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

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

Jonathan Joshua Munafo pleaded guilty to two charges related to his involvement in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The district court accepted his plea and sentenced him to 33 months in prison, within the agreed U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of 30-37 months. Munafo appealed, arguing that the government breached his plea agreement by not dismissing a pending misdemeanor assault charge in D.C. Superior Court and by referring to his past statements and affiliations during sentencing.The district court for the District of Columbia had accepted Munafo's guilty plea and sentenced him based on the agreed guidelines. Munafo did not raise the issue of the pending misdemeanor charge until after his sentencing, and the court did not rule on it, suggesting instead that Munafo's counsel discuss it with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Munafo also objected to the government's sentencing presentation, claiming it breached the plea agreement by including information beyond the agreed-upon Statement of Offense.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Munafo forfeited his objection regarding the dismissal of the misdemeanor charge by not pressing it before the district court. Additionally, the court found that the plea agreement did not support Munafo's interpretation that the government was required to dismiss the pending charge. The court also held that the government's references during sentencing did not breach the plea agreement, as the agreement allowed both parties to describe fully the nature and seriousness of Munafo's misconduct.Munafo's claim that his sentence appeared to be based on his constitutionally protected political speech and affiliations was also rejected. The court noted that Munafo had waived his right to appeal his sentence unless it exceeded the statutory maximum or guidelines range, and he did not make a colorable claim of a miscarriage of justice. The court affirmed Munafo's sentence. View "USA v. Munafo" on Justia Law

On January 6, 2021, Darrell Neely, a radio host, entered the U.S. Capitol building during the riot that disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election. Neely spent over an hour inside the Capitol, during which he stole items belonging to the U.S. Capitol Police. He was later indicted and convicted of five misdemeanor offenses, resulting in a 28-month prison sentence. Neely appealed, challenging the denial of three pretrial motions on statutory and constitutional grounds.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Neely's motions to dismiss certain charges, transfer venue, and suppress a confession. Neely argued that the statute under which he was charged did not apply to his conduct, that he could not receive a fair trial in the District of Columbia, and that his confession was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. The District Court rejected these arguments, leading to Neely's conviction and sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed Neely's appeal. The court held that the statute in question did apply to Neely's conduct, as it did not specify that only the Secret Service could restrict the relevant areas. The court also found that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague. Regarding the motion to suppress, the court determined that Neely's Miranda rights were not violated, as there was no evidence of a deliberate two-step interrogation strategy by the FBI. Finally, the court upheld the denial of the motion to transfer venue, finding no presumption of jury prejudice. Consequently, the court affirmed Neely's convictions and sentence. View "USA v. Neely" on Justia Law

Bryan Burwell and Aaron Perkins were involved in a series of bank robberies and were convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They were sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including mandatory minimum sentences for firearms-related convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which mandates enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a crime of violence. Burwell and Perkins argued that their convictions under § 924(c) were erroneous because federal bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is not categorically a crime of violence.The District Court denied their post-conviction motions, which challenged the application of § 924(c) based on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, which invalidated the residual clause of § 924(c) as unconstitutionally vague. Burwell and Perkins appealed, arguing that bank robbery by extortion does not involve the use or threat of force and thus cannot be considered a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c).The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is indivisible regarding the means of committing bank robbery—by force and violence, intimidation, or extortion. The court concluded that extortion, as a means of committing bank robbery, does not necessarily involve the use or threat of force. Therefore, bank robbery under § 2113(a) does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c). Consequently, the court vacated Burwell's and Perkins's § 924(c) convictions and remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether to release them immediately. View "United States v. Burwell" on Justia Law

The case involves the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which was signed into law on April 24, 2024. The Act identifies certain countries, including China, as foreign adversaries and prohibits the distribution or maintenance of applications controlled by these adversaries, specifically targeting the TikTok platform. TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd., along with other petitioners, challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing that it violates the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's equal protection and takings clauses, and the Bill of Attainder Clause.The lower courts had not previously reviewed this case, as it was brought directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The petitioners sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the Attorney General from enforcing the Act. The court had to determine whether the petitioners had standing and whether their claims were ripe for judicial review.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that TikTok had standing to challenge the Act and that its claims were ripe. The court assumed without deciding that strict scrutiny applied to the First Amendment claims and upheld the Act, finding that it served compelling governmental interests in national security and was narrowly tailored to achieve those interests. The court also rejected the equal protection, bill of attainder, and takings clause claims, concluding that the Act did not constitute a punishment, was not overinclusive or underinclusive, and did not result in a complete deprivation of economic value. The petitions were denied. View "TikTok Inc. v. Garland" on Justia Law

Alpine Securities Corporation, a securities broker-dealer and member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), faced sanctions from FINRA in 2022 for violating its rules. FINRA imposed a cease-and-desist order and sought to expel Alpine from membership. Alpine challenged the constitutionality of FINRA in federal court, arguing that FINRA's expedited expulsion process violated the private nondelegation doctrine and the Appointments Clause.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Alpine's request for a preliminary injunction to halt FINRA's expedited proceeding. The court held that FINRA is a private entity, not subject to the Appointments Clause, and that the SEC's ability to review FINRA's decisions satisfied the private nondelegation doctrine.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Alpine demonstrated a likelihood of success on its private nondelegation claim, as FINRA's expulsion orders take effect immediately without prior SEC review, effectively barring Alpine from the securities industry. The court held that this lack of governmental oversight likely violates the private nondelegation doctrine. The court also found that Alpine faced irreparable harm if expelled before SEC review, as it would be forced out of business.The court reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, instructing it to enjoin FINRA from expelling Alpine until the SEC reviews any expulsion order or the time for Alpine to seek SEC review lapses. However, the court did not grant a preliminary injunction on Alpine's Appointments Clause claims, as Alpine did not demonstrate irreparable harm from participating in FINRA's expedited proceeding itself. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's findings. View "Alpine Securities Corporation v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc." on Justia Law

The appellants, Andrew Hanson and others, challenged the District of Columbia's law that limits firearm magazine capacity to 10 rounds. They argued that this restriction violates their Second Amendment rights, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which emphasized historical traditions of firearm regulation over means-end scrutiny.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court conducted a renewed analysis under the Bruen framework, which involves determining whether the Second Amendment covers the conduct in question and, if so, whether the regulation is consistent with historical traditions. The district court found that while extra-large capacity magazines (ELCMs) are "arms" under the Second Amendment, their possession is not protected because they are not typically used for lawful purposes. Additionally, the court held that the District's magazine cap is consistent with historical firearm regulations aimed at reducing violence.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that ELCMs are "arms" under the Second Amendment and are in common use for self-defense. However, it found that the District's magazine cap is consistent with historical regulations of weapons that posed unprecedented lethality, such as Bowie knives and machine guns. The court also noted that the regulation addresses the modern societal concern of mass shootings, which did not exist at the time of the Founding.The court concluded that the appellants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. It emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo and the potential public safety risks of enjoining the magazine cap. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. View "Hanson v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law