Opinion ID: 186684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Leedom Exception

Text: 19 The Union also argues we should exercise jurisdiction pursuant to Leedom v. Kyne, in which the Supreme Court held a district court may, in what we have called exceptional circumstances, Council of Prison Locals v. Brewer, 735 F.2d 1497, 1500 (1984), review the decision of an agency even in the face of a statutory provision that precludes judicial review. 358 U.S. 184, 79 S.Ct. 180, 3 L.Ed.2d 210. More particularly, the agency's alleged conduct must be contrary to a specific [statutory] prohibition that is both clear and mandatory, id. at 188, and the party aggrieved must have no other meaningful and adequate means of vindicating its statutory rights, Bd. of Governors, Fed. Reserve Sys. v. MCorp Fin., Inc., 502 U.S. 32, 43, 112 S.Ct. 459, 116 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). 20 The Union's argument from Leedom v. Kyne comes too late. A dozen years ago we rejected the suggestion that Leedom v. Kyne authorizes the court of appeals to enforce a clear statutory prohibition in the first instance. The Leedom exception, we explained, is premised on the original federal subject matter jurisdiction of the district courts. Even if Leedom did apply to the [Authority's alleged] actions, it would therefore not confer jurisdiction upon us to hear the case. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury v. FLRA, 43 F.3d 682, 688 n. 6 (D.C.Cir.1994) (citation omitted). 21 National Ass'n of Government Employees, Local R5-136 v. FLRA, 2003 WL 23018943, at , No. 03-1230, 2003 U.S.App. LEXIS 25934, at -2 (D.C.Cir. Dec. 19, 2003), and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2986 v. FLRA, 130 F.3d 450, 451 (D.C.Cir.1997), are not precedents to the contrary. There we examined whether the Authority had violated a clear and mandatory statutory prohibition but we did not consider our jurisdiction to do so. And, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held[,] ... the existence of unaddressed jurisdictional defects has no precedential effect. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352 n. 2, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). Therefore, neither Leedom v. Kyne nor its progeny support jurisdiction in this court to consider the present petition.