Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Friday ruling that resolved a dispute over the judicial review procedure for complaints filed by federal employees.

The Supreme Court's 7-2 decision authored by Ginsburg reversed the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, and remanded the case for further review.

The case itself involves the process for handling federal employee workforce complaints. Those complaints that fall under both the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and federal antidiscrimination laws are called "mixed cases." When the federal Merit Systems Protection Board dismisses a "mixed case," Ginsburg's opinion said, the proper place for review is the federal district court.

But Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent that said the court offered "little in the way of a traditional statutory interpretation" when deciding the case, and said he sees no reason why the court didn't simply apply the law as written.

Gorsuch wrote that he thought the statute provided a "plain" way forward in these cases for federal employees. Gorsuch said civil service complaints ought to go to the federal circuit for review, while discrimination cases should be reviewed anew at the district court, according to the law.

"Congress allowed employees an elective option to bring their discrimination claims to the [Merit Systems Protection] Board, but didn't allow this option to destroy the framework it established for the resolution of civil service questions," he wrote. "These rules provide straightforward direction to courts and guidance to federal employees."

Gorsuch's dissent suggested that the petitioner's challenge was "well meaning" but the high court's taking up Perry's cause against the Merit Systems Protection Board would only "spell trouble."

"The only thing that seems sure to follow from accepting [Perry's] invitation is all the time and money litigants will spend, and all the ink courts will spill, as they work their way to a wholly remodeled statutory regime," Gorsuch wrote. "Respectfully, Congress already wrote a perfectly good law. I would follow it."