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

Defendants appealed their convictions stemming from a narcotics distribution scheme in Washington D.C. Defendants and six others were indicted, and the district court conducted two trials. The court held that defendants' evidentiary challenges and their contention regarding the submission of unplayed and unredacted phone calls failed to demonstrate that reversal of their convictions was warranted; such errors as occurred were harmless for lack of substantial prejudice; the district court's responses to jury notes impermissibly interfered with the jury's independent role as the finder of fact and the court vacated the convictions on the tainted counts; the government conceded that the district court erred in imposing Defendant Thomas' sentences of life imprisonment in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey and the court vacated his life sentences for narcotics conspiracy and RICO conspiracy; and the court remanded the case for resentencing and otherwise affirmed the judgments of conviction. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendants, convicted of various narcotics-related offenses, alleged that numerous errors affected their second trial. Defendants were involved in an extensive drug ring and the government indicted twenty-one defendants in total, subsequently separating defendants for trial in two groups. The court rejected most of defendants' arguments; vacated Defendant Miller's insufficiently supported conviction for his participation in a continuing criminal enterprise and remanded for resentencing; and vacated the fine imposed on Defendant Eiland by the district court and remanded for reconsideration of that portion of Eiland's sentence. View "United States v. Eiland" on Justia Law

Chaplains in the Navy who identified themselves as non-liturgical Christians and two chaplain-endorsing agencies filed suit claiming, inter alia, that several of the Navy's policies for promoting chaplains prefer Catholics and liturgical Protestants at the expense of various non-liturgical denominations. At issue on review was the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the Navy's use of the challenged practices. Given facially neutral policies and no showing of intent to discriminate, the chaplains' equal protection attack on the Navy's specific policies could succeed only with an argument that there was an intent to discriminate or that the policies lacked a rational basis. Because the chaplains attempted no such arguments, the court agreed with the district court that they have not shown the requisite likelihood for success. As to the Establishment Clause, the chaplains have not shown a likelihood of success under any test that they have asked the court to apply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "In re: Navy Chaplaincy, et al. v. United States Navy, et al." on Justia Law

Appellants appealed the tax court's decision, holding that the period to assess taxes for tax year 1999 against Jack Gaughf and his wife remained open as of March 30, 2007, when the IRS issued a Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) to Gaughf Properties, L.P. The court affirmed the tax court's holding that (1) the Gaughfs' tax liability came within the unidentified partner exception to the general three-year statute of limitations under I.R.C. section 6229(e) because the Gaughfs were not identified as indirect partners to Gaughf Properties, L.P. in its 1999 return and (2) information identifying them as indirect partners was not otherwise timely furnished to the Secretary of the Treasury so as to trigger the one-year limitation period in I.R.C. section 6229(e). View "Gaughf Properties, L.P. v. Commissioner, IRS" on Justia Law

ATRA petitioned for review, challenging revisions made by OSHA to the wording of a paragraph (a)(2) of OSHA's hazard communication (HazCom) standard, 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200. HazCom establishes labeling requirements for chemicals used in the workplace. The changes reflect the agency's view that HazCom preempts state legislative and regulatory requirements, but not state tort claims. The court rejected ATRA's arguments under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 651-678, concluding that OSHA has no authority to speak with the force of law on preemption and the agency never meant for the disputed paragraph to have the effect of a legislative rule. Because Paragraph (a)(2) is merely interpretive, it is not subject to notice and comment rulemaking and was not subject to judicial review. Accordingly, ATRA's challenge was unripe for review. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "American Tort Reform Assoc. v. OSHA, et al." on Justia Law

In 2007, the FCC promulgated a rule requiring "hybrid" cable companies to "downconvert" from digital to analog broadcast signals from must-carry stations for subscribers with analog television sets. In 2012, the FCC allowed the downconversion requirement to expire and promulgated a new rule that allowed cable operators to provide conversion equipment to analog customers, either for free or at an affordable cost (Sunset Order). Petitioners, a group of must-carry broadcasters, sought review of the Sunset Order, arguing that the FCC's new rule could not be squared with Congress's mandate that must-carry broadcast signals "shall be viewable via cable on all television receivers of a subscriber which are connected to a cable system" pursuant to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the Cable Act), 47 U.S.C. 534(b)(7). The court concluded that petitioners' claims lack merit. The FCC's 2007 rule was not mandated by the statute. Rather, the rule was promulgated by the Commission as a stopgap measure. Since 2007, the telecommunications market has changed dramatically. Petitioners' argument effectively freezes time in the face of shifting technology and finds no support in the law. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Agape Church, Inc, et al. v. FCC, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, WildEarth and others, challenged the BLM's decision to approve the West Antelope II tracts for lease in the Wyoming Powder River Basin. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding that plaintiffs lacked standing to raise one of their arguments and that their remaining arguments failed on the merits. The court concluded, however, that plaintiffs adequately raised their theory of procedural injury below and therefore had standing to challenge each of the alleged deficiencies in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). On the merits, the court concluded that the BLM satisfied its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., in considering climate change and that the BLM satisfied its obligations under NEPA in considering the effect the lease developments would have on local ozone levels. The court considered and rejected plaintiffs' remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "WildEarth Guardians, et al. v. Salazar, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal challenged the district court's order authorizing the Government to medicate defendant by force if necessary for the sole purpose of rendering him competent to stand trial. In Sell v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the Government may, on "rare" occasions, forcibly medicate a defendant to restore his competency. The court found no merit in defendant's claim that the district court committed reversible error in failing to consider the prospect that he might face civil confinement; even if defendant was correct that he was not dangerous apart from allegedly threatening the President of the United States with bodily harm, this fact by itself would not render unimportant the Government's interest in prosecuting him for a serious and dangerous crime; and the district court's factual findings have a sound evidentiary basis and were not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order authorizing involuntary medication. View "United States v. Dillon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Department, alleging that it retaliated against her for filing a complaint of workplace harassment based upon her sex and national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a). The district court granted summary judgment to the Department. The court affirmed, concluding that no reasonable jury could find that the Department's actions - placing her on an unsuitable detail, changing her employment status to probationary, and terminating her employment - were motivated by retaliation. View "Hernandez v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

In these three appeals, enemy combatants held by the United States at Bagram Airfield Military Base in northwest Afghanistan sought access to the writ of habeas corpus. Over three years ago, the court concluded that enemy combatants held at Bagram could not invoke the Suspension Clause to challenge their detentions. In these appeals, the court dismissed the petitions for want of jurisdiction where, because the Suspension Clause did not run to Bagram, section 7 of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600, did not effect any unconstitutional suspension of the writ. The court remanded Hamidullah's petition to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether he is in the sole custody of the government of Pakistan. View "Maqaleh, et al. v. Panetta, et al." on Justia Law