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

Appellant alleged that the District of Columbia violated rights conferred upon him by Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 101, 596 U.N.T.S. 261. Appellant is a national of Jamaica and currently incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. Assuming without deciding that Article 36(1)(b) conferred individually enforceable rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court concluded that appellant's suit was untimely. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the District of Columbia. View "Earle v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to Student Aid Fraud, Bank Fraud, and Social Security Fraud. Defendant appealed from the district court's judgment on several grounds. The court held that the district court erred in describing the elements of Student Aid Fraud; however, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights. The court found no merit in any of the remaining claims raised by defendant on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of wrongful death and survival actions she filed against her son's employer and two pharmaceutical companies. Plaintiff's son committed suicide using a gun provided by his employer while he was taking prescribed medication manufactured and distributed by the pharmaceutical companies. The court held that the district court did not err in ruling that plaintiff failed to state a claim of negligence against the employer when the district court invoked, sua sponte, District of Columbia law that suicide was an intervening and independent cause of death subject to limited exceptions that were inapplicable. The court declined to certify questions of negligence-liability to the D.C. Court of Appeals. The court also held that the district court did not err in ruling that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim of products liability against the pharmaceutical companies and in denying her leave to amend. View "Rollins v. Wackenhut Services, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Black Beauty petitioned for review of an order of the Federal MSHRC adopting the findings of the ALJ. The court held that the ALJ's conclusion that Black Beauty violated 30 C.F.R. 75.400 was supported by substantial evidence; Black Beauty's violation of section 75.400 constituted an unwarrantable failure; and the ALJ's high negligence finding was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Black Beauty Coal Co. v. MSHR, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of sex trafficking of children and was sentenced to imprisonment, as well as ordered to pay a total of $3,892,055 in restitution to the four victims. On appeal, appellant challenged the restitution order but the Government argued that he waived his right to appeal the order. The court concluded that appellant did not waive his right to appeal the restitution order but the court rejected appellant's arguments on the merits and affirmed the judgment. View "In re: Sealed Case, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a group of California generators, including Calpine, petitioned for review of FERC's orders under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824. On appeal, the court considered FERC's authority to regulate public-utility charges to independent generators for the latter's use of "station power" - the electricity necessary to operate a generator's requirements for light, heat, air conditioning, etc. The court concluded that FERC's jurisdictional determination was not arbitrary or capricious. The generators were on notice that they could be assessed retail charges for station power depending on the outcome of this litigation. The generators have alternative means of alleviating any potential grievances stemming from retroactive charges. Accordingly, Calpine's petition for review was denied and FERC's orders on remand were affirmed. View "Calpine Corp., et al v. FERC" on Justia Law

After the union and a former newsroom supervisor filed complaints against Ampersand, the ALJ found - and the Board affirmed - that each of these actions violated section 8(a)(1) and/or 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), 158(a)(3). The ALJ and Board further concluded that Ampersand violated section 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating employees about union activity, surveilling union activity, and requiring employees to remove buttons and signs with a certain message. The court held that the Board did not protect the bulk of the employees' activity and that the Board's misconception of the line between protected and unprotected activity tainted its analysis. Because the court could conceive of no principle by which the Board could cleanse that taint, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the Board's decision and order, and denied the cross-application for enforcement. View "Ampersand Publishing, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Relying on section 331(a) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 331(a), appellant filed an application to reallocate VHF channels from Nevada and Wyoming to New Jersey and Delaware. The FCC denied the application, interpreting section 331(a) to require reallocations of channels only between neighboring locations. Because the Commission's decision conflicted with the statute's text and purpose and because appellant could move its channels without creating signal interference, the court reversed. View "PMCM TV, LLC v. FCC" on Justia Law

In an effort to encourage superior performance, Medco introduced what it called the "WOW" program. This dispute arose when an employee wore a shirt with the Union's logo on the front and a message on the back that stated, "I don't need a WOW to do my job." Medco subsequently asked the employer to remove the shirt. Out of these events sprang charges of violations of section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), charges that the Board upheld in almost every aspect. At the same time another dispute arose, unrelated except that it involved a dress code provision, Medco, and the same general time period. Medco subsequently petitioned for review of the Board's order as to both matters. The court denied the petition in regards to the Board's determination that Medco committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain on its amendment of the dress code. However, the court set aside the Board's determination that Medco violated the Act in ordering the employee to remove his shirt, and on its ban on insulting, provocative, and confrontational expressions on clothing. View "Medco Health Sol. of Las Vegas v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A group of Freedmen, former Cherokee slaves and their descendants, sued in district court claiming that the Cherokee Nation had violated the 1866 Treaty that guaranteed the Freedmen all the rights of native Cherokees. To avoid the sovereign immunity bar, the Freedmen sued not only the Cherokee Nation itself but also the relevant executive official, the Principal Chief, in his official capacity. Applying the precedents that permitted suits against government officials in their official capacities, the court concluded that this suit could proceed against the Principal Chief in his official capacity, without the Cherokee Nation itself as a party. The Cherokee Nation and the Principal Chief in his official capacity were one and the same in the Ex Parte Young suit for declaratory and injunctive relief. As a result, the Principal Chief could adequately represent the Cherokee Nation in this suit, meaning that the Cherokee Nation itself was not a required party for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Vann, et al v. DOI, et al" on Justia Law