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

Plaintiff ("appellant"), a former official of the District of Columbia Office of the Inspector General ("OIG"), was fired after five years on the job purportedly for poor performance. Appellant sued the OIG and alleged that defendants conspired to deter his testimony in a subordinate's employment discrimination trial and ultimately fired him in retaliation for his refusal to help sabotage his fellow employee. At issue was whether the district court erred in entering judgment in favor of defendants on appellant's 42 U.S.C. 1985(2) conspiracy claim, a related claim under 42 U.S.C. 1986 for failure to prevent the conspiracy, and his First Amendment retaliation claim. After a trial on appellant's Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., retaliation claim, the jury found in favor of defendants. The court vacated the dismissal of appellant's sections 1985(2) and 1986 conspiracy claims because the district court erroneously required an invidious, class-based motive for the alleged conspiracy and because the district court concluded, without support, that Title VII was the exclusive remedy for this type of retaliation. Accordingly, the court vacated these claims and remanded for further proceedings and affirmed in all other respects.

Since 2005, appellant, a dual citizen of Jordan and the United States, had pursued a habeas corpus petition to block his transfer to Iraq's government where the United States military had detained him in Iraq based on evidence that he participated in al Qaeda's terrorist activities there. Appellant argued that he could not be transferred to the custody of Iraqi officials because he was likely to be tortured after his transfer. At issue was whether the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 ("FARR"), 8 U.S.C. 1231, which had been supplemented by the REAL ID Act of 2005, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(4), gave him a right to judicial review of conditions in the receiving country before he could be transferred. Also at issue was whether appellant was entitled under the Constitution's habeas corpus guarantee to judicial review of his likely treatment in the receiving country. The court held that the FARR Act and the REAL ID Act did not give military transferees such as appellant a right to judicial review of their likely treatment in the receiving country. The court also held that the Supreme Court had already ruled when considering appellant's case in Munaf v. Geren, that the Constitution's guarantee of habeas corpus did not encompass a guarantee to judicial review. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and in so doing, recognized that the policy arguments supporting appellant's position were not insubstantial. The court noted that Congress remained free to provide military transferees such as appellant with a right to judicial review of conditions in the receiving country before they were transferred.

Appellant alleged that he was transferred to a position of less responsibility within the District of Columbia Department of Mental Health ("District") in retaliation for his statements corroborating a claim of racial discrimination against a District official. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment for the District on the ground that appellant failed to show that his transfer was a materially adverse action. The court held that appellant had provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that he suffered a materially adverse employment action and to conclude that the District's proffered reasons for transferring him were pretextual and that he was transferred in retalaition for supporting his direct supervisor's complaint. Accordingly, the court erred in granting summary judgment for the District and the judgment was reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a provision of the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act ("FTEPA"), 49 U.S.C. 44729, which allowed some pilots, but not him, to take advantage of Congress's decision to raise the mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65. Plaintiff also alleged that his former employer and former union violated a state law banning age discrimination in employment by failing to place him in a position at work that would have allowed him the benefit of the new retirement age. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's state age discrimination claims. The court concluded that plaintiff did not make clear in his complaint that he was suing his former employer for its failure to demote him to a status that might help him take advantage of the new age limit in the FTEPA and his complaint never alleged that he requested a demotion, that he was qualified for such a position, or that such positions were available, all facts he would need to prove to make out a prima facie case of age discrimination for failure to demote under the state discrimination statute. Accordingly, the court declined to pass on the merits of an argument the district court had no chance to consider and affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's suit.

Plaintiff sued the Government Printing Office ("GPO") under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., alleging race and gender discrimination when the GPO filled two positions with white men, without interviewing any candidates. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the GPO. The court concluded that the district court erred by requiring plaintiff to show not only that the GPO's nondiscriminatory reason was pretext, but also that discrimination was the actual reason plaintiff was passed over for the positions. Consequently, the court held that a reasonable jury could find in plaintiff's favor and reversed the district court's order of summary judgment, remanding for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs, two national trade associations representing the private charter bus industry, challenged Senator Patty Murray's amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-117, 172, related to charter bus services, alleging that the amendment ensured that the Federal Transit Act, 49 U.S.C. 5323(d)(1) ("Charter Rule"), could not spend appropriated funds to enforce the Charter Rule to bar King County Metro ("KCM") from providing bus service to Seattle Mariners games in Fiscal Year 2010. At issue was whether Congress could constitutionally permit a federally-subsidized transit system to take the residents of Seattle out to the ball game. The court held that Congress could and that the amendment was not unconstitutional where it did not violate plaintiffs' First Amendment right to petition, Fifth Amendment right to equal protection, procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, or separation of powers principles. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was reversed.

Appellant, a primary care physician who served Medicaid patients in the District of Columbia, appealed his convictions for health care fraud and for making false statements relating to health care matters, as well as his 53 month prison sentence. At issue was whether the district court committed evidentiary errors and improperly refused to give the good faith instruction appellant requested. Also at issue was whether appellant's sentence was procedurally unreasonable. The court found no merit in appellant's assertions of trial errors and affirmed the judgment of conviction. The court held, however, that because the district gave an inadequate explanation for its above-Guidelines sentence and because this procedural defect amounted to plain error, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings.

The United States appealed from the district court's decision granting defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus. At issue was whether the district court improperly concluded that the government failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was "part of" al Qaeda. The court held that the government had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant could be detained where the district court clearly erred in regarding another detainee's statements as unreliable, improperly excluded it from consideration, and failed to give it sufficient weight to the reliable evidence it did consider. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to the district court to deny defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Defendant was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm and despite his repeated request for a speedy trial of his one-count single defendant case, 436 days passed before his trial began. In delaying the trial, the district court relied on a government filing, styled as a "motion" to admit evidence of other crimes pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) as a placeholder that would suspend the 70 day time limit under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1). At issue was whether defendant's Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated when counsel failed to challenge whether a Rule 404(b) filing tolled the 70 day period under the Act. The court held that counsel's failure to challenge the district court's exclusion of time following the Rule 404(b) filing caused counsel to overlook court precedent holding that a closely analogous evidentiary filing did not toll the Act; the prosecutor's expression of concern during a hearing that the Rule 404(b) filing did not toll the Act's clock; and defendant's own repeated pleas to the district court and his counsel to scrutinize the record for a violation under the Act. Therefore, under the circumstances, the court vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded where the performance of counsel was constitutionally deficient.

In 2009, defendant pled guilty to a one-count information charging him with possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) and, in light of his 1999 Michigan state court proceeding where he pled guilty to distributing child pornography, the district court sentenced him to ten years imprisonment. At issue was whether defendant had such a "prior conviction" under the laws of the State of Michigan. The court concluded that if defendant had been convicted in state court of the conduct for which he was sentenced in federal court, his assignment under the Michigan Holmes Act, Mich. Comp. Laws 762.11, would have been treated as a "conviction" for determining his minimum sentence. It followed that even if Michigan law determined defendant's minimum federal sentence, he had a prior conviction under Michigan law relating to child pornography. Therefore, the court held that the district court properly imposed the ten year mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to section 2252A(b)(2).