Document: 547 U.S. 512 (2006) WHITMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION et al. No. 04-1131. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 5, 2005. Decided June 2006. Pamela S. Karlan argued the cause for petitioner. With her on briefs were Thomas C. Goldstein, Amy Howe, and Kevin K. Russell. Malcolm L. Stewart respondents. him brief Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney Keisler, Deputy Kneedler, John P. Elwood, William Kanter, Jeffrey A. *513 Rosen, Paul M. Geier, Jerome Mellody, Mark Robbins, Steven E. Abow, Robin Richardson.[*] PER CURIAM. Terry Whitman, petitioner, is an employee Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) subject to agency's drug alcohol testing program. Without first seeking pursue grievance procedures under his collective-bargaining agreement, he filed suit in States District Alaska, alleging FAA tested a nonrandom manner, violation constitutional rights 49 § 45104(8). The has its own procedural framework resolution claims by employees; this purpose it adopts certain sections Civil Service Reform Act 1978 (CSRA), including Chapter 71 Title which sets forth rules grievances. 40122(g)(2)(C). held that, provisions CSRA, was without jurisdiction consider petitioner's claims. Appeals Ninth Circuit affirmed, stating that because "5 7121(a)(1), as amended 1994, does not expressly confer federal court over employment-related covered negotiated employees' collective bargaining agreements," are precluded. 382 F.3d 938, 939 (2004). This granted certiorari review judgment. 545 1138 (2005). correct say 5 7121(a)(1) jurisdiction. Another statute, howevera very familiar onegrants *514 courts "all civil actions arising Constitution, laws, or treaties States." 28 1331. question, then, whether 7121 confers jurisdiction, but (or CSRA whole) removes given courts, see Verizon Md. Inc. Public Serv. Comm'n Md., 535 635, 642 (2002) (holding "even if [47 C.] 252(e)(6) at least divest district their authority 1331 Commission's order compliance with law"), otherwise precludes employees from pursuing remedies beyond those set out cf. Fausto, 484 439, 443-444 (1988); Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 140 (1967) ("The question phrased terms `prohibition' rather than `authorization' ... judicial final agency action aggrieved person will be cut off unless there persuasive reason believe such Congress"). In deciding preclusion, would required ascertain where Whitman's fit within statutory scheme, provides different treatment grievances depending nature claim. It may be, example, FAA's actions, described constitute "prohibited personnel practice." See 2302(b); 40122(g)(2)(A). Both petitioner Government they do not, ultimate jurisdictional, concession ought accepted hand. Weinberger Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 412 645, 652 (1973) ("Parties, course, cannot jurisdiction; only Congress can so"). did decide allegations state proper remand address matter, National Collegiate Athletic Assn. Smith, 525 *515 U. 459, 470 (1999), well issue preclusion. various other issues raised before Court, decided below, also addressed remand, including: challenged action; exhausted administrative remedies; exhaustion scheme Administrative Procedure Act, interpreted Darby Cisneros, 509 137 (1993); forfeited exhaustion-of-remedies argument. decision these questions obviate need more difficult judgment vacated, case remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. so ordered. JUSTICE ALITO took no part consideration case. NOTES [*] Briefs amici curiae urging reversal American Federation Employees Williamson, Jr., Sarah Wilson, D. Roth, Gony Frieder; Treasury Union Gregory O'Duden, Elaine Kaplan, Barbara Atkin; Allen Dotson Amanda Frost Brian Wolfman.

Category: 8