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

Articles Posted in November, 2012
by
In response to a tariff filing by Northern Natural Gas, FERC issued an interpretation of section 4(f) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717c(f). Northern objected to the interpretation and further argued that even if it was correct, its effect, should be prospective only. The court rejected both claims, holding that FERC's interpretation was fully consistent with the obvious meaning of the statute. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Northern Natural Gas Co. v. FERC" on Justia Law

by
Erie petitioned for review of the Board's decision finding that Erie violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5). Erie challenged the Board's finding of unlawful refusal to bargain, arguing that the parties were at a bargaining impasse. Alternatively, Erie argued that even if the court upheld the Board's finding of an unfair labor practice, the bargaining remedy imposed exceeded the Board's authority. Because the court concluded that substantial evidence did not support the Board's decision, the court granted the petition for review and vacated the Board's decision and order. The court need not decide the challenge to the Board's remedy. View "Erie Brush & Manufacturing Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

by
Good-Nite withdrew recognition on Unite Here! Local 2 based on anti-union petitions that the Board found were impermissibly tainted by Good-Nite's unlawful assistance to the decertification effort in violation of sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5). Good-Nite petitioned for review on the principal ground that the Board applied the wrong line of its precedent in Hearst Corp., and expanded the conduct covered by it, unreasonably departing from its settled causality precedent in Master Slack Corp. The court held that the Board's Hearst presumption was reasonable and consistent with the Act, and that the Board's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

by
This appeal was from the denial of a motion for attorneys fees and costs under the citizen-suit provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1540(g)(4). Appellants sued the FWS, alleging that the agency violated the ESA by refusing to process applications for permits to import as hunting trophies Canadian wood bison, a listed species, for nearly nine years. The court affirmed the denial of appellants' motions for attorneys fees and costs where the agency's delay in processing the import permit applications was an instance of agency delay on a matter not subject to firm time constraints. Appellants' remaining argument lacked merit. View "Conservation Force, et al v. Salazar, et al" on Justia Law

by
Petitioners challenged the EPA's rulemaking regarding hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). At issue was whether section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(c)(6), required the EPA to impose the same stringency levels in standards for non-112(c)(6) HAPs occurring at section 112(c)(6) sources that it did for section 112(c)(6) HAPs. The EPA rejected the claim that section 112(c)(6)'s cross-reference to section 112(d)(2) required that the EPA subject all HAPs emitted by a section 112(c)(6) source to standards at the stringency level specified by section 112(d)(2). The EPA also made clear that, despite language in the Gold Mine Rule arguably suggesting that it covered "fugitive emissions" - namely emissions from certain sources - in fact the rule did not address such emissions. The court rejected petitioners' claims challenging the EPA's rulemaking and affirmed the EPA's order. View "Desert Citizens Against Pollution, et al v. EPA, et al" on Justia Law

by
Sierra Club challenged a determination of the EPA, which announced that it had met the regulatory obligations imposed on it by section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7412(c)(6). The court concluded that the determination was a legislative rulemaking subject to the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. Because the EPA issued the determination without providing notice and opportunity for comment, the court vacated and remanded for the agency to follow those procedures. View "Sierra Club v. EPA, et al" on Justia Law

by
Defendant filed a motion challenging his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 after he failed to obtain reversal of his conviction. The motion was filed within the one-year limitation of section 2255(f), but did not include his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The government therefore maintained that this later-filed claim was not properly before the court. The court held that equitable tolling applied to section 2255 motions. Here, the later-filed claim was not properly before the court because defendant was diligent in researching his claim and post-conviction counsel acknowledged that the failure to include the ineffective assistance claim in the timely section 2255 motion was due solely to his own error. On the merits, however, the court concluded that defendant failed to meet his burden under Strickland v. Washington. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McDade" on Justia Law

by
Defendant pled guilty to copyright infringement and mail fraud. Pursuant to the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A, the district court ordered him to pay restitution to Adobe Systems in an amount equivalent to the revenue he received from his sales of the pirated products. The court vacated the order because the government failed to meet its burden to present evidence from which the district court could determine Adobe Systems' actual loss as a result of the pirated sales. View "United States v. Fair" on Justia Law

by
Defendant was convicted of drug related offenses and sentenced before Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, section 2, 124 Stat. 2372, which reduced the disparity between the treatment of crack and powder cocaine. The court rejected defendant's argument that the FSA applied to him because his case was on appeal when the Act was passed; that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to postpone sentencing until after passage of the Act; and that the district court erred substantively and procedurally by adding the additional sentence for perjury to the mandatory minimum. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Fields" on Justia Law

by
The Hospital challenged the Board's determination that a "wall to wall" bargaining unit of the Hospital's professional and non-professional employees was appropriate. The court rejected the Hospital's claim that the Health Care Rule violated Section 9(c)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 159(c)(5), because it endorsed the extent of a union's organization as the controlling factor in unit determination. The court also rejected the Hospital's claim that the Board violated the Rule because the Union was required to show and the Board was required to find extraordinary circumstances to join together a number of the Rule's designated units. The court further rejected the Hospital's procedural objections to the Board's underlying proceedings. Accordingly, the petitions for review were denied and the Board's cross-applications for enforcement were granted. View "San Miguel Hospital Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law