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

Appellants - safari clubs, hunters, and international conservationists - alleged that the Service's failure to take actions concerning the straight-horn markhor was arbitrary and capricious. The court concluded that appellants' claims relating to the 1999 downlisting petition were moot where appellants have obtained all the relief that they sought; appellants' claims concerning the alleged failure of the Service to timely process four applications to import straight-horn markhor trophies were moot and the hunters' related due process claims were necessarily moot as well; and there was no record evidence to support the claim that any of appellants suffered an injury-in-fact from the Services' alleged ongoing policy of delay. Accordingly, the court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The portion of the district court's order addressing the claims raised on appeal was vacated. View "Conservation Force, Inc., et al. v. Jewell, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal concerned plaintiff's filing of an administrative complaint with the FEC alleging that various organizations violated election laws during their efforts to keep him off the ballot. The FEC dismissed the complaint and the district court subsequently granted summary judgment against plaintiff, later denying his motion to alter or amend its judgment. Plaintiff appealed. The court rejected plaintiff's claim of competitor standing where he sought to compel FEC enforcement against his opponents years after the campaign had run its course, and claim of informational standing where he asserted an injury that was not sufficiently concrete to confer standing. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit because plaintiff lacked standing. View "Nadar v. FEC" on Justia Law

These appeals challenged the EPA's promulgation of rules in response to the Supreme Court's holding that greenhouse gases unambiguously qualify as an "air pollutant" under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401. At issue was implementation of Part C of Title I of the Act permitting requirements in several States without implementation plans for greenhouse gases as of January 2, 2011, when the emission standards in the Tailpipe Rule took effect. The court held that under the plain text of sections 165(a) and 167, the permitting requirements were self-executing without regard to previously approved state implementation plans. The court concluded that petitioners lacked Article III standing to challenge the rules because industry petitioners failed to show how they have been injured in fact by rules enabling issuance of the necessary permits and state petitioners failed to show how vacating the rules would redress their purported injuries. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction. View "State of Texas, et al. v. EPA" on Justia Law

OOIDA, a trade association, challenged the decision of the FMCSA to exempt commercial vehicle operators licensed in Canada or Mexico from certain statutory medical certification requirements applicable to drivers licensed in the United States. The FMCSA claimed that applying these requirements would violate existing executive agreements between those two countries and the United States. The court agreed with the government that absent some clear and overt indication from Congress, the court would not construe a statue to abrogate existing international agreements even when the statute's text was not itself ambiguous. The court presumed that the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (the "Act"), Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, was not intended to abrogate the executive agreements with Mexico and Canada and held that the FMCSA's implementing rules appropriately understood the medical certificate requirement to apply only to drivers based in the United States. The court rejected OOIDA's secondary argument and denied the petition for review. View "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an employee of the GSA, sued her supervisor for defamation and interference with her attempts to secure alternative employment. Under the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. 2679, the U.S. Attorney General certified that the supervisor's conduct was within the scope of his employment and removed the case to federal district court, substituting the United States as the defendant. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the supervisor acted within the scope of his employment and plaintiff's suit was jurisdictionally barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq. View "Jacobs v. Vrobel" on Justia Law

This case arose when SSA filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that the Port Department violated the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 41102(c), 41106(2)-(3). The ALJ denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds of sovereign immunity. The Commission affirmed and the City, which managed the port, appealed. The court denied the petition concluding that the City was not entitled to dismissal based on sovereign immunity where there was no record evidence suggesting suits against the Port Department effectively target the State of California. View "City of Oakland v. Federal Maritime Commission" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney, filed suit against the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Navy and others, alleging violation of his constitutional rights in an administrative decision which suspended him from practice before naval courts. The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from plaintiff's filing of an appellate brief containing statements he knew were false and misleading. The court concluded that the district court did not err in holding that the Navy JAG had authority to discipline plaintiff; plaintiff received ample due process and his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated during the proceedings against him; and the record did not support plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551, 701, and 706, claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims and denied his request for mandamus review. View "Partington v. Houck, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of prisoners, filed suit against the FDA for allowing state correctional departments to import sodium thiopental (thiopental), a misbranded and misapproved new drug used in lethal injection protocols, in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 381(a), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The court concluded that, because there were clear statutory guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers, the FDA's compliance with section 381(a) was subject to judicial review under the standards of the APA. The court also concluded that the FDA's policy of admitting foreign manufactured thiopental destined for state correctional facilities were not in accordance with law because section 381(a) required the agency to sample and examine for violations of any drug offered for import that had been prepared in an unregistered facility. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred by failing to seek the joinder of the state governments whose possession and use of the thiopental at issue the court declared illegal. Accordingly, the order of the district court pertaining to the thiopental already in the possession of the states was vacated, but the underlying judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Cook, et al. v. FDA, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the revocation of his pilot and medical certificates based upon the false statement that he made about having never been arrested for drunk driving. The court denied the petition, concluding that the Board's conclusion that petitioner's behavior, by his own description, constituted a violation of 14 C.F.R. 67.403(a)(1) was a straightforward and correct application of the regulation under the interpretation the court affirmed in Cooper v. NTSB. The court also concluded that petitioner was accorded due process of law where, among other things, he was given notice and an opportunity to respond before the FAA's revocation order went into effect. View "Taylor v. Huerta, et al." on Justia Law

CRLA appealed from an enforcement order of a subpoena duces tecum and the OIG cross-appealed the protective order governing disclosure of material discovered by the subpoena and also establishing a notice requirement. The district court concluded that only federal and not California state privileges and protections governed the scope of disclosure compelled under the subpoena. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily enforcing the investigative subpoena issued by the OIG. The court vacated, however, the order insofar as it added a five-day notice requirement to the confidentiality terms otherwise applicable. View "United States, et al. v. California Rural Legal Assist." on Justia Law