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

Defendant filed a petition for habeas corpus in the district court of the District of Columbia and the district court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction, reasoning that defendant was required to pursue his challenge in D.C. Superior Court rather than federal court because his D.C. Code 23-110 remedy was not inadequate or ineffective. Defendant subsequently applied for a certificate of appealability (COA). The court concluded that jurists of reason would not find defendant's claim that the district court had jurisdiction "debatable" because Diamen v. United States could not be reasonably read to bar defendant from bringing his federal constitutional claims in D.C. Superior Court under section 23-110. Accordingly, the court denied the COA. View "Ibrahim v. United States, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, three environmental groups, brought suit in district court to challenge issuance of a permit authorizing the discharge of dredge and fill material into specified wetlands outside Tampa, Florida. Plaintiffs invoked three statutes: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), 1362(7), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). The district court issued a decision finding that defendants had not fully complied with its obligations under NEPA and the CWA, but rejected plaintiffs' ESA claim, granting summary judgment for plaintiffs on the first two claims and for defendants on the third. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, concluding that defendants did satisfy the demands of the three relevant statutes, except for failing to respond, in its treatment of the NEPA and ESA requirements, to a material contention as to the project's impact on an endangered species, the eastern indigo snake. View "Sierra Club, et al. v. Antwerp, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of an order of the NLRB, holding that petitioner violated section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (3), when it threatened and disciplined a certified nursing assistant and outspoken union supporter. Petitioner admitted that the nursing assistant's union activity was a motivating factor for her discipline; although other employees engaged in conduct similar to the nursing assistant's, petitioner neither investigated nor punished any one of them; and the nursing assistant was disciplined without an inquiry into her actions, as company policy required. Petitioner premised its discipline, at least in part, on the nursing assistant's expired disciplinary history, an impermissible consideration under company rules. Therefore, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the NLRB's Wright Line determination. In light of these conclusions, the court need not consider the NLRB's alternative ground for its section 8(a)(3) ruling. View "Manor Care of Easton, PA., LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This case involved the FCC's Universal Service Program, which provided subsidies to ensure that low-income consumers, schools, health care providers, and libraries have access to advanced telecommunications services and that rates and services in rural areas were "reasonably comparable" to rates and services in urban areas pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 254. At issue was the FCC's order declining to increase subsidies under the rural rates and services component of the Universal Services Program. Here, the FCC explained that "reasonable comparability" between rural and urban areas had been largely accomplished and that expansion of the high-cost support fund would "jeopardize other statutory mandates," such as extending services to schools, hospitals, and libraries, and "ensuring affordable rates in all parts of the country." Because of this, and because the FCC had promised to address state-specific issues, like those presented by Vermont and Maine, through the waiver process, its decision to leave the high-cost support mechanism unchanged was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Thus, the court denied the petition for review. View "Vermont Public Service Board, et al. v. FCC, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed a licensing order of the FCC affirming a decision of the Wireless Bureau denying reconsideration of licensing actions taken by the Wireless Bureau's Mobility Division. The Mobility Division granted Thomas Kurian's request to withdraw a radio spectrum assignment application and dismissed petitioner's notification of consummation of that same assignment. Petitioner argued that the FCC's order should be reversed because the FCC and Kurian engaged in unlawful ex parte communications; the FCC failed to give proper public notice of its decisions to grant Kurian's withdrawal request; and the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rendering the order. The court held that petitioner waived its ex parte and public notice arguments, and the FCC acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously in rendering its order affirming the Wireless Bureau's order. View "Environmentel, LLC v. FCC" on Justia Law

TRCP filed for declaratory and injunctive relief in the district court, arguing that the Bureau of Land Management's 2008 Record of Decision regarding the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA) violated the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; that the accompanying environmental impact statement (EIS) violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; and the 2000 Record of Decision violated both acts. The district court granted summary judgment for the Bureau and TRCP appealed. The court held that the Bureau considered a reasonable range of alternatives in the EIS addressing the proposal to expand natural gas development in the PAPA. That EIS sufficiently addressed the proposed action's impact on hunting in the PAPA. The record supported the Bureau's determination that the 2008 Record of Decision would prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the PAPA. Finally, TRCP's claims based on the Bureau's alleged non-enforcement of the 2000 Record of Decision were moot. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P'ship v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the NTSB's order affirming emergency revocation of his airman and medical certificates, which was based on the conclusion that he made an intentionally false statement on his medical certificate application when he failed to disclose an arrest for an alcohol-related motor vehicle accident. Petitioner contended that the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) failed to prove intent because he had reported the arrest and suspension to the FAA almost two years earlier and hence lacked any motive to falsify his answer on the application. The NTSB ruled that petitioner's admitted failure to read the question before answering it constituted willful disregard for truth or falsity, and he thus had intentionally made a false statement in his application. The court held that because the willful disregard standard articulated in Administrator v. Boardman, and endorsed by the FAA was a reasonable interpretation of the regulation, the NTSB's deference to the FAA's interpretation of its regulation was not arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Cooper v. NTSB, et al." on Justia Law

Upon remand to the court after affirming one of his convictions, the district court granted a variance from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range for career offenders and re-sentenced defendant for unlawfully distributing more than 5 grams of cocaine base. The court held that, although defendant correctly pointed out that the amount of cocaine base of which he stood convicted was 21.1 grams, not the 29.6 grams of cocaine base stated in the Presentence Report and adopted by the district court in re-sentencing him, both amounts fell within the same quantity range under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(c)(7) and carried a maximum sentence of 40 years. Thus, defendant's Guidelines offense level would have been 34 regardless. The court also held that defendant could not show error, much less plain error, where the district court refused to consider the effect of pending legislation. The court further held that the district court did not plainly err, in violation of defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, by referencing at re-sentencing his failure to express remorse and accept responsibility. The court finally held that defendant's challenge to the reasonableness of his below-Guidelines re-sentencing failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in applying the career offender guideline provision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the amended judgment. View "United States v. Lawrence" on Justia Law

The United States appealed the district court's grant of the writ of habeas corpus to the detainee. Three errors in the district court's analysis required the court to vacate that decision. First, the court failed to accord an official government record a presumption of regularity. Second, the district court failed to determine the detainee's credibility even though the court relied on his declaration to discredit the Government's key evidence. Third, the court's unduly atomized approach to the evidence was one the court rejected. The court remanded so the district court could evaluate the detainee's credibility as needed in light of the totality of the circumstances. View "Latif, et al. v. Obama, et al." on Justia Law

This suit involved a challenge to the "minimum essential coverage provision," which required all "applicable individual[s]" to purchase and maintain "minimum essential coverage" for each month beginning in January 2014 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Act), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119. Appellants, four United States citizens and federal taxpayers, sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent various U.S. Government officials and agencies from enforcing the minimum essential coverage provisions. They argued that the mandate exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause and substantially burdened appellants' religious exercise, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. The district court rejected appellants' challenge to the Act and they appealed. Despite questions raised as to the court's subject matter jurisdiction, the court concluded that it had jurisdiction and affirmed the district court's conclusion that the Act was constitutional. View "Seven-Sky v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law