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

Plaintiff, an American citizen who resides in Canada, along with the Second Amendment Foundation, challenged 18 U.S.C. 922 and related regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives which made it impossible for a person who lived outside the United States lawfully to purchase a firearm in the United States. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's suit for lack of standing where plaintiff attempted to purchase a firearm in the United States while living in Canada. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's suit for lack of standing where plaintiff's injury was present and continuing when plaintiff intended to return regularly to the United States to visit friends and relatives and when plaintiff intended to purchase firearms for the purposes of sporting and self defense and to store the firearms with his relatives in Ohio.

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit for damages against defendant, a former United States Marshal, claiming that they were unconstitutionally strip searched by Deputy U.S. Marshals under defendant's direction after plaintiffs were arrested during a demonstration in September 2002. At issue was whether it was clearly established in September 2002 that strip searching an arrestee before placing him in a detention facility without individualized reasonable suspicion was unconstitutional. The court held that it need not consider whether defendant had individual suspicion as to each of the plaintiffs where there was no clearly established constitutional prohibition in 2002 of strip searching arrestees without individualized, reasonable suspicion and therefore, defendant was entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment.

Plaintiff, a Cuban corporation, sued the United States Department of Treasury when plaintiff's renewal of its trademark, which had previously been permitted as an exception under the Trading with the Enemy Act ("Act"), was barred by the 1998 law that modified the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and subsequently barred renewals of certain trademarks. At issue was whether plaintiffs had invoked the presumption against retroactivity and the 1998 law should be interpreted to bar only new trademark registrations, not renewals of previously registered trademarks, and if the 1998 law did bar the renewal of previously registered trademarks, then would it violate the substantive due process doctrine. The court held that the presumption against retroactivity did not apply to plaintiff where plaintiff did not possess a vested right to renewal of its trademark. The court also held that the 1998 law did not violate the substantive due process doctrine where it was rationally related to the legitimate government goals of isolating Cuba's Communist government and hastening a transition to democracy in Cuba.