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

On July 16, 2010, the court remanded this case to the Secretary of the State Department, concluding that the Secretary had violated the due process rights of PMOI by maintaining its designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 8 U.S.C. 1189. It has been nearly two years since the court's remand and the Secretary has yet to issue a reviewable ruling on PMOI's petition. PMOI now seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the delisting of PMOI or, alternatively, requiring the Secretary to make a decision on PMOI's petition or the court setting aside her FTO designation. Consequently, the court ordered the Secretary to act on PMOI's petition no later than four months from the issuance of this opinion; failing that, the petition for writ of mandamus setting aside the FTO designation will be granted. View "In re: People's Mojahedin Organization" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former employee of the Library of Congress, brought this action against, inter alia, his former supervisor (defendant), alleging that his termination for publication of articles critical of high-level public officials violated the First and Fifth Amendments and entitled him to damages relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that a Bivens action was not available under the circumstances of the case and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Because the court concluded that the courts should not imply a new form of Bivens action on the facts of this case, the court reversed the order of the district court denying defendant's motion to dismiss. View "Davis v. Billington, et al." on Justia Law

Shelby County contended that when Congress reauthorized section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c(a), in 2006, it exceeded its enumerated powers. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment for the Attorney General. Applying the congruence and proportionality standard of review in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Shelby County, AL v. Holder, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought suit challenging the constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973c, arguing that, as amended by the VRA's 2006 reauthorization, section 5 exceeded the powers granted to Congress by the Reconstruction Amendments and violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee. The district court initially dismissed the suit for lack of standing but the court reversed and remanded based on the standing of plaintiff John Nix, who had announced his intention to run for the Kinston City Council in the 2011 elections. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the government, holding that section 5 was constitutional. While the appeal was pending before the court, and before oral argument could take place, the Justice Department changed its mind in light of some new evidence that it received in a separate proceeding. The Department subsequently informed the court and the parties that the Attorney General was withdrawing his objection to the proposed change. Three days later, the government filed its merits brief arguing in part that the case had been mooted by the Attorney General's actions. After considering the supplemental briefing from both parties, the court agreed with the government and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Laroque, et al. v. Holder, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff applied for a position as Director of the Library of Congress and when he was passed over for the job, he claimed that the Library of Congress violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. On appeal, defendant sought a new trial, arguing that the district court erred by instructing the jury that he had to prove that unlawful discrimination was the "sole reasons" for his non-selection. Although the court agreed that "sole reason" was not the correct standard, the jury instructions themselves corrected any error by defining "sole reasons" as "but-for" causation. The court recognized, however, that its recent Title VII employment discrimination cases have caused some confusion and the court took the opportunity to clarify the requirements the statute placed upon plaintiffs and the courts. View "Ponce v. Billington" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individuals claiming to be the Tribal Council of the Timbisha Shoshone, argued that the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act, Pub. L. No. 108-270, section 3, 118 Stat. 805, 806, was an unconstitutional taking of tribal property. The district court granted the Government's motion to dismiss, holding that the Distribution Act was constitutional. Plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing where the court had a letter from the Executive Branch recognizing the Gholson faction, not Kennedy faction, and therefore, the court did not reach the merits. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. View "Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, et al. v. Salazar, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. On appeal, defendant sought to vacate her sentence and remand the case for a new arraignment. The court rejected defendant's contention that her constitutional rights were violated because she did not enter into her plea knowingly and intelligently, and that she did not receive Spanish translations of all the documents in the case. Finding no error in the district court's acceptance of her plea, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Rubio" on Justia Law

Taxpayer appealed a judgment of the Tax Court rejecting two contentions: first, a constitutional claim that certain employees of the IRS's Office of Appeals were "Officers of the United States," so that their appointments must conform to the Constitution's Appointments Clause, art. II, section 2, cl. 2, and second, an argument that the employees in question abused their discretion in rejecting his proposed compromise of the collection of his tax liability. Because the authority exercised by the Appeals Office employees whose status was challenged here appeared insufficient to rank them even as "inferior Officers," the court rejected the constitutional claims. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in those employee's decision in this case. View "Tucker v. Commissioner, IRS" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought an action arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a number of MPD law enforcement personnel, asserting, inter alia, that various officers and their supervisors violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights by planning and conducting a 4:00 a.m. search on a warrant that did not authorize a nighttime search and breaking and entering into plaintiffs' home without knocking and announcing their presence. At issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in denying defendants qualified immunity on the knock-and-announce and nighttime search claims. The court agreed that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because neither their no-knock entry of plaintiffs' home nor their nighttime search violated clearly established law. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded. View "Youngbey, et al. v. March, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, owners of two dairy operations, appealed the dismissal of their constitutional challenges to two provisions of the Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2005 (MREA), 7 U.S.C. 608c. Plaintiffs alleged that the provisions, which subjected certain large producer-handlers of milk to contribution requirements applicable to all milk handlers, constituted a bill of attainder and violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Because the court found that the MREA did not apply with specificity to affected persons, the court need not address whether it satisfied either of the remaining elements of a bill of attainder. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claim. In regards to plaintiffs' remaining arguments, the court held that mere disparity of treatment was not sufficient to state an equal protection violation. The court also found that the government provided an explanation that was not only rational on its face but also had been consistently recognized by the courts as legitimate. Further, plaintiffs failed to plead the threshold requirement of a due process claim: that the government had interfered with a cognizable liberty or property interest. Finally, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow plaintiffs to file a supplemental complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hettinga v. United States" on Justia Law