⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

A Veterans Affairs executive seeks relief from a firing that a court already found procedurally defective. James Trinka held a career Senior Executive Service position at the department. The VA accused him of giving false information to internal investigators and removed him in 2020. He challenges the procedures used to take away his job. In 2023, a federal district court found three problems: the agency had not given Trinka a recording of his interview, had been unclear about the standard of proof, and had improperly relied on conduct predating a 2017 statutory change. The judge sent the matter back to the VA without restoring Trinka to his position. In 2024, the VA provided the recording, explicitly applied a more-likely-than-not standard, and again upheld his removal. In July 2025, the district court accepted that amendment and ruled for the government. Trinka now asks what relief follows from the original defective firing, including the possibility of back pay for the intervening years. Remand without vacatur means sending a decision back to an agency while leaving it in place. Vacatur would set it aside. Section Seven Thirteen of Title Thirty-Eight says a reviewing court may set aside unlawful VA employment actions. The lawyers disagree about how much choice that wording leaves a judge after a due process violation. Vitarelli versus Seaton is a 1959 Supreme Court case in which an employee's dismissal was held ineffective because the department failed to follow its own procedural rules. The lawyers will debate what that decision requires here. They will also discuss harmless error: whether a procedural mistake made a legally relevant difference, not whether losing years of pay was painless. Elizabeth Clarke will argue first for Trinka. She will contend that process provided years after removal cannot retroactively erase the original violation. David Peters will represent the government, arguing that the court properly allowed the agency to fix its procedures and that reinstatement is not automatic.

James Trinka v. Douglas Collins (No. 25-5341) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 20, 2026.