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

Section 308(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1408(1), designates persons born in American Samoa as non-citizen nationals. Plaintiffs, individuals born in the United States territory of American Samoa, challenged section 308(1), as well as State Department policies and practices implementing the statute on Citizenship Clause grounds and under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On appeal, plaintiffs reassert their constitutional claim. The court concluded that, while the language of the Thirteenth Amendment may be broader than that found in the Citizenship Clause, this comparison yields no dispositive insight as to whether the Citizenship Clause’s use of the term “United States” includes American Samoa or similarly situated territories. Even assuming a background context grounded in principles of jus soli, the court is skeptical that the framers plainly intended to extend birthright citizenship to distinct, significantly self-governing political territories within the United States’s sphere of sovereignty - even where, as is the case with American Samoa, ultimate governance remains statutorily vested with the United States Government. The court held it anomalous to impose citizenship over the objections of the American Samoan people themselves, as expressed through their democratically elected representatives. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Tuaua v. United States" on Justia Law

PLN filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., request to the Bureau seeking all documents showing money the Bureau paid in connection with lawsuits and claims brought against it between January 1, 1996, and July 31, 2003. The Bureau subsequently withheld information pursuant to exemption 6 and 7(C) of FOIA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bureau. The court reversed, agreeing with PLN that the Bureau’s use of a categorical explanation for the redactions was improper because of the varied nature of the documents and of the individuals shielded from disclosure, and that the district court did not adequately balance the privacy and public interests at stake. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings View "Prison Legal News v. Samuels" on Justia Law

Petitioners seek review of EPA's final rule, which determined that supercritical carbon dioxide injected into Class VI underground wells for purposes of geologic sequestration is “solid waste” within the meaning of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6903(27). The court dismissed the petitions for review because petitioners lacked Article III standing. In this case, neither Southern nor Occidental can show any injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III; Carbon Sequestration Council lacks standing because Southern lacks standing; and American Petroleum Institute lacks standing because Occidental lacks standing. View "Carbon Sequestration Council v. EPA" on Justia Law

After Abu Wa’el (Jihad) Dhiab, a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, went on a hunger strike, he was forcibly extracted from his cell and force-fed. The district court examined 32 classified videotapes of Dhiab's forcible cell extractions and force-feedings in order to grant Dhiab's motion to enjoin the government from forcibly extracting him from his cell and force-feeding him. At issue is the district court's grant of media organizations' motion to unseal and release the videotapes. The court concluded that, the district court’s decision did not terminate the action, and it does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction. Further, this case does not present the extraordinary circumstances required for mandamus relief. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied the request for a writ of mandamus View "Dhiab v. Obama" on Justia Law

Appellants, four associations involved in building and developing land, challenged consent decrees that require the Service to determine, in accordance with a settlement-defined schedule for action, whether 251 species should be listed as endangered or threatened. The court concluded that appellants lacked Article III standing, rejecting their claims of procedural injuries based on loss of opportunity to comment at the warranted-but-precluded stage, withdrawal of the warranted-but-precluded classification, and acceleration of final listing determinations. Appellants failed to allege a cognizable harm and appellants' members cannot show injury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., seeking an order requiring DCPS to provide her son with compensatory education. The district court dismissed the suit as moot because the school system responded to the complaint by offering an individualized education plan that is adequate to keep the child on track going forward. The court concluded, however, that the district court failed to address whether the child was entitled to compensatory education, which is a remedy that remains available. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Boose v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Defendants challenged a district court order requiring that they add two statements to their cigarette packages and advertisements: an announcement that a federal court has ruled that they “deliberately deceived the American public” about the dangers of cigarettes; and a declaration that they “intentionally designed cigarettes” to maximize addiction. The court concluded that given its earlier decisions in this case, the manufacturers’ objection to disclosing that they intentionally designed cigarettes to ensure addiction is both waived and foreclosed by the law of the case. Those decisions make equally clear that the district court, in ordering defendants to announce that they deliberately deceived the public, exceeded its authority under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, to craft remedies that “prevent and restrain” future violations. 18 U.S.C. 1964(a). The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

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