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

In 1993, Plaintiff was convicted of the crimes of threatening to injure a person and manslaughter. In 1997, Congress brought the D.C. parole system under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Parole Commission (USPC). In 2000, the USPC adopted its own regulations regarding suitability for parole. At Plaintiff's parole hearings in 2001 and 2005, the USPC applied the 2000 regulations and denied Plaintiff parole. In 2005, Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that application of the 2000 Regulations, rather than the 1987 Regulations, at his hearings violated his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's damages suit on the ground of qualified immunity, concluding that application of those regulations did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable official would have known at the time of the hearings. View "Taylor v. Reilly" on Justia Law

The Air Force invoked Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which covers information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute to deny Newport Aeronautical Sales' request for certain technical information concerning military equipment. The nondisclosure statute the Air Force invoked was 10 U.S.C. 130. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) section 130(a) is an Exemption 3 statute, and it covers the FOIA requests that Newport made to the Air Force; and (2) even assuming that the Air Force was violating the Defense Department's Directive 5230.25 by restricting the disclosure of technical information that does not depict "critical technology," the information fell within the relevant nondisclosure statute and was therefore exempt from disclosure under the Act. View "Newport Aeronautical Sales v. Dep't of Air Force" on Justia Law

Appellant claimed that the Metropolitan police were negligent in the way they responded to her fears that she was sexually assaulted. The district court granted summary judgment against her claims on the ground that the police owed her no duty of care. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's claim failed because she could not show the police cause the harm alleged; and (2) Appellant's argument that the police acted as if they had the authority to stop the hospitals from conducting their own exams failed because nothing the police said or did could reasonably be construed to be a command that the hospitals could not use their own equipment to conduct a forensic exam on Appellant. View "McGaughey v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

In 2010, the EPA promulgated a final rule adopting a new, one-hour primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The American Petroleum Institute, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (collectively the API) petitioned for review of that rule, claiming the EPA, in adopting the NAAQS, was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Clean Air Act. The API also challenged a statement in the preamble to the final rule regarding the EPA's intended implementation of the NAAQS. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (1) denied the petitions insofar as they challenged the EPA's adoption of the NAAQS, holding that the EPA's adoption of the NAAQS for NO2 was neither arbitrary or capricious nor in violation of the Clean Air Act; and (2) dismissed the portions of the petitions challenging the EPA's non-final statement regarding permitting in the preamble to the Final Rule, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to consider those portions of the petitions. View "Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of multiple offenses, including possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, related to the shooting of an undercover agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Defendant was sentenced to 270 months in prison, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to modify his sentence, arguing that he was entitled to a reduction and sentence and seeking a hearing to see if his sentence should be reduced. The district court denied the motion. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err by finding that it reached Defendant's ultimate sentence by starting with Sentencing Guideline 2K2.1, which covers convictions for felons in possession of a firearm. View "United States v. Gatling" on Justia Law

This appeal was the latest step in a long-running controversy over the use of post office sidewalks to gather signatures on petitions. Before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in this case was a facial challenge to a ban on collecting signatures on post office sidewalks that do not run along public streets. Appellants also asked the district court to enjoin enforcement of the regulation on Grace sidewalks. The district court concluded that the ban did not violate the First Amendment. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding (1) interior postal sidewalks are not public forums; (2) a ban on collection in these circumstances is reasonable; and (3) because the challenged regulation no longer applied to Grace sidewalks, declaratory and injunctive relief would not longer be appropriate. View "Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. USPS" on Justia Law

The Rural Cellular Association and the Universal Service for America Coalition (together the RCA) petitioned for review of an order of the FCC amending he "interim cap rule," which limited at 2008 levels the amount of support available to competitive eligible telecommunications carriers. In the order under review, the FCC amended the interim cap rule to provide that when a carrier relinquishes its status as an eligible communications carrier, the cap on the support available in that carrier's state is reduced by the amount the relinquishing carrier would have received had it retained it status. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the RCA's petition for review, holding that the order was a lawful exercise of the FCC's authority under the Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, did not violate the agency's regulations, and was neither arbitrary and capricious nor unconstitutional. View "Rural Cellular Ass'n v. FCC" on Justia Law

Carlos Marino, who was incarcerated for a conviction for drug conspiracy, submitted a request to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking documents that Marino alleged belonged to a co-conspirator who testified against him at trial. Marino suspected the prosecution engaged in various forms of misconduct during trial, especially in its dealings with the co-conspirator. The DEA denied Marino's FOIA request. Marino appealed, and the district court granted summary judgment against him, concluding that Marino lacked a sufficient defense to the DEA's summary judgment motion. In its motion, the DEA invoked FOIA exemption 7(C), which allows an agency to withhold information compiled for law enforcement purposes if disclosure "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Marino subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the district court denied. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the public domain exception provided Marino with a meritorious defense to the DEA's summary judgment motion. Remanded. View "Marino v. Drug Enforcement Admin." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former British soldier, was severely wounded in an ambush in Afghanistan, where he was working for a private security contractor. Plaintiff sued the transport company that furnished the helicopter he flew in on and the construction company that contracted with his employer for his security services, alleging that they had negligently failed to take appropriate security measures for his trip. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants because Plaintiff failed to proffer, as required by District of Columbia law, an expert to testify regarding the standard of care for such security precautions. Plaintiff appealed, maintaining that no expert was required because, inter alia, "every juror will have seen" such films as High Noon. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff's reliance on old Westerns rather than expert testimony to establish the standard of care was fatal to his negligence claim; and (2) the Erie doctrine was fatal to Plaintiff's alternative contention that the Court should disregard D.C.'s expert testimony requirement altogether. View "Burke v. Air Serv. Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a black male who worked in the United State Department of Agriculture's (Department) Foreign Agricultural Service. Plaintiff's employment was terminated after it was discovered that Plaintiff submitted false receipts for reimbursement, failed to report his required financial interests, and failed to properly submit to the Department a credit issued by a hotel to his government-issued credit card, among other things. Plaintiff filed suit in district court, alleging various claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court granted the Department summary judgment on nine of Plaintiff's ten counts, including his race discrimination claim. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that he was terminated because of racial discrimination. View "Hampton v. Vilsack" on Justia Law