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

Thirteen years ago, the Government sued several cigarette manufacturers (Defendants) and related industry organizations for civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The suit asserted that Defendants had conspired to deceive consumers about the health effects and addictiveness of smoking, seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of $280 billion in profits. In this latest round of the lawsuit, Defendants challenged the district court's refusal to vacate injunctions imposed in 2009. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err when it found Defendants were reasonably likely to commit future RICO violations despite the passage of the Tobacco Control Act; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it refused to vacate its injunctions under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

Thirteen years ago, the Government sued several tobacco companies for civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The suit asserted that Defendants had conspired to deceive consumers about the health effects and addictiveness of smoking, seeking, among other things, injunctive relief. The district court granted injunctive relief against the tobacco companies to prevent future RICO violations. The injunction included provisions requiring Appellants to make disclosure to the Government of various marketing data. The parties were unable to agree on the parameters of the disclosure requirement. The district court determined (1) the companies were required to furnish the full range of disaggregated marketing data sought by the Government under its understanding of the injunction; and (2) the Government could disclose the data to other governmental entities subject to the confidentiality provisions in the final order. The tobacco companies sought an interlocutory appeal, claiming that the clarification of the injunction actually effected a modification of the requirements. The D.C. Circuit Court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the district court did not modify the injunction. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants were executives at the Purdue Frederick Company when it misbranded the painkiller OxyContin a schedule II controlled substance. The Company was convicted of fraudulent misbranding, and the executives were convicted under the "responsible corporate officer" doctrine of the misdemeanor of misbranding a drug. Based upon their convictions, the Secretary of Health and Human Services later excluded the individuals from participation in federal health care programs for twelve years under 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(b). Appellants sought review, arguing that the statute did not authorize their exclusion and the Secretary's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the statute authorized the Secretary's exclusion of Appellants, but (2) the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious for want of a reasoned explanation for the length of the exclusions. View "Friedman v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

UtahAmerican Energy brought this action against the Department of Labor under FOIA, seeking documents related to government investigations of a collapse at one of its mines. The district court ruled in favor of UtahAmerican on the disputed exemptions and ordered it to produce documents covered by those exemptions. The court also ordered the Department to produce documents that were the subject of an earlier-filed FOIA suit that was pending before another district court. The Department appealed. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (1) dismissed as moot those portions of the appeal that related to Exemption 7(A) because the Department's basis for asserting that exemption has disappeared, thus requiring it to produce many of the contested documents that were protected by 7(A) alone; (2) reversed the district court insofar as it directed the Department to certain documents that were protected by Exemption 7(C); and (3) reversed the district court's judgment with respect to the documents subject to the earlier FOIA suit, holding that the court should have left disposition of the balance of the remaining documents to the court hearing the earlier-filed suit. Remanded. View "UtahAmerican Energy, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

Sutter East Bay Hospitals sought review of a National Labor Relations Board (Board) order concluding that Sutter East Bay violated the National Labor Relations Act. The Board cross-applied for enforcement of that order. Sutter East Bay conceded that it engaged in illegal surveillance of its employees' union activities, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Board's application for enforcement of that determination. The Court also granted the Board's application for enforcement of the finding that Sutter East Bay unlawfully changed its solicitation policy to stifle support for a new labor union. The Court agreed with Sutter East Bay, however, that the ALJ failed to properly apply the appropriate legal standard in determining that the employer unlawfully disciplined its employee and granted Sutter East Bay's petition for review with regard to those disciplinary actions. Remanded to the Board for rehearing. View "Sutter E. Bay Hosps. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Pursuant to its authority to regulate "unfair and deceptive" practices in the airline industry, the Department of Transportation issued a final rule entitled "Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections." Spirit Airlines and others challenged three of the rule's provisions. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petitions for review, holding (1) the requirement that the most prominent figure displayed on print advertisements and websites be the total price, inclusive of taxes, was not arbitrary and capricious or a violation of the First Amendment; (2) the requirement that airlines allow consumers who purchase their tickets more than a week in advance the option of canceling their reservations without penalty for twenty-four hours following purchase was not arbitrary and capricious; and (3) the prohibition against increasing the price of air transportation and baggage fees after consumers purchase their tickets was not procedurally unlawful or otherwise arbitrary and capricious. View "Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp. " on Justia Law

Bassem Youssef, an Egyptian-born American citizen, claimed that his employer, the FBI, (1) discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by not placing him in a substantive position dealing with counterterrorism and instead transferring him to a job for which he was dramatically overqualified; and (2) retaliated against him when he filed a complaint and spoke to his superiors about his predicament. The district court granted summary judgment against Youseef's discrimination claim but allowed his retaliation claim to be tried by a jury. The jury returned a verdict against Youssef, and the district court denied Youssef's motion for a new trial. The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the district court's refusal to grant a new trial but reversed its judgment against Youssef's discrimination claim, holding that because the district court did not reach the fact-intensive issue of a possible discriminatory motive for the transfer, and the parties did not fully brief it to the Court, the case was remanded for further examination of the FBI's reason for the transfer. View "Youssef v. FBI" on Justia Law

Several states and state regulatory agencies, together with corporations and industrial associations, petitioned for review of the EPA's rule entitled "Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide" and of the subsequent denial of petitions for reconsideration of the standard. Petitioners contended (1) the EPA failed to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, and (2) the agency arbitrarily set the maximum sulfur dioxide concentration at a level lower than statutorily authorized. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal dismissed the petitions in part and denied them in part, holding (1) the challenge to the rulemaking procedure was not within the Court's jurisdiction and must be dismissed; and (2) the EPA did not act arbitrarily in setting the level of sulfur dioxide emissions and therefore, the Court denied that portion of the petitions for review. View "Nat'l Envtl. Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA" on Justia Law

In an earlier decision in this case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Movants, a group of Native American tribes and tribal associations who intervened on behalf of petitioners in the underlying Clean Air Act litigation, were entitled to fees and costs under section 307(f) of the Act. When the parties were unable to agree on the amount of fees, Movants filed an updated motion seeking $369,027, including compensation for 1,181 hours of work and for costs. The EPA held that the fee request was excessive. The D.C. Circuit agreed and awarded Movants $108,609 in compensation for attorney time and $3,186 in costs, holding that Movants reasonably expended 356 hours on the litigation. View "New Jersey v. EPA" on Justia Law

The National Chicken Council, National Meat Association, and National Turkey Federation petitioned for review of EPA's interpretation of a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The EPA interpreted the provision to mean that certain ethanol plants fired with natural gas and/or biomass were deemed to be in compliance with a reduction requirement indefinitely rather than for a certain period. Petitioners argued that by permitting qualifying ethanol plants to generate Renewable Identification Numberss indefinitely without having to ensure their ethanol met the emissions-reduction requirement, the ethanol plants would produce more ethanol, which would lead to an increase in the demand for corn, which would lead to an increase in the price of corn. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review for lack of standing, as Petitioners failed to show that a favorable ruling would redress their claimed injuries. View "Nat'l Chicken Council v. EPA " on Justia Law