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

Plaintiff filed suit against law enforcement officers, alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights, after he was tased when resisting arrest at an Occupy D.C. encampment. The district court concluded that the officers were protected by qualified immunity against plaintiff's claims because the officer's use of the Taser did not violate the Constitution. The court agreed with the district court that qualified immunity shields the officers from plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim, but on different grounds. The court held that a person actively resisting arrest does not have a clearly established right against a single use of a Taser to subdue him. The court also granted summary judgment to the officers on the First Amendment claim where plaintiff failed to meaningfully advance the argument on appeal. View "Lash v. Lemke" on Justia Law

Home Builders challenged a preliminary, internal determination, made by the EPA and the Corps in 2008, that two stretches of the Santa Cruz River in southern Arizona are traditional navigable waters. In Home Builders I, the court dismissed a similar suit involving the same parties for want of constitutional standing. The court held that Home Builders’ case for standing, although since supplemented with new declarations from members adding factual detail to their assertions of injury, is materially unchanged and thus precluded by Home Builders I. View "Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. EPA" on Justia Law

The Districts and the Trust petitioned for review of FERC's order determining that the La Grange Hydroelectric Project fell within the mandatory licensing provisions of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 817(1). Because the Trust has failed to establish standing either for itself or on behalf of its members, the court dismissed its petition for lack of jurisdiction. As to the merits of the Districts' arguments, the court concluded that FERC’s evidence of actual use in the past, together with current use of the Tuolumne River by California DFG crews, constitutes substantial evidence supporting FERC’s finding that La Grange is located on a navigable water of the United States; FERC properly relied on the results of its backwater analysis to conclude that the La Grange reservoir extends onto federal lands; and the Districts' challenges to FERC's finding that the La Grange Project is subject to FERC's mandatory licensing jurisdiction based on Congress's "authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States" are without merit. Accordingly, the court denied the petition, concluding that FERC's jurisdictional determinations were supported by substantial evidence and reached by reasoned decisionmaking. View "Turlock Irrigation Dist. v. FERC" on Justia Law

Representative Charles Rangel filed suit challenging his 2010 censure by the United States House of Representatives as a violation of the House Rules and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Rangel sued the former Chair, Ranking Member and Republican Members of the House Ethics Committee; the former Chief Counsel and two Committee staffers; and the current Speaker and Clerk of the House. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that Rangel lacked Article III standing, the complaint presented a nonjusticiable political question, and defendants were immune from suit under the Speech and Debate Clause. The court concluded that defendants' actions fall comfortably within the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause and they enjoyed legislative immunity in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision on this ground and did not consider Rangel's remaining arguments. View "Rangel v. Boehner" on Justia Law

Teton, a nonprofit that maintains historic military aircraft, filed suit challenging the DOD's decisions that make it effectively impossible to buy surplus aircraft parts from the Department. The district court concluded that Teton lacked standing to sue because its injury was not redressable. The court concluded, however, that Teton has shown redressability where Teton has adequately demonstrated, based on the Department's past willingness to sell property of this kind and its interest in the financial benefits of such sales, that the Department will likely sell aircraft parts in the future if Teton wins the suit. Likewise, although GL is an independent party, its relationship with the Department, its incentives, and its past expressions of intent together make clear that GL would likely sell any property the Department made available for sale. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Teton Historic Aviation Found. v. Dept. of Defense" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5481 et seq., as a violation of the separation of powers. The district court dismissed the complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief without reaching the merits of the complaint, ruling that Morgan Drexen Inc. had an adequate remedy at law in an enforcement action filed by the Bureau in the Central District of California, where Morgan Drexen could raise the constitutional challenge as a defense. The district court also ruled that the other plaintiff, an attorney who contracts with Morgan Drexen for paralegal services, lacked standing under Article III. The court affirmed, concluding that the attorney failed to proffer evidence of an injury in fact at the time she filed the complaint and that Morgan Drexen failed to show the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint. View "Morgan Drexen, Inc. v. CFPB" on Justia Law

Gun Recovery Unit officers were in an unmarked car, wearing vests that said “police.” Gross was walking the sidewalk. Officer Bagshaw slowed the car and shined a flashlight, saying “[H]ey, it is the police, how are you doing? Do you have a gun?” Gross stopped, but did not answer. Bagshaw stopped the car and asked, “Can I see your waistband?” Not speaking, Gross lifted his jacket to show his left side. Bagshaw began to move the car. Officer Katz asked Bagshaw to stop, opened his door and asked, while stepping out, “[H]ey man, can I check you out for a gun?” Gross ran. Katz gave chase, saw Gross patting his right side, and smelled PCP. Katz apprehended Gross, performed a frisk, and recovered a handgun from Gross’s waistband. Denying a motion to suppress, the court reasoned that no seizure occurred until after Gross fled because nothing would have indicated to a reasonable person that he lacked freedom to disregard the questions and walk away; Gross’s flight and other behavior, provided reasonable grounds to detain him and conduct a pat-down frisk. Gross was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The D.C. Circuit affirmed. Given the totality of the circumstances and precedents involving comparable interactions, Bagshaw’s questioning did not effect a Fourth Amendment seizure. Once he attempted to flee, officers had authority to stop him and conduct the frisk. View "United States v. Gross" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against three deputy federal marshals, alleging that the officers used excessive force against him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment and they appealed. Plaintiff, then sixteen-years-old, was pulled into a parking lot of an apartment complex where the officers waited to enforce an eviction order. Fearing for the safety of themselves and bystanders, two of the officers opened fire on plaintiff when he tried to drive off in his car when the officers attempted to speak to him. Plaintiff was charged as a juvenile with three counts of felony assault on a police officer. The court concluded that, under the circumstances, the officers violated no clearly established law and were thus entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Fenwick v. Pudimott" on Justia Law

Janet Howard and Joyce Megginson appealed the dismissal of their complaint on the grounds that the district court erred in failing to adhere to the time limits in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The court held that the six-year statute of limitations for suits against the United States, 28 U.S.C. 2401(a), does not apply to claims filed pursuant to Title VII as amended to apply to federal employees. Because the district court erred in applying section 2401(a)'s six-year statute of limitations to appellants' Title VII claims, the court reversed and remanded to the district court for consideration of the second amended complaint. View "Howard v. Pritzker" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, the GPO, alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to the GPO. Plaintiff's claims on appeal involve the GPO's alleged discrimination in not promoting him to Second Offset Pressperson and the GPO's alleged retaliation in excluding him from a Georgia training program. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the GPO's legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting him - he was not qualified for the position he was seeking - was pretextual. Assuming arguendo that plaintiff's exclusion from the training program was sufficiently adverse, he failed to offer evidence demonstrating that the GPO's proffered reason for denying him training - that the decisionmaker thought he did not want it - was pretextual. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hairston v. Vance-Cooks" on Justia Law