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

Appellants, hunters and hunting organizations, challenged the Service's bar against the importation of polar bear trophies under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. In regard to statutory challenges, the court concluded that Congress intended to extend the protections of sections 101(a)(3)(B) and 102(b)(3) of the MMPA to all depleted species, regardless of their depleted status; although section 104(c)(5) did authorize trophy importation, that provision remained subject to the MMPA's more stringent protections for depleted species; section 102(b)(3) referred not only to mammals taken from species the Secretary had designated as depleted but instead mammals taken from species the Secretary has so designated; and section 101(a)(3)(B) could not permit what section 102(b)(3) expressly prohibited. In regards to procedural challenges, the court concluded that section 115(a) was inapplicable because an ESA listing resulted in a depleted designation under the MMPA but entailed no "determination" to that effect. Finally, the Listing Rule provided adequate notice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued his employer, the USPS, for racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's order refusing to award him any compensation for delayed payment of attorney's fees after his successful suit. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the district court had discretion to compensate for delay, but it applied the wrong legal standard in exercising its discretion. On remand, the district court must determine, under the correct legal standards, whether compensation for delay was appropriate and, if so, by what means. View "West v. Potter" on Justia Law

The Institute challenged the final rule promulgated by the FRA to implement section 104 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-432 section 104(a)(1), 122 Stat. 4848, 4857. Section 104 required a qualifying rail carrier to submit an implementation plan to install a "positive train control" (PTC) system no later than December 31, 2015 on certain tracks used for passenger service or for transporting "poison- or toxic- by-inhalation" hazardous material (PIH or TIH). The court concluded that the Institute's challenge was not ripe because it had not established that its members now faced a present or imminent injury from the 2012 Final Rule's omission of a two-part risk assessment test. Accordingly, the court dismissed the Institute's petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Chlorine Institute, Inc. v. FRA, et al." on Justia Law

This case involved the district court's order requiring the Office of the United States Trade Representative to disclose a classified document describing the government's position during international trade negotiations. The only document that remained in dispute was a white paper referred to in the district court proceedings as "document 1," which consisted of the Trade Representative's commentary on the interpretation of the phrase "in like circumstances." The court concluded that the Trade Representative properly withheld the document as exempt from disclosure under exemption 1 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1), because the white paper was properly classified as confidential. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment. View "Center For Int'l Env. Law v. Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., et al." on Justia Law

Three federal contractors sought a declaration that 2 U.S.C. 441c abridged their freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment and denied them the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fifth Amendment. FECA prohibited any "person" contracting with the federal government from contributing to "any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use" in a federal election. The court sua sponte vacated and remanded to the district court to comply with immediate procedures set forth in section 437h, concluding that FECA's judicial review provision ousted both the district court and the court's jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claims. View "Wagner, et al. v. Federal Election Commission" on Justia Law

In an effort to reduce gun trafficking from the United States to Mexico, the ATF issued a demand letter under 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(5)(A) to a number of federal firearms licensees (FFLs) requiring each recipient making two or more sales of a specific firearm to the same buyer within five business days to file a report with the ATF. NSSF challenged the demand letter, arguing that ATF lacked statutory authority to issue it and that ATF acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in selecting which FFLs were subject to it. The court rejected both arguments and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to ATF. View "Nat'l Shooting Sports Found., et al. v. Jones" on Justia Law

Appellant, sentenced to prison for crimes involving powder and crack cocaine before Congress and the Sentencing Commission took steps to reduce the disparity in sentencing ranges between the two, sought declaratory and injunctive relief and possible damages after these efforts were directed at crimes involving lesser amounts of cocaine than his. The district court dismissed his suit on the ground that the only relief available to appellant was in habeas. Adopting Wilkinson v. Dotson's habeas-channeling rule, the court held that a federal prisoner need bring his claim in habeas only if success on the merits would "necessarily imply the invalidity of confinement or shorten its duration." Appellant's claim for declaratory relief avoided the habeas-channeling rule the court announced and its dismissal was improper. The court also concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to take up the merits of appellant's Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics claim because it was not based on plainly fictitious allegations and his pleading errors could be corrected through the liberal construction or amendment the court was accustomed to providing a pro se prisoner. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of appellant's complaint and remanded for further proceedings. View "Davis v. U.S. Sentencing Commission" on Justia Law

Appellants - AFGE, several AFGE locals that represent Air Reserve Technicians (ARTs), and ART Mark Winstead - challenged three Air Force instructions requiring ARTs to wear military uniforms while performing civilian duties. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 5 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal because the exclusive remedial scheme of the CSRA precluded AFGE's claims. View "American Federation of Government Employees, et al v. Secretary of the Air Force" on Justia Law

Appellant, confined at St. Elizabeths Hospital since 1982, asserted a cause of action under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and alleged that DMH had violated his rights by seizing money from his patient account without affording him procedural due process. DMH responded that the hospital had lawfully transferred appellant's money to cover the cost of his care. It was clear from the record that appellant received proper notice before his funds were taken. The court also found that appellant's claim that he was denied due process lacked merit because he failed to invoke the remedies available to him under the D.C. Administrative Procedure Act, D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 22-A, 308.9. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "English v. District of Columbia, et al" on Justia Law

Appellants, holders of senior notes issued by Washington Mutual - a failed bank - sought to intervene in litigation between Deutsche Bank, the FDIC (Washington Mutual's receiver), and J.P. Morgan Chase. The district court denied intervention under Rule 24. The court concluded that appellants lacked Article III standing and affirmed the district court's denial of intervention. View "Deutsche Bank National Trust v. FDIC, et al" on Justia Law