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

Petitioners unsuccessfully opposed the closures of three post offices by the Postal Service, unsuccessfully appealed the Postal Service's determinations to the Commission, and now seek to review the Commission's decisions. The court concluded that, because the petitioners in the Spring Dale case have received all the relief they sought, their petition is moot and must be dismissed. As to the remaining two petitions regarding the Pimmit Branch and the Venice Post Office, the court denied the petitions because neither the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., review nor non-statutory review of the Commission's decision is available.View "Mittleman v. Postal Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of FERC's orders affecting the administration of the Independent System Operator-New England (ISO-NE) and specifically directed to curtailment of the exercise of market power in the New England energy market. The court held that FERC has jurisdiction to regulate the parameters comprising the Forward Capacity Market, and that applying offer-floor mitigation fits within the Commission's statutory rate-making power. The court concluded that none of the petitioners established that FERC has committed reversible error and the court denied the petition for review. View "New England Power Gen. Assoc. v. FERC" on Justia Law

CTS petitioned for review of the EPA's decision to add to the National Priorities List, which identifies those hazardous-waste sites considered to be the foremost candidates for environmental cleanup, a site centered around property formerly owned by the company. Determining that CTS has constitutional standing, the court concluded that the EPA did not fail to examine the relevant data or to articulate a rational explanation for its actions; the EPA's determination that a hydraulic connection existed between the CTS property and the contaminated Oaks Subdivision wells was reasonable; and CTS's reliance on extra-record evidence relating to isotope data was procedurally foreclosed. The court denied the petition for review because each of CTS's objections was without merit, forfeited, or impermissibly based on extra-record evidence.View "CTS Corp. v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants Ransom and Talbott appealed their sentences after pleading guilty to fraud charges in connection with the operation of their property management company. The court need not decide whether Ransom's appeal waiver should stand since the court determined that, even if Ransom had not waived his right to appeal, his arguments made on appeal were meritless. The court concluded that defendants' sentences were both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court did not only all that it was required to do in entering the upwardly variant sentences, but more than enough. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Ransom, Jr." on Justia Law

Appellants filed a wrongful death action against Romarm, a foreign corporation and firearms manufacturer owned by the Romanian government and located in Bucharest. The district court granted Romarm's motion to dismiss based on failure to allege personal jurisdiction over Romarm. Supreme Court Justice Breyer's narrow concurrence in J.McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro concluded that a foreign corporation's sale to a distributor, without more, is insufficient to establish the minimum contacts necessary for a court to exert personal jurisdiction over the corporation, even if its product ultimately causes injury in the forum state. In light of Nicastro, the court concluded that appellants have failed to allege any conduct by Romarm that was purposely directed toward the District of Columbia; nor could their discovery requests supply the missing element; and the district court appropriately dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Williams, et al. v. Romarm, SA, et al." on Justia Law

The city of Jersey City and a coalition of environmental groups filed separate petitions challenging FERC's order granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construction of a natural gas pipeline connecting New York and New Jersey. The court concluded that it could not consider the merits of the petitions where the environmental petitioners lacked Article III standing as an association; the court did not have original jurisdiction over claims arising from the Budget Act, Pub.L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251; and the court rejected the City's remaining standing claims. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction.View "NO Gas Pipeline v. FERC" on Justia Law

Appellants filed suit challenging the District's tour-guide licensing scheme as an unconstitutional, content-based restriction of their First Amendment rights. The court concluded that it need not determine whether strict scrutiny applied in this instance because, assuming the regulations are content-neutral, they failed even under the more lenient standard of intermediate scrutiny. The District failed to present any evidence the problems it sought to thwart actually exist; even assuming those harms are real, there is no evidence the exam requirement is an appropriately tailored antidote; the district court provided no explanation for abjuring the less restrictive but more effective means of accomplishing its objectives; because this lack of narrow tailoring is hardly unique to appellants, and the court sustained both their facial and as-applied challenges to the offending regulations. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the District and remanded with instructions to grant appellants' motion for summary judgment.View "Edwards, et al. v. DC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit against the District, the DOC, and several jail officials, seeking relief under federal law and D.C. common law for conspiracy, false arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), deprivation of due process, aiding and abetting, and loss of consortium. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff, a Correctional Officer, was the victim of an unprovoked attack by a prison inmate. Plaintiff was arrested, criminally prosecuted, and fired from his employment. After being acquitted at his subsequent trial, where the inmate admitted to initiating the confrontation and assaulting plaintiff, and after prevailing in a contested administrative hearing, plaintiff was not reinstated until a D.C. Superior Court judge intervened. The court concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the false arrest, malicious prosecution, and IIED claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.View "Amobi, et al. v. D.C. Dept. of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the EPA's rule exempting from regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., certain hazardous residuals left over from the petroleum refining process (the Gasification Exclusion Rule). The court held that petitioners had standing; their petitions for review were timely; and the Gasification Exclusion Rule violates the plain statutory text of section 6924(q). Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review in No. 08-1145 and granted the petitions for review Nos. 08-1144 and 12-1295. The court vacated the Gasification Exclusion Rule.View "Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of a portion of a 1998 EPA rule creating a "Comparable Fuels Exclusion" from regulation under section 3004(q) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6924(q). The court concluded that Environmental Petitioners have met their burden of demonstrating standing on behalf of their members. The court concluded that the Exclusion is inconsistent with the plain language of section 6924(q), which requires that EPA establish standards applicable to all fuel derived hazardous waste. Accordingly, the court granted the petitions for review and vacated the Exclusion. However, Environmental Technology Council lacked a cause of action and the court denied its petition for review. View "NRDC and Sierra Club v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law