Brimer v. Navy — Federal Circuit granted limited en banc rehearing and replaced its prior opinion

Case
David Scott Brimer v. Department of the Navy
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Judge
Judge Moore (George W. Bush, 2006); Judge Lourie (George H.W. Bush, 1990); Judge Dyk (Bill Clinton, 2000); Judge Prost (George W. Bush, 2001); Judge Reyna (Barack Obama, 2011); Judge Taranto (Barack Obama, 2013); Judge Chen (Barack Obama, 2013); Judge Hughes (Barack Obama, 2013); Judge Stoll (Barack Obama, 2015); Judge Cunningham (Joe Biden, 2021); STARK (Joseph R. Biden, 2022)
Date Decided
August 14, 2026
Docket No.
24-1388
Topics
En Banc Rehearing, MSPB Review, Modified Opinion
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

David Scott Brimer petitioned for Federal Circuit review of a Merit Systems Protection Board proceeding involving the Department of the Navy. The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion and judgment in the case on December 17, 2025.

Brimer then petitioned for rehearing en banc. The court invited the Navy to respond, referred the petition to the active circuit judges, and conducted a poll after one was requested. A majority of the judges in regular active service voted for en banc consideration. Circuit Judge Newman did not participate.

The Court’s Holding

In a nonprecedential per curiam order, the Federal Circuit granted Brimer’s petition for rehearing en banc to the extent discussed in Part I of the modified opinion and judgment accompanying the order.

The court also withdrew its precedential opinion and judgment issued on December 17, 2025, and replaced them with the accompanying modified opinion and judgment. The order itself did not describe the substantive changes or reproduce the reasoning in Part I.

Key Takeaways

  • A majority of the Federal Circuit’s active participating judges voted for en banc consideration.
  • The court granted rehearing only to the extent specified in Part I of the accompanying modified opinion and judgment.
  • The December 17, 2025 precedential opinion and judgment were withdrawn and replaced.

Why It Matters

The order eliminates the December 2025 opinion and judgment as the operative disposition and substitutes a modified precedential decision. Its practical and doctrinal significance depends on the changes explained in the accompanying modified opinion, which are not stated in the rehearing order itself.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top