Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 12 (1999)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12

540

CLINTON v. GOLDSMITH

Opinion of the Court

pay, reinstatement, and correction of records). Or he may enter a district court under the "Little Tucker Act," 28 U. S. C. 1346(a)(2).14 See, e. g., Thomas v. Cheney, 925 F. 2d 1407, 1411, 1416 (CA Fed. 1991) (reviewing challenge to action to drop plaintiff from the rolls); Sibley v. Ball, 924 F. 2d 25, 29 (CA1 1991) (transferring to Federal Circuit case for backpay because within purview of "Little Tucker Act").

In sum, executive action to drop respondent from the rolls falls outside of the CAAF's express statutory jurisdiction, and alternative statutory avenues of relief are available. The CAAF's injunction against dropping respondent from the rolls of the Air Force was neither "in aid of [its] jurisdictio[n]" nor "necessary or appropriate." Accordingly, we reverse the court's judgment.

It is so ordered.

14 The "Little Tucker Act," 28 U. S. C. 1346(a)(2), confers jurisdiction on district courts for claims of $10,000 or less. Appeals are taken to the Federal Circuit.

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12

Last modified: October 4, 2007