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

Petitioners challenged the EPA's revised emissions standards for secondary lead smelting facilities. In 2012, acting pursuant to sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6), (f)(2), EPA revised the 1995 emissions standards for secondary lead smelting facilities, reducing allowable emissions by 90% and requiring smelters to totally enclose certain "fugitive" emission sources. Industry petitioners first argued that the Secondary Lead Rule impermissibly regulated elemental lead as hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The court concluded, inter alia, that industry petitioners' first contention was time-barred and the second contention also failed because the Rule set HAP emissions standards at levels designed to attain the primary lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), not the converse. In regards to environmental petitioners' challenges, the court concluded that environmental petitioners have shown that their members would have standing under Article III to sue in their own right. However, environmental petitioners' challenge failed on the merits. Their primary argument that, when EPA revised emissions standards under section 112(d)(6), it must recalculate the maximum achievable control technology in accordance with sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), was barred by NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the court denied in part and dismissed in part the petitions for review. View "Assoc. of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, et al" on Justia Law

This case arose from a protracted labor dispute between Tenneco and the Union. The NLRB's General Counsel sought to prove that Tenneco had committed multiple violations of Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158. The court granted Tenneco's petition for review with respect to the charge relating to Tenneco's withdrawal of recognition. On the record before the court, there was no substantial evidence that Tenneco's unfair labor practices significantly contributed to the employees' petition for decertification. However, with respect to the remaining disputed unfair labor practice charges, the court granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. Although Tenneco had raised vigorous challenges to the Board's holdings, the court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determinations that Tenneco's conduct violated Sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act. View "Tenneco Automotive, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Intervenor, Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Sierra Club based on violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., by the USDA's Rural Utilities Services. The district court ruled that the Service unlawfully failed to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) before granting approvals and financial assistance to Sunflower's expansion of its coal-fired power plant, and remanded the matter to the Service, enjoining it from granting further approvals until it completed an EIS. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 because Sunflower appealed a non-final remand order that was not immediately appealable by a private party and under section 1292(a)(1) because the injunction served no purpose beyond the remand. View "Sierra Club v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, et al" on Justia Law

Morpho, a California-based corporation that designs and builds explosives and other threat detection technology, contracted with the FAA on behalf of its then-newly established TSA, to supply its Explosive Detection System (EDS) to United States airports. Morpho subsequently sought an increase of the contract price to compensate for state assessments as "after-imposed taxes" pursuant to Clause 3.4.2-7(c) of the Acquisition Management System (AMS). The court denied Morpho's petition for review, agreeing with the TSA's rejection of Morpho's claim on the ground that the taxes at issue did not satisfy the after-imposed tax exception's precise terms. View "Morpho Detection, Inc. v. TSA" on Justia Law

Tennis Channel, a sports programming network and intervenor in this suit, filed a complaint against Comcast Cable, a multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD), alleging that Comcast violated section 616 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 536(a)(3), and the Commission's regulations by refusing to broadcast Tennis as widely as it did its own affiliated sports programming networks, Golf Channel and Versus. An ALJ ruled against Comcast, ordering that it provide Tennis carriage equal to what it afforded Golf and Versus, and the Commission affirmed. The court concluded that Comcast prevailed with its third set of arguments on appeal, that even under the Commission's interpretation of section 616, the Commission had failed to identify adequate evidence of unlawful discrimination. The Commission had nothing to refute Comcast's contention that its rejection of Tennis's proposal was simply "a straight up financial analysis." Accordingly, the court granted the petition. View "Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. FCC, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant, sentenced to prison for crimes involving powder and crack cocaine before Congress and the Sentencing Commission took steps to reduce the disparity in sentencing ranges between the two, sought declaratory and injunctive relief and possible damages after these efforts were directed at crimes involving lesser amounts of cocaine than his. The district court dismissed his suit on the ground that the only relief available to appellant was in habeas. Adopting Wilkinson v. Dotson's habeas-channeling rule, the court held that a federal prisoner need bring his claim in habeas only if success on the merits would "necessarily imply the invalidity of confinement or shorten its duration." Appellant's claim for declaratory relief avoided the habeas-channeling rule the court announced and its dismissal was improper. The court also concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to take up the merits of appellant's Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics claim because it was not based on plainly fictitious allegations and his pleading errors could be corrected through the liberal construction or amendment the court was accustomed to providing a pro se prisoner. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of appellant's complaint and remanded for further proceedings. View "Davis v. U.S. Sentencing Commission" on Justia Law

Appellant, a Guantanamo detainee, appealed from a judgment of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, appellant argued that the district court erred in not affording him protection due "medical personnel" under the First Geneva Convention. Because appellant had not established that he was "medical personnel" as defined by the Geneva Conventions, and because all other issues have been determined in the previous proceedings, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "Al-Warafi v. Obama" on Justia Law

Appellants - AFGE, several AFGE locals that represent Air Reserve Technicians (ARTs), and ART Mark Winstead - challenged three Air Force instructions requiring ARTs to wear military uniforms while performing civilian duties. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 5 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal because the exclusive remedial scheme of the CSRA precluded AFGE's claims. View "American Federation of Government Employees, et al v. Secretary of the Air Force" on Justia Law

Judicial Watch appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the CIA. Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request seeking disclosure by the CIA of 52 post-mortem images of Osama bin Laden. The agency refused on the ground that the images were classified as Top Secret. Because the images were properly classified and were exempt from disclosure from FOIA, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dept. of Defense, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant, confined at St. Elizabeths Hospital since 1982, asserted a cause of action under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and alleged that DMH had violated his rights by seizing money from his patient account without affording him procedural due process. DMH responded that the hospital had lawfully transferred appellant's money to cover the cost of his care. It was clear from the record that appellant received proper notice before his funds were taken. The court also found that appellant's claim that he was denied due process lacked merit because he failed to invoke the remedies available to him under the D.C. Administrative Procedure Act, D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 22-A, 308.9. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "English v. District of Columbia, et al" on Justia Law