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

Seven District of Columbia citizen-voters filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, which allows noncitizens to vote in municipal elections. The plaintiffs argued that this law dilutes their votes, discriminates against U.S. citizens, and violates the constitutional right to citizen self-government. The District of Columbia Board of Elections, responsible for implementing the law, was named as the defendant.The case was initially brought in D.C. Superior Court, but the Board removed it to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Board then moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim. The district court agreed with the Board, holding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate any individual disadvantage and thus lacked standing. The court dismissed the complaint, characterizing the plaintiffs' grievances as generalized and insufficient to confer standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing to sue because they alleged a concrete and particularized injury: the dilution of their votes due to the expansion of the electorate to include noncitizens. The court distinguished this case from others where plaintiffs failed to show individualized harm. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were specific to their voting power in D.C. local elections and not merely a generalized grievance. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board's cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Hall v. District of Columbia Board of Elections" on Justia Law

Ammar al-Baluchi, a Pakistani national, has been detained at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay since 2006. He is accused of supporting the September 11, 2001, attacks as a senior member of al-Qaeda. In 2008, al-Baluchi filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court. In 2022, he moved to compel the government to convene a Mixed Medical Commission to assess his eligibility for repatriation due to alleged torture and resulting serious health issues. The district court denied his request, ruling that detainees captured during non-international armed conflicts are not entitled to such examinations under the Third Geneva Convention or Army Regulation 190-8.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially stayed al-Baluchi’s habeas case pending the outcome of his military commission trial. After temporarily lifting the stay to consider his motion for a Mixed Medical Commission, the court denied the motion, leading al-Baluchi to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s nonfinal order. The court found that al-Baluchi did not demonstrate that the denial of his motion had the practical effect of denying injunctive relief or that it caused serious or irreparable harm requiring immediate review. The court noted that even if a Mixed Medical Commission found al-Baluchi eligible for repatriation, the government retained discretion to delay repatriation until the completion of his military commission proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Al-Baluchi v. Hegseth" on Justia Law

Media Matters for America and Eric Hananoki, a senior investigative reporter, filed a lawsuit against Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in his official capacity as the Attorney General of Texas. The plaintiffs alleged that the Texas Office of the Attorney General launched a retaliatory campaign against them after they published an unfavorable article about X.com, a social media platform owned by Elon Musk. The article reported that corporate advertisements on X appeared next to antisemitic posts and that Musk endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Following the publication, the Texas Attorney General's office issued a civil investigative demand (CID) to Media Matters, requiring them to produce extensive records.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and denied Paxton's motion to dismiss for improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that the investigation and CID constituted cognizable injuries sufficient to establish the plaintiffs' standing. The court concluded that the plaintiffs satisfied the requisite factors for a preliminary injunction, including a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment retaliation claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The appellate court held that Paxton was subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia because he purposefully directed actions at the plaintiffs in the District. The court also found that the plaintiffs' complaint raised a justiciable claim of First Amendment retaliation, as they alleged concrete and ongoing harms resulting from the retaliatory investigation. The court concluded that the District of Columbia was a proper venue for the action and that the District Court did not err in issuing the preliminary injunction. View "Media Matters for America v. Paxton." on Justia Law

Ryan Castaneira, a U.S. citizen, filed a Form I-130 petition to obtain permanent residency for his spouse, a Mexican national. USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the petition due to Castaneira's prior convictions in Georgia for crimes that appeared to qualify as "specified offenses against a minor" under the Adam Walsh Act. Castaneira argued that his convictions involved an undercover officer, not a minor, and thus should not be considered offenses against a minor. He also challenged the agency's use of the "beyond any reasonable doubt" standard to prove he posed no risk to his spouse.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Castaneira's claims. The court held that his prior convictions fell within the statutory definition of "specified offense against a minor" and that the Adam Walsh Act's grant of "sole and unreviewable discretion" to USCIS precluded judicial review of the evidentiary standard applied by the agency. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the standard of proof used by USCIS in making the no-risk determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in part, agreeing that Castaneira's prior convictions were covered by the Adam Walsh Act. However, the appellate court vacated the District Court's jurisdictional ruling regarding the evidentiary standard. The court held that while USCIS's ultimate no-risk determinations are unreviewable, challenges to the agency's departure from its own binding precedent, such as the standard of proof, are reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether USCIS violated its own precedent by applying the "beyond any reasonable doubt" standard. View "Castaneira v. Noem" on Justia Law

Carter W. Page filed a lawsuit against the United States, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and several current and former FBI officials. Page alleged that the FBI unlawfully obtained four warrants to electronically surveil him under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and leaked information obtained from these warrants to the press, causing him reputational harm and lost business opportunities. The district court dismissed Page's claims, finding them either time-barred or insufficiently pleaded.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Page's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that Page's FISA claims were time-barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations and that his claims were insufficiently pleaded. The court also dismissed Page's Patriot Act claim against the United States, with the majority concluding it was time-barred and the partial dissent finding it legally insufficient. Additionally, the court dismissed Page's Bivens claim and Privacy Act claims for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal of Page's FISA and Patriot Act claims as time-barred. The court held that Page had actual or inquiry notice of his FISA claims by April 2017, more than three years before he filed his complaint in November 2020. The court also found that Page's Patriot Act claim was barred because he failed to file his administrative claim with the FBI within two years of its accrual. The court concluded that Page had sufficient information by April 2017 to discover the basis for his claims, making them time-barred. View "Page v. Comey" on Justia Law

Captain Matthew Hight trained with the Saint Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association from 2015 to 2018 to become a maritime pilot on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 requires certain ships on these waters to have a registered pilot on board. The Coast Guard oversees the registration of American pilots and supervises private pilotage associations responsible for training new pilots. Hight applied for registration in 2018, but the Pilots Association recommended denial, citing incomplete training and concerns about his temperament. The Coast Guard denied his application after an independent review.Hight challenged the decision in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the Coast Guard acted arbitrarily and capriciously, unconstitutionally delegated authority to the Pilots Association, and violated the First Amendment by requiring him to train with and join the Pilots Association. The district court rejected all claims, finding that the Coast Guard's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including Hight's failure to complete the required training and concerns about his temperament.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Coast Guard's decision was reasonable and supported by the record, as Hight had not completed the required supervised trips on the St. Lawrence River. The court also found that the Coast Guard did not unconstitutionally delegate authority to the Pilots Association, as the association's role was limited to providing advice and gathering facts. Finally, the court determined that Hight's First Amendment claim regarding mandatory association membership was not ripe for review, as he was not yet eligible to join the Pilots Association. The court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Hight v. DHS" on Justia Law

A journalist, Simon Ateba, sought preferred access to the White House Press Area through a special press credential known as a "hard pass." The White House issues hard passes only to reporters accredited by either the Supreme Court Press Gallery or a congressional press gallery. Ateba applied for membership in the Senate Daily Press Gallery as a prerequisite to securing a hard pass, but his application was still under consideration. In the meantime, he accessed the Press Area with a daily pass, which required him to wait for an escort. Ateba argued that the White House Hard Pass Policy violated the First Amendment because it burdened his access and conditioned fuller access on accreditation by the Senate Daily Press Gallery, which he claimed exercised unbridled discretion.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the White House. The court concluded that while Ateba had suffered a cognizable First Amendment injury, the White House acted reasonably under the First Amendment by outsourcing part of its press-credentialing process. The district court also ruled that the Senate Daily Press Gallery did not impermissibly exercise discretion in deciding who could become a member and that extraordinary procedural protections were not constitutionally required.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the White House Hard Pass Policy was both reasonable and viewpoint neutral. It found that the policy's reliance on external credentialing bodies was reasonable given the White House's lack of its own vetting system. The court also determined that the Senate Daily Press Gallery's membership criteria, including the "of repute" standard, did not confer unbridled discretion because it was guided by concrete rules. Additionally, the court held that the First Amendment did not require the gallery to set a deadline for processing membership applications. View "Ateba v. Leavitt" on Justia Law

California collects a fee from in-state hospitals and uses the revenue, along with federal Medicaid funds, to provide subsidies to California hospitals serving Medicaid beneficiaries. Out-of-state hospitals near the California border, which sometimes serve California Medicaid beneficiaries but do not pay the fee, sought access to these subsidies. They argued that their exclusion violated the dormant Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and federal Medicaid regulations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the out-of-state hospitals' arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The hospitals appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the QAF program does not discriminate against interstate commerce because it does not tax out-of-state hospitals, and the supplemental payments are based on in-state provision of medical care. The court also found that the program does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as California could rationally decide to target subsidies to in-state hospitals serving a disproportionate share of Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Lastly, the court concluded that the QAF program does not violate federal Medicaid regulations, as the regulation in question pertains to base payments for specific services rendered to beneficiaries, not supplemental subsidies like the QAF payments. View "Asante v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

In October 2019, Edward Magruder pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than a kilogram of heroin. He later sought to withdraw his plea, arguing that the district court erred by requiring him to assert his innocence to withdraw the plea and that his plea was tainted due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The investigation leading to his arrest involved the FBI and Colombian National Police, who identified Magruder through wiretaps and geolocation data as part of a drug-trafficking conspiracy. Magruder was arrested in June 2019 after being observed traveling between D.C. and New York with heroin in his backpack.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Magruder's motions to withdraw his plea. The court found that Magruder failed to assert a viable claim of innocence and that his plea was not tainted by ineffective assistance of counsel. Magruder's new counsel filed multiple motions to withdraw the plea, all of which were denied. The district court sentenced Magruder to 180 months of imprisonment followed by 60 months of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Magruder's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The appellate court found that even if the district court erred in requiring an assertion of innocence, the error was harmless because Magruder's Fourth Amendment claims were meritless. The court concluded that Magruder's counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise these claims, as the search of Magruder's backpack was lawful and the evidence obtained from the Louisiana search warrant was admissible under the good-faith exception. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v. Magruder" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Brown, Markus Maly, and Peter Schwartz were tried and convicted by a jury for assaulting police officers on the Capitol grounds on January 6, 2021. They traveled separately to Washington, D.C., and participated in the riot following then-President Trump’s rally. Evidence showed that Maly and Schwartz assaulted officers on the Lower West Terrace, with Schwartz throwing a chair and both using pepper spray. All three later entered the Tunnel, where they used pepper spray against officers and attempted to push through the police line.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Schwartz’s motions to suppress evidence obtained from his cellphone and to sever the trials. The court found that the FBI had compelled Schwartz to unlock his phone but ruled that this act was not testimonial. The jury convicted all three defendants on all counts, and the district court sentenced Schwartz to 170 months, Maly to 72 months, and Brown to 54 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Brown’s and Maly’s convictions and Brown’s sentence. It vacated Schwartz’s conviction on the 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) charge and remanded for resentencing. The court also held that compelling Schwartz to unlock his cellphone violated the Fifth Amendment and remanded to the district court to determine which, if any, of Schwartz’s counts of conviction must be vacated due to this error. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings that the defendants used pepper spray and, in Schwartz’s case, a chair as deadly or dangerous weapons. The court also upheld the district court’s refusal to give a special unanimity instruction for Maly’s Section 111 counts and found no abuse of discretion in Brown’s sentencing. View "USA v. Brown" on Justia Law