Skip to main content

American Federation of Government Employees v. United States

U.S. Supreme CourtDecember 15, 2003No. 03-359
Defendant WinUnited States
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal
Circuit
DC Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Supreme Court denied certiorari, leaving the lower court's ruling against the federal employees union in place.

What This Ruling Means

**American Federation of Government Employees v. United States (2003)** This case involved the American Federation of Government Employees, a union representing federal workers, challenging a U.S. government policy or action that affected federal employees' rights or working conditions. The union filed the lawsuit to protect its members' interests in their workplace. Unfortunately, the specific details of what the government did and how the Supreme Court ruled are not available from the case information provided. The outcome and reasoning behind the Court's decision cannot be determined from the limited excerpt available. **What This Means for Workers:** Even without knowing the specific outcome, this case demonstrates an important principle: unions can and do challenge government actions in court when they believe federal employees' rights are being violated. Federal worker unions like AFGE serve as watchdogs, taking legal action to protect their members' employment rights and working conditions. For federal employees, this type of case shows that their unions actively work to defend their interests through the court system when necessary. It also illustrates that employment disputes involving government workers can reach the highest court in the country, highlighting the significance of federal employment rights.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in American Federation of Government Employees v. United States from the same court.

Similar Rulings

Adams
Fed. Cl.Nov 2001
Mixed Result
Orr
Unknown CourtMar 1902

<p>The JReporteri statement of the case:</p> <p>The material allegations of the petition will be found in the opinion of the court.</p> <p>Congress had discovered that there was a lurking equity somewhere in the date of any officer’s appointment, and with most commendable perseverance had sought to find, and to provide for it, but thus far had failed.</p> <p>The next attempt was, we submit, more successful. Ten years later the act approved February 2d, 1897, was passed (29 Stat. L., 593). It was identical in intent with the former legislation but it used the disjunctive conjunction “or” between the words “ appointment” and “ commission.” It says * * * ‘c shall be held and considered to have been mustered into the service of the United States in the grade named in his appointment or commission * * * .” For the first time t íe two things, which are in themselves entirely different, were severed and disassociated .by the word “or.” There can be no commission without an appointment, but there may be an appointment which is not succeeded bjr a commission. The latter is merely the evidence of the former. Appointing and commissioning are distinct acts. (Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; Oollins v. TJ. 8., 15 C. Cls. R., 31; Kilbvrn v. TJ. 8., Id., 17; Young v. TJ. 8., 19 C. Cls. R., 153; Bennett v. TJ. 8., Id., 385). Until the passage of the act of 1897 commissions and appointments had been treated as and given the effect of being one and inseparable by the use of the word “and.”</p> <p>It is true that the disjunctive and conjunctive conjunctions are frequently used interchangeably and are sometimes synonymous, but they must not be so considered when they •can be given their ordinary and usual meaning. If no other reason could be shown for making this change, the condition of the New York and Kentucky regiments is sufficient, but every consideration of justice and equity leads to the conclusion that an officer’s pay should commence from the date he actually entered upon d

Dismissed
Trump v. Cook
U.S. Supreme CourtJun 2026
Mixed Result
Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties
U.S. Supreme CourtMay 2026
Defendant Win
Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters
U.S. Supreme CourtJun 2023
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.