In the United States v. Fausto case of 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal employees who are part of an "excepted service" (a category of federal employment) cannot seek judicial review for adverse personnel actions if their administrative remedies have been explicitly excluded by Congress. The court held that Mr. Fausto, a non-preference eligible excepted service employee at the Fish and Wildlife Service, was not entitled to judicial review under civil service laws because he had no statutory right to appeal his suspension to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). This decision clarified that when Congress establishes methods for reviewing administrative decisions, those procedures must be strictly followed before resorting to litigation in courts.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Fausto case, penned by Justice Blackmun, argued that the majority's interpretation of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) was overly broad and restrictive. The dissent contended that while CSRA does limit certain types of judicial review for federal employees under specific circumstances, it doesn't completely bar them from seeking redress in Claims Court for alleged violations of their statutory rights. It emphasized that Congress did not explicitly preclude such claims in its legislation and there is no evidence to suggest this was their intent. Furthermore, they pointed out potential negative implications if all employee disputes were forced into administrative channels as suggested by the majority ruling - a scenario which could lead to an overburdened Merit Systems Protection Board and potentially compromise fair hearings due to resource constraints.