Opinion ID: 167447
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: effect of sanjour injunction

Text: 12 Wolfe argues that the SSA's decision implementing 5 C.F.R. § 2635.807(a) violates an injunction issued by the District Court for the District of Columbia in Sanjour v. EPA ( Sanjour II ), 7 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.D.C.1998). However, we agree with the government appellees and the district court that the Sanjour II injunction has no bearing on this case because it applied only to travel expense reimbursement. In Sanjour II, the court issued an injunction against the enforcement of restrictions placed on reimbursement for reasonable non-official travel expenses as prohibited . . . under 5 C.F.R. § [ ] 2635.807(a). Id. at 21. The district court granted this injunction on remand in response to a decision by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that concerned the different standards set forth in the then-current § 2635.807(a) and in a General Services Administration (GSA) regulation, 41 C.F.R. § 304-1.3(a) (1994), 3 for receiving travel reimbursement from private sources. See Sanjour v. EPA ( Sanjour I ), 56 F.3d 85, 88-89 (D.C.Cir. 1995) (en banc). Specifically, the court in Sanjour I held that prohibiting EPA employees from receiving travel expense reimbursement from private sources for unofficial speaking or writing engagements concerning the subject matter of the employees' work, while permitting such compensation for officially authorized speech on the same issues, was inconsistent with First Amendment protections for government employees. Id. at 87. 13 Nowhere in Sanjour I or Sanjour II is there any indication that the courts' rulings applied to any form of compensation other than travel expense reimbursement. Also significant in this regard, the GSA regulations at issue in Sanjour I were themselves specifically limited to travel expense reimbursement. See 41 C.F.R. §§ 304-1.1 to -3.19. Thus, it is clear that the injunction issued in Sanjour II applied solely to travel reimbursement restrictions, not to other forms of compensation, such as the royalties at issue here. Furthermore, following the opinions in Sanjour I and Sanjour II, the OGE amended § 2635.807(a) by adding § 2635.807(a)(2)(iii)(D), which exempts travel expenses from the general compensation restrictions set forth in the regulation. See 65 Fed.Reg. 53650, 53651 (Off. Gov't Ethics Sept. 5, 2000). Wolfe argues that this amendment only affected a narrow portion of the regulation. Appellant's Op. Br. at 23. However, as discussed, the portion affected was in fact the only portion that Sanjour I had held unconstitutional. We therefore reject Wolfe's claim that the SSA's decision is contrary to law on this basis.