decision of the Board that raises no challenge to the Board’s disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or
(D)shall be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board.
(2)Cases of discrimination subject to the provisions of section 7702 of this title shall be filed under section 717(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–16(c)), section 15(c) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 633a(c)), and section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. 216(b)), as applicable. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any such case filed under any such section must be filed within 30 days after the date the individual filing the case received notice of the judicially reviewable action under such section 7702.
(c)In any case filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court shall review the record and hold unlawful and set aside any agency action, findings, or conclusions found to be—
(1)arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(2)obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
(3)unsupported by substantial evidence;
except that in the case of discrimination brought under any section referred to in subsection (b)(2) of this section, the employee or applicant shall have the right to have the facts subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.
(1)Except as provided under paragraph (2), this paragraph shall apply to any review obtained by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. The Director may obtain review of any final order or decision of the Board by filing, within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board, a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit if the Director determines, in the discretion of the Director, that the Board erred in interpreting a civil service law, rule, or regulation affecting personnel management and that the Board’s decision will have a substantial impact on a civil service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive. If the Director did not intervene in a matter before the Board, the Director may not petition for review of a Board decision under this section unless the Director first petitions the Board for a reconsideration of its decision, and such petition is denied. In addition to the named respondent, the Board and all other parties to the proceedings before the Board shall have the right to appear in the proceeding before the Court of Appeals. The granting of the petition for judicial review shall be at the discretion of the Court of Appeals.
(2)This paragraph shall apply to any review obtained by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management that raises no challenge to the Board’s disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). The Director may obtain review of any final order or decision of the Board by filing, within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board, a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction if the Director determines, in the discretion of the Director, that the Board erred in interpreting a civil service law, rule, or regulation affecting personnel management and that the Board’s decision will have a substantial impact on a civil service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive. If the Director did not intervene in a matter before the Board, the Director may not petition for review of a Board decision under this section unless the Director first petitions the Board for a reconsideration of its decision, and such petition is denied. In addition to the named respondent, the Board and all other parties to the proceedings before the Board shall have the right to appear in the proceeding before the court of appeals. The granting of the petition for judicial review shall be at the discretion of the court of appeals.
(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title II, § 205, Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1143; amended Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 144, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 45; Pub. L. 101–12, § 10, Apr. 10, 1989, 103 Stat. 35; Pub. L. 105–311, § 10(a), Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2954; Pub. L. 112–199, title I, § 108, Nov. 27, 2012, 126 Stat. 1469; Pub. L. 113–170, § 2, Sept. 26, 2014, 128 Stat. 1894; Pub. L. 115–195, § 2(a), (b), July 7, 2018, 132 Stat. 1510.)
Connections38 cite this · traces to 9
Cited by 38 sections · top 22
30 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 95–454, title II, § 205
  • 92 Stat. 1143
  • Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 144
  • 96 Stat. 45
  • Pub. L. 101–12, § 10
  • 103 Stat. 35
  • Pub. L. 105–311, § 10(a)
  • 112 Stat. 2954
  • Pub. L. 112–199, title I, § 108
  • 126 Stat. 1469
  • Pub. L. 113–170, § 2
  • 128 Stat. 1894
  • 132 Stat. 1510
  • Pub. L. 113–170
  • Pub. L. 112–199, § 108(a)
  • Pub. L. 112–199, § 108(b)
  • Pub. L. 105–311, § 10(a)(1)
  • Pub. L. 105–311, § 10(a)(2)
  • Pub. L. 101–12
  • Pub. L. 97–164, § 144(1)
  • Pub. L. 97–164, § 144(2)
  • Pub. L. 97–164, § 144(3)
  • Pub. L. 112–199
  • section 202 of Pub. L. 112–199
  • Pub. L. 105–311, § 10(b)
  • section 11 of Pub. L. 101–12
  • Pub. L. 97–164
  • section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164
  • section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454
  • section 7 of Pub. L. 101–12
Citation graph
cites case law
§ 7703
Judicial review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board
Fed. Reg.×25
U.S.C.×8
Stat.×4
Pub. L.×1
Pub. L.Pub. L. 95–454, title II, § 205
Stat.92 Stat. 1143
Pub. L.Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 144
Cites 39 · showing 12Cited by 38 across 4 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.