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

Appellant brought suit against officials of the Administrative Office, solely in their official capacities, alleging that they rejected her job application in violation of her constitutional rights. The district court dismissed appellant's complaint, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because the Administrative Office had sovereign immunity from suit. The court reversed the judgment and held that appellant's claim fell within the Larson-Dugan exception to the general rule of sovereign immunity. Since the district court did not address appellees' alternative jurisdiction arguments, the court left all of these arguments for consideration on remand. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pollack v. Duff, et al" on Justia Law

Recognizing the growing importance of mobile data in a wireless market in which smartphones are increasingly common, the FCC adopted a rule requiring mobile-data providers to offer roaming agreements to other such providers on "commercially reasonable" terms. Verizon challenged the data roaming rule on multiple grounds. The court held that Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq., plainly empowered the FCC to promulgate the data roaming rule. And although the rule bears some marks of common carriage, the court deferred to the FCC's determination that the rule imposed no common carrier obligations on mobile-internet providers. In response to Verizon's remaining arguments, the court concluded that the rule did not effect an unconstitutional taking and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. View "Cellco Partnership v. FCC" on Justia Law

Military chaplains, all non-liturgical Protestants, alleged that the Navy systematically discriminated against members of their religious denominations in the awarding of promotions. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that they lacked Article III standing and, alternatively, were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court concluded that at least those plaintiffs whose promotions would likely be considered by future selection boards operating under the challenged policies have standing to pursue claims for injunctive relief. The court also concluded that the district court's resolution of plaintiffs' denominational preference theory was not based on factual findings that the court could review for clear error. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's determination that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. The court also vacated the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Church, et al v. United States Navy, et al" on Justia Law

Appellee brought a lawsuit challenging 11 C.F.R. 104.20(c)(9), a regulation promulgated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), that purported to implement section 201(f)(2)(F) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), 2 U.S.C. 434. The court held that appellee easily satisfied the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 702 and demonstrated his Article III standing by showing that he would be unable to obtain disclosure of information under the BCRA because of the allegedly unlawful restrictions imposed by section 104.20(c)(9). On the merits, the court held that the district court erred in holding that Congress spoke plainly when it enacted 2 U.S.C. 434(f), thus foreclosing any regulatory construction of the statute by the FEC. Moreover, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, the court did not find that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue in this case. Indeed, it was doubtful that, in enacting 2 U.S.C 434(f), Congress even anticipated the circumstances that the FEC faced when it promulgated section 104.20(c)(9). The court reversed and vacated summary judgment in favor of appellee, remanding to the district court. Upon remand, the district court shall first refer the matter to the FEC for further consideration. View "Van Hollen, Jr. v. FEC, et al" on Justia Law

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776, directed the Secretary to issue regulations requiring all cigarette packages manufactured or sold in the United States to bear one of nine new textual warnings, as well as "color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking." Companies challenged the FDA's rule through which it selected nine images that would accompany the statutorily-prescribed warnings. The court held that the FDA failed to present any data showing that enacting their proposed graphic warnings would accomplish the agency's stated objective of reducing smoking rates. Therefore, the court vacated the graphic warning requirements and remanded to the FDA. The court also vacated the permanent injunction issued by the district court. View "R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al. v. FDA, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners, trade associations whose members were part of the petroleum and food industries, filed petitions for review of two Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions approving the introduction of E15 - a blend of gasoline and fifteen percent ethanol - for use in select motor vehicles and engines. Petitioners were members of several industry groups, which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals divided into an engine-products group, a petroleum group, and a food group. Petitioners contended, among other things, that EPA lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to grant partial waivers approving the use of E15. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed all petitions for lack of jurisdiction, holding that none of the petitioners had established standing to bring this action. View "Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for conspiracy to distribute narcotics. At issue on appeal was whether the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant knowingly entered into the conspiracy with the specific intent to further the unlawful objective of drug distribution. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) there was no affirmative evidence that Defendant knowingly joined the narcotics conspiracy or had the specific intent to further its aims; and (2) given the scope of the government's investigation and the role its witnesses played in the conspiracy, any reasonable jury should have wondered why the government could not find such evidence. View "United States v. Gaskins" on Justia Law

Laura Elkins and her husband, John Robbins, brought suit against the District of Columbia and some of its officials, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments for the search of Elkins' home and the seizure of Elkins' notebook, which related to a home renovation. Plaintiffs also alleged that Defendants' outrageous conduct trampled Elkins' due process rights. The district court concluded that the seizure of the notebook was illegal and entered judgment against two District officials but assessed nominal damages of one dollar each. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's orders in all respect except that the entries of summary judgment against the two District officials were vacated and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment in their favor because the District and its officials were entitled to summary judgment on all Plaintiffs' claims. View "Elkins v. Dist. of Columbia" on Justia Law

After the State Department terminated the employment of Appellant on his sixty-fifth birthday, Appellant brought suit alleging that his forced retirement violated the federal employment provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The district court dismissed Appellant's complaint on the ground that the statute under which Appellant was hired, section 2(c) of the Basic Authorities Act, permitted the Department to exempt Appellant from the protections of the ADEA. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding nothing in the Basic Authorities Act that abrogates the ADEA's broad proscription against personnel actions that discriminate on the basis of age. View "Miller v. Clinton" on Justia Law

UtahAmerican Energy brought this action against the Department of Labor under FOIA, seeking documents related to government investigations of a collapse at one of its mines. The district court ruled in favor of UtahAmerican on the disputed exemptions and ordered it to produce documents covered by those exemptions. The court also ordered the Department to produce documents that were the subject of an earlier-filed FOIA suit that was pending before another district court. The Department appealed. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (1) dismissed as moot those portions of the appeal that related to Exemption 7(A) because the Department's basis for asserting that exemption has disappeared, thus requiring it to produce many of the contested documents that were protected by 7(A) alone; (2) reversed the district court insofar as it directed the Department to certain documents that were protected by Exemption 7(C); and (3) reversed the district court's judgment with respect to the documents subject to the earlier FOIA suit, holding that the court should have left disposition of the balance of the remaining documents to the court hearing the earlier-filed suit. Remanded. View "UtahAmerican Energy, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law