Skip to main content

American Federation of Government Employees v. United States

U.S. Supreme CourtDecember 15, 2003No. No. 03-359
United 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 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in place without further review.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Denies Federal Workers' Union Appeal** The American Federation of Government Employees, a union representing federal workers, brought a case against the United States government over an employment-related dispute. The specific details of the disagreement are not fully outlined in the available information, but it involved federal employment law issues that the union felt were important enough to pursue through the court system. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, but the Court decided not to hear the appeal. This meant the lower court's decision, which had sided with the government, remained in place. By denying the appeal (called "certiorari"), the Supreme Court effectively let the government win without reviewing the case's merits. **What This Means for Workers:** This outcome is significant for federal employees because it shows the challenges unions face when trying to change government employment policies through the courts. When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, it becomes much harder for workers to challenge federal employment decisions or policies. Federal employees should understand that court victories against the government can be difficult to achieve, and alternative approaches like legislative advocacy or collective bargaining may be necessary to address workplace concerns.

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.