Who interprets federal pay rules
Lesko v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Jillian Lesko has filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s 7–4 ruling that courts must use the Office of Personnel Management’s definitions of terms in the Federal Employees Pay Act, even when they conflict with longstanding court interpretations.
- What's at stake
- The petition asks whether courts must use OPM’s FEPA definitions in Lesko’s case; the Supreme Court has not resolved that question.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
She argues that the law’s general rulemaking provision does not give the agency that power under Loper Bright.
FEPA authorizes OPM to issue regulations needed to administer the law, and the dispute is whether that authority lets OPM require courts to use its definitions.
Question presented
Under this Court’s decision in Loper Bright, does the general rulemaking provision in 5 U.S.C. § 5548(a) delegate authority to OPM to authoritatively interpret FEPA, such that courts must adopt OPM’s definitions?
What happens next
The Court must decide whether to hear the petition. No argument or decision window exists before the Court agrees to review it.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
New document added
Show 6 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
New document added
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.