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

Plaintiffs filed suit contending that the government's "bulk data program" collection constitutes an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. The program operates pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, where section 215 of the Act empowered the FBI to request, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to enter, orders “requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism.” The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from collecting plaintiffs’ call records, but stayed its order pending appeal. After the court determined that the case was not moot, Judge Brown and Judge Williams wrote separate opinions stating the reasons for reversal. Judge Brown wrote separately to emphasize that, while plaintiffs have demonstrated it is only possible - not substantially likely - that their own call records were collected as part of the bulk-telephony metadata program, plaintiffs have nonetheless met the bare requirements of standing. Having barely fulfilled the requirements for standing at this threshold stage, plaintiffs fall short of meeting the higher burden of proof required for a preliminary injunction. Judge Williams wrote that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a “substantial likelihood” that the government is collecting from Verizon Wireless or that they are otherwise suffering any cognizable injury. They thus cannot meet their burden to show a “likelihood of success on the merits” and are not entitled to a preliminary injunction. View "Klayman v. Obama" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that 40 U.S.C. 6135's Assemblages and Display Clauses, by restricting his intended activities, violate his rights under the First Amendment. Plaintiff seeks to picket, leaflet, and make speeches in the Supreme Court plaza, with the aim of conveying to the Supreme Court and the public what he describes as “political messages” about the Supreme Court’s decisions. The district court declared the statute unconstitutional in all its applications to the Supreme Court's plaza. The court concluded, however, that the Supreme Court's plaza is a nonpublic forum and the government can impose reasonable restrictions on speech as long as it refrains from suppressing particular viewpoints. In this case, neither the Assemblages Clause nor the Display Clause targets specific viewpoints, and both clauses reasonably relate to the government’s long-recognized interests in preserving decorum in the area of a courthouse and in assuring the appearance (and actuality) of a judiciary uninfluenced by public opinion and pressure. The statute’s reasonableness is reinforced by the availability of an alternative site for expressive activity in the immediate vicinity: the sidewalk area directly in front of the Supreme Court’s plaza. Therefore, the court upheld the statute’s constitutionality. View "Hodge v. Talkin" on Justia Law

D.C. Code. Mun. Regs. Title 24, 121.1 is a municipal regulation that forbids any person from “set[ting] up, maintain[ing], or establish[ing] any camp or any temporary place of abode in any tent” on public property without the Mayor’s authorization. Members of the "Occupy Movement" filed suit alleging that their arrests for violating the regulation violated their rights under the Constitution and District law. The court held that the arresting officers had probable cause to conclude that plaintiffs had violated the temporary-abode regulation, and there is no dispute that plaintiffs “set up” a “tent” on public property, within the meaning of the District regulation. The court had no doubt that the officers’ judgment was reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, plaintiffs' arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment or constitute a false arrest. Further, the court concluded that qualified immunity bars plaintiffs' claim that the officers arrested them in retaliation for their protest in violation of their First Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The court noted that the district court’s decision to dismiss one count of the complaint without prejudice, as part of its final order dismissing the action in its entirety, did not deprive the court of appellate jurisdiction. View "Dukore v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against DHS, the Department in which the Coast Guard is housed, under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., alleging that it had unlawfully denied her accommodations and terminated her in retaliation for requesting those accommodations. The district court granted summary judgment to the Coast Guard. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that plaintiff was not a qualified individual able to perform her job duties even with reasonable accommodations and that she had produced no evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find that the Coast Guard retaliated against her. View "Doak v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, the Department of Homeland Security, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that her supervisor took adverse actions against her on account of her race or because she had previously filed a discrimination complaint against the Department. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department, concluding that the record in this case could not reasonably support a finding that the Department’s stated reasons were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. View "Walker v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Secretary of DHS directed relevant agencies temporarily to defer low-priority removals of non-dangerous individuals so that the agencies can focus their resources on removing dangerous criminals and strengthening security at the border. In what became known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the Secretary outlined a policy to defer removal proceedings for two years. In addition, the Secretary outlined a second deferred action policy for the parents of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, which has become known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). Joseph Arpaio, the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, sued to enjoin the Secretary’s deferred action policies. Sheriff Arpaio’s standing arguments rest on the premise that more people causing more crimes harm him because, as Sheriff, he will be forced to spend more money policing the county and running its jails. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for want of Article III standing because Sheriff Arpaio’s allegations of causation and redressability rest on speculation beyond that permitted by the court's standing decisions. Any effects of the challenged policies on the county’s crime rate are unduly speculative. View "Arpaio v. Obama" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a pork producer and two animal welfare organizations who count pork producers among their members, filed suit claiming that the National Pork Board has misappropriated millions of dollars from a fund for pork promotion into which pork producers are required to pay. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. The court concluded that this case involves a concrete and particularized harm caused by an agency’s failure to confer a direct economic benefit on a statutory beneficiary; the court rejected the government’s argument that plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; and the Pork Act’s, 7 U.S.C. 48019b)(1), provision for administrative review would not offer plaintiffs adequate relief, and therefore they were not required to pursue it. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Humane Society v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking damages from the District, the Family Services Agency, and District employees after plaintiffs' children were removed from their home after they were sexually abused by plaintiffs' other children. The court vacated the dismissal of plaintiffs' Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims against the District and remanded those claims to the district court to determine whether there is municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the First Amendment, tort, and post-adoption services claims. View "Doe v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate in Maryland, filed a mandamus petition seeking to compel the USCIS to grant him a hearing to review the denial of his application for naturalization. The court rejected appellant's claim that he qualifies for in forma pauperis (IFP) status under the imminent danger exception to the three strikes rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). In this case, appellant's allegations were insufficient to establish imminent danger where the beatings, which took place while appellant was in the general prison population, do not indicate that he continued to face imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint. Further, appellant makes no allegation that he suffered any beatings or received specific threats while in protective custody. The court also rejected appellant's claim that the three-strikes rule is unconstitutional as applied to his case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, denying appellant IFP status. View "Asemani v. USCIS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a white Foreign Service Officer, filed suit alleging that the State Department's hiring plan aimed to increase racial diversity among the officers corps in the Foreign Service violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The court agreed with the district court's reliance on two Supreme Court decisions, Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber, to grant summary judgment in favor of the State Department. Johnson and Weber both upheld employers' affirmative action plans against Title VII challenges. In this case, the Department has introduced evidence that the plan worked to target manifest imbalances in senior-level positions in the Foreign Service and that those imbalances resulted from past discrimination. The Department has also introduced evidence that the plan refrained from unnecessarily trammeling the rights of non-minority candidates. Further, plaintiff failed to prove that the Department's justification is pretextual and that the plan is invalid. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Shea v. Kerry" on Justia Law