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

Bassem Youssef, an Egyptian-born American citizen, claimed that his employer, the FBI, (1) discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by not placing him in a substantive position dealing with counterterrorism and instead transferring him to a job for which he was dramatically overqualified; and (2) retaliated against him when he filed a complaint and spoke to his superiors about his predicament. The district court granted summary judgment against Youseef's discrimination claim but allowed his retaliation claim to be tried by a jury. The jury returned a verdict against Youssef, and the district court denied Youssef's motion for a new trial. The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the district court's refusal to grant a new trial but reversed its judgment against Youssef's discrimination claim, holding that because the district court did not reach the fact-intensive issue of a possible discriminatory motive for the transfer, and the parties did not fully brief it to the Court, the case was remanded for further examination of the FBI's reason for the transfer. View "Youssef v. FBI" on Justia Law

The National Chicken Council, National Meat Association, and National Turkey Federation petitioned for review of EPA's interpretation of a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The EPA interpreted the provision to mean that certain ethanol plants fired with natural gas and/or biomass were deemed to be in compliance with a reduction requirement indefinitely rather than for a certain period. Petitioners argued that by permitting qualifying ethanol plants to generate Renewable Identification Numberss indefinitely without having to ensure their ethanol met the emissions-reduction requirement, the ethanol plants would produce more ethanol, which would lead to an increase in the demand for corn, which would lead to an increase in the price of corn. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review for lack of standing, as Petitioners failed to show that a favorable ruling would redress their claimed injuries. View "Nat'l Chicken Council v. EPA " on Justia Law

In 1993, Plaintiff was convicted of the crimes of threatening to injure a person and manslaughter. In 1997, Congress brought the D.C. parole system under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Parole Commission (USPC). In 2000, the USPC adopted its own regulations regarding suitability for parole. At Plaintiff's parole hearings in 2001 and 2005, the USPC applied the 2000 regulations and denied Plaintiff parole. In 2005, Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that application of the 2000 Regulations, rather than the 1987 Regulations, at his hearings violated his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's damages suit on the ground of qualified immunity, concluding that application of those regulations did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable official would have known at the time of the hearings. View "Taylor v. Reilly" on Justia Law

The Air Force invoked Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which covers information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute to deny Newport Aeronautical Sales' request for certain technical information concerning military equipment. The nondisclosure statute the Air Force invoked was 10 U.S.C. 130. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) section 130(a) is an Exemption 3 statute, and it covers the FOIA requests that Newport made to the Air Force; and (2) even assuming that the Air Force was violating the Defense Department's Directive 5230.25 by restricting the disclosure of technical information that does not depict "critical technology," the information fell within the relevant nondisclosure statute and was therefore exempt from disclosure under the Act. View "Newport Aeronautical Sales v. Dep't of Air Force" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of multiple offenses, including possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, related to the shooting of an undercover agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Defendant was sentenced to 270 months in prison, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to modify his sentence, arguing that he was entitled to a reduction and sentence and seeking a hearing to see if his sentence should be reduced. The district court denied the motion. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err by finding that it reached Defendant's ultimate sentence by starting with Sentencing Guideline 2K2.1, which covers convictions for felons in possession of a firearm. View "United States v. Gatling" on Justia Law

This appeal was the latest step in a long-running controversy over the use of post office sidewalks to gather signatures on petitions. Before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in this case was a facial challenge to a ban on collecting signatures on post office sidewalks that do not run along public streets. Appellants also asked the district court to enjoin enforcement of the regulation on Grace sidewalks. The district court concluded that the ban did not violate the First Amendment. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding (1) interior postal sidewalks are not public forums; (2) a ban on collection in these circumstances is reasonable; and (3) because the challenged regulation no longer applied to Grace sidewalks, declaratory and injunctive relief would not longer be appropriate. View "Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. USPS" on Justia Law

Carlos Marino, who was incarcerated for a conviction for drug conspiracy, submitted a request to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking documents that Marino alleged belonged to a co-conspirator who testified against him at trial. Marino suspected the prosecution engaged in various forms of misconduct during trial, especially in its dealings with the co-conspirator. The DEA denied Marino's FOIA request. Marino appealed, and the district court granted summary judgment against him, concluding that Marino lacked a sufficient defense to the DEA's summary judgment motion. In its motion, the DEA invoked FOIA exemption 7(C), which allows an agency to withhold information compiled for law enforcement purposes if disclosure "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Marino subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the district court denied. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the public domain exception provided Marino with a meritorious defense to the DEA's summary judgment motion. Remanded. View "Marino v. Drug Enforcement Admin." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former British soldier, was severely wounded in an ambush in Afghanistan, where he was working for a private security contractor. Plaintiff sued the transport company that furnished the helicopter he flew in on and the construction company that contracted with his employer for his security services, alleging that they had negligently failed to take appropriate security measures for his trip. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants because Plaintiff failed to proffer, as required by District of Columbia law, an expert to testify regarding the standard of care for such security precautions. Plaintiff appealed, maintaining that no expert was required because, inter alia, "every juror will have seen" such films as High Noon. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff's reliance on old Westerns rather than expert testimony to establish the standard of care was fatal to his negligence claim; and (2) the Erie doctrine was fatal to Plaintiff's alternative contention that the Court should disregard D.C.'s expert testimony requirement altogether. View "Burke v. Air Serv. Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a black male who worked in the United State Department of Agriculture's (Department) Foreign Agricultural Service. Plaintiff's employment was terminated after it was discovered that Plaintiff submitted false receipts for reimbursement, failed to report his required financial interests, and failed to properly submit to the Department a credit issued by a hotel to his government-issued credit card, among other things. Plaintiff filed suit in district court, alleging various claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court granted the Department summary judgment on nine of Plaintiff's ten counts, including his race discrimination claim. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that he was terminated because of racial discrimination. View "Hampton v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

Appellee, an employee of the FBI, alleged that FBI officials retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when, by reporting unfounded security concerns to the Bureau's Security Division, they prompted an investigation into his continued eligibility for a security clearance. In the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' earlier opinion in this case, Rattigan v. Holder, the Court held that although the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit precedent shields the Security Division's security clearance-related decisions from judicial review, the Title VII claim could nonetheless go forward so long as it challenged only the reporting of Appellee to the Security Division and not the Division's decision to investigate. On rehearing, however, the Court vacated the district court judgment and narrowed the scope of Title VII liability in these circumstances, holding that Appellee's Title VII claim could proceed only if he could show that agency employees acted with a retaliatory or discriminatory motive in reporting or referring information that they knew to be false. Remanded for further proceedings. View "Wilfred v. Holder" on Justia Law