context: A statement in the WPEA's legislative history suggests that at least' some of its provisions could apply retroactively to cover appeals pending on or after the Act's effective date. That statement, however, is insufficient, standing alone, to override the unequivocal statutory language and demonstrate a "clear intent" that the WPEA apply retroactively to provide the board with jurisdiction over agency removal actions occurring long before its enactment.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 375 F.3d 1106, 1110
citation_a.parenthetical: "The language of the statute at issue in- this case is clear and unambiguous, and absent extraordinary circumstances our inquiry must end here."
citation_a.sentence: Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 272-73, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“Requiring clear intent assures that Congress itself has affirmatively considered the potential unfair ness of retroactive application and determined that it is an acceptable price to pay for the countervailing benefits.”); see also Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178, 1192 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“If the statute is unambiguous, our inquiry is at an end; we must enforce the congressional intent embodied in that plain wording.”); Norfolk Dredging Co., Inc. v. United States, 375 F.3d 1106, 1110 (Fed. Cir.2004) (“The language of the statute at issue in- this case is clear and unambiguous, and absent extraordinary circumstances our inquiry must end here.”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 511 U.S. 272, 272-73
citation_b.parenthetical: "Requiring clear intent assures that Congress itself has affirmatively considered the potential unfair ness of retroactive application and determined that it is an acceptable price to pay for the countervailing benefits."
citation_b.sentence: Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 272-73, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (“Requiring clear intent assures that Congress itself has affirmatively considered the potential unfair ness of retroactive application and determined that it is an acceptable price to pay for the countervailing benefits.”); see also Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178, 1192 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“If the statute is unambiguous, our inquiry is at an end; we must enforce the congressional intent embodied in that plain wording.”); Norfolk Dredging Co., Inc. v. United States, 375 F.3d 1106, 1110 (Fed. Cir.2004) (“The language of the statute at issue in- this case is clear and unambiguous, and absent extraordinary circumstances our inquiry must end here.”).