Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Feld Entertainment, Inc. owned the country's largest collection of endangered Asian elephants, some of whom travel and perform with its famed Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus. In this case, a former barn helper with the circus and an organization dedicated to fighting exploitation of animals alleged that Feld's use of two techniques for controlling the elephants -bullhooks and chains - harmed the animals in violation of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1). The court agreed with the district court that plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing and therefore affirmed the district court's judgment. View "ASPCA, et al. v. Feld Entertainment, Inc." on Justia Law

Three environmental organizations petitioned for review of the EPA's promulgation of a final rule where the "conformity determinations" referred to in the rule's title were approvals needed under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), for federally funded transportation projects in an area that was designated "nonattainment" or "maintenance" with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Petitioners principally argued that the 2010 Rule still failed to embody subsection (B)(iii)'s requirements that the project not "delay timely attainment on any standard or any required interim emission reduction or milestones in any area." The court held that, given the EPA's clarification that (B)(iii) applied to local projects and its persuasive explanation of how the substance of the "delay" condition was met, the court was satisfied that the 2010 Rule was not arbitrary, capricious, or inconsistent with law for the reasons raised in Environmental Defense, Inc. v. EPA. In particular, it was clear that a project giving rise to the "counterbalance" hypothetical the court described in Environmental Defense would not be deemed conforming. Accordingly, the petition was denied. View "NRDC, et al. v. EPA" on Justia Law

As part of a civil enforcement action brought by the SEC, the district court entered a disgorgement order against Peter S. Cahill, imposing joint and several liability for the full proceeds of his sales of stock in a small, thinly traded corporation not listed on a major stock exchange. Cahill challenged the order. The court held that because Cahill presented no evidence in rebuttal, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the SEC had met its burden to show that his ill-gotten gains were the full proceeds of his stock sales at inflated prices resulting from a fraudulent "pump and dump" scheme. Neither did the district court abuse its discretion in crafting the disgorgement remedy. Inclusion of the transferred funds was consistent with the court's precedent. Absent any rationale for a different approach, the court joined other circuits in holding that the imposition of joint and several liability for the amount ordered to be disgorged did not require proof of a close relationship among the defendants beyond their collaboration in the fraudulent scheme in violation of the securities laws. Accordingly, because Cahill's evidentiary objections were also unavailing, the court affirmed the order of disgorgement. View "Securities and Exchange Comm'n v. Whittemore, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the FAA's issuance of 130 Determinations of No Hazard for each of the proposed wind turbines in the area of Nantucket Sound. Petitioners argued that the FAA violated its governing statute, misread its own regulations, and arbitrarily and capriciously failed to calculate the dangers posed to local aviation. The FAA claimed that petitioners lacked standing to challenge the FAA's determinations and that their merits claims were faulty. The court found that petitioners had standing and that the FAA misread its regulations, leaving the challenged determinations inadequately justified. Accordingly, the petitions for review were granted and the FAA's determinations were vacated and remanded. View "Town of Barnstable, MA v. Federal Aviation Admin." on Justia Law

Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence on two counts of attempted tax evasion. Appellant argued that the government failed to prove the element of tax loss because it relied upon a flawed calculation under the "cash method of proof" and attributed to appellant $1.9 million of alleged gain when those funds, as a matter of law, belonged to his two corporations. Appellant challenged his sentence to the extent it rested upon the allegedly incorrect calculation of tax loss. The court found no error in the district court's denial of defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal. The court also held that, because a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt a tax was due and owing on $300,000 of income, the court left for another day how best to interpret the dictum in James v. United States. The court affirmed the sentence because the district court made sufficient factual findings at sentencing to support the inclusion of the $1.9 million in the calculation of tax loss. View "United States v. Khanu" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the District's adoption of the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008 (FRA), D.C. Law 17-372, which amended the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, D.C. Law 1-85. Plaintiffs challenged, both facially and as applied to them, the provisions of the District's gun laws, new and old, requiring the registration of firearms and prohibiting both the registration of "assault weapons" and the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds of ammunition. Plaintiffs argued those provisions were not within the District's congressionally delegated legislative authority or, if they were, then they violated the Second Amendment. The court held that the District had authority under D.C. law to promulgate the challenged gun laws, and the court upheld as constitutional the prohibitions of assault weapons and of large-capacity magazines and some of the registration requirements. The court remanded the other registration requirements to the district court for further proceedings because the record was insufficient to inform the court's resolution of the important constitutional issues presented. View "Heller, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al." on Justia Law