The case of Elgin v. Department of Treasury in 2011 revolved around the issue of whether federal employees who are dismissed due to their failure to register for the Selective Service can challenge their dismissal in district court or must appeal through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The plaintiffs, former federal employees, argued that they should be able to bring their constitutional claims directly in district court. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that under Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), federal employee complaints must first go through MSPB before they can be heard by a Federal Circuit Court. This ruling reinforced CSRA's goal of creating an expertise-based, streamlined process for dealing with employment disputes within government agencies.

In the dissenting opinion for Elgin v. Department of Treasury, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, argued that federal courts have jurisdiction over constitutional claims brought by former federal employees who were dismissed due to a law barring those with criminal records from serving in certain government positions. They contended that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) does not preclude such individuals from seeking judicial review of their dismissals under general federal question jurisdiction because it doesn't explicitly state so. The majority's interpretation was seen as an unwarranted limitation on the power of lower federal courts and could potentially bar many other types of claims not directly addressed by CSRA procedures. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view that Congress intended to channel these specific constitutional challenges into administrative processes before reaching court review.