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

Appellant was detained at Guantanamo Bay for seven years as an enemy combatant. After the Supreme Court decided that Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to challenge the basis of their detentions in Boumediene v. Bush, the district court granted appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The United States released appellant and he filed a complaint a year later, seeking to recover injuries sustained during his detention. At issue was whether the district court has jurisdiction over appellant's claims. The court held that 28 U.S.C. 2241(e)(2) barred claims brought on behalf of aliens determined by Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) to have been properly detained. The court also concluded that the application of section 2241(e)(2) to appellant was constitutional. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of appellant's claims because Congress has denied the district court jurisdiction to entertain his claims under section 2241(e)(2). View "Janko v. Gates, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, concluding that plaintiff's whistleblower complaint did not qualify as a "mixed case" complaint capable of triggering the savings clause under 5 U.S.C. 7702(f). Plaintiff argued that even though he presented his Title VII claim in the wrong forum (the MSPB), because he did so along with a timely filed IRA as part of a "mixed case," his formal EEO complaint should be deemed timely with the correct forum (the DOL) under section 7702(f)'s savings clause. The court affirmed the judgment because plaintiff's formal Title VII claim - filed well after the expiration of the EEO route's 15-day deadline - was untimely where the savings clause excused errors only in the place, not time, of filing. View "Schlottman v. Perez" on Justia Law

EFF appealed the district court's denial of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., request for disclosure of a legal opinion prepared for the FBI by the OLC. The court held that the opinion, which was requested by the FBI in response to the OIG's investigation into its information-gathering techniques, was protected by the deliberative process privilege; the FBI did not adopt the opinion and thereby waive the deliberative process privilege; and because the entire opinion was exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege, the court need not decide whether particular sections were properly withheld as classified or whether some material was reasonably segregable from the material properly withheld. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Electronic Frontier Found. v. Dept. of Justice" on Justia Law

Chaplains in the Navy who identified themselves as non-liturgical Christians and two chaplain-endorsing agencies filed suit claiming, inter alia, that several of the Navy's policies for promoting chaplains prefer Catholics and liturgical Protestants at the expense of various non-liturgical denominations. At issue on review was the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the Navy's use of the challenged practices. Given facially neutral policies and no showing of intent to discriminate, the chaplains' equal protection attack on the Navy's specific policies could succeed only with an argument that there was an intent to discriminate or that the policies lacked a rational basis. Because the chaplains attempted no such arguments, the court agreed with the district court that they have not shown the requisite likelihood for success. As to the Establishment Clause, the chaplains have not shown a likelihood of success under any test that they have asked the court to apply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "In re: Navy Chaplaincy, et al. v. United States Navy, et al." on Justia Law

ATRA petitioned for review, challenging revisions made by OSHA to the wording of a paragraph (a)(2) of OSHA's hazard communication (HazCom) standard, 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200. HazCom establishes labeling requirements for chemicals used in the workplace. The changes reflect the agency's view that HazCom preempts state legislative and regulatory requirements, but not state tort claims. The court rejected ATRA's arguments under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 651-678, concluding that OSHA has no authority to speak with the force of law on preemption and the agency never meant for the disputed paragraph to have the effect of a legislative rule. Because Paragraph (a)(2) is merely interpretive, it is not subject to notice and comment rulemaking and was not subject to judicial review. Accordingly, ATRA's challenge was unripe for review. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "American Tort Reform Assoc. v. OSHA, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Department, alleging that it retaliated against her for filing a complaint of workplace harassment based upon her sex and national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a). The district court granted summary judgment to the Department. The court affirmed, concluding that no reasonable jury could find that the Department's actions - placing her on an unsuitable detail, changing her employment status to probationary, and terminating her employment - were motivated by retaliation. View "Hernandez v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

In these three appeals, enemy combatants held by the United States at Bagram Airfield Military Base in northwest Afghanistan sought access to the writ of habeas corpus. Over three years ago, the court concluded that enemy combatants held at Bagram could not invoke the Suspension Clause to challenge their detentions. In these appeals, the court dismissed the petitions for want of jurisdiction where, because the Suspension Clause did not run to Bagram, section 7 of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600, did not effect any unconstitutional suspension of the writ. The court remanded Hamidullah's petition to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether he is in the sole custody of the government of Pakistan. View "Maqaleh, et al. v. Panetta, et al." on Justia Law

The BOP challenged a decision and order of the Authority regarding United States Penitentiary I, a high security facility in Coleman, Florida. The Authority held that BOP was required to bargain with the Union over two proposals relating to BOP's installation of two metal detectors in the compound through which prisoners must pass to enter or exit the recreation yard. The court denied the BOP's motion to dismiss on grounds of mootness and its motion to vacate the Authority's decision and order. The court granted the Authority's cross-petition to enforce its decision and order regarding Proposal 1, and granted BOP's petition to vacate the Authority's decision and order regarding the third sentence in Proposal 2. The court remanded to the Authority to allow it to determine whether, in light of the changed circumstances occasioned by the changed use of the metal detectors, the order to bargain over Proposal 1 should be revised. View "U.S. DOJ v. FLRA" on Justia Law

Pursuant to the Library of Congress' policy, the Library recognizes certain employee organizations and gives them meeting space and other benefits. The Cook and Shaw Foundation is a non-profit organization composed of current and former employees of the Library. The Foundation and others filed suit after the Library denied recognition to the Foundation. The court concluded that the complaint failed to allege that the Library's denial of recognition constituted retaliation for statutorily protected activity by employees or applicants for employment. Absent such an allegation, the complaint failed to state a claim under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. View "Howard R.l. Cook & Tommy Shaw, et al. v. Billington" on Justia Law

The EPA promulgated a rule in 2001 requiring a 95% reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions by heavy-duty motor vehicles by 2010. Petitioners, competitors of Navistar, challenged the EPA's 2012 rulemaking establishing nonconformance penalties (NCPs) to protect technological laggards, such as Navistar, by allowing them to pay a penalty for engines temporarily unable to meet a new or revised emission standard. The court granted the petition for review because of the lack of adequate notice and opportunity to comment on the amendments to the "substantial work" regulation. In light of the EPA's counsel's statement during oral argument that due to the changed circumstances of Navistar, vacatur would cause no harm, the court vacated the 2012 Rule. View "Daimler Trucks North America LLC, et al. v. EPA" on Justia Law