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

The case involves Trenton Palmer, an experienced private pilot, who was charged by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for flying his plane at an altitude of less than 100 feet above ground level and within 500 feet of people, a house, and other structures. The FAA claimed that Palmer violated a regulation establishing minimum safe altitudes. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found Palmer guilty of the violation, and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) affirmed the decision. Palmer appealed, arguing that the ALJ committed multiple prejudicial errors and that the complaint against him should have been dismissed.Previously, the ALJ had denied Palmer's motion to dismiss the FAA’s complaint on the ground that the complaint failed to give fair notice of the charges. The ALJ found that Palmer violated Sections 91.119(a), (c), and 91.13(a) of the FAA regulations. The ALJ mitigated Palmer’s suspension from 120 days to 60 days. Palmer appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Board and the FAA cross-appealed the ALJ’s mitigation of Palmer’s suspension. On de novo review, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s order and reversed the ALJ’s mitigation of the Administrator’s sanction because the Administrator’s selected sanction was supported by a reasonable explanation and there were no mitigating circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the decision from the NTSB. The court found that Palmer's arguments on appeal as to the Section 91.119 violations turn on whether he proved his defense that the low flight was necessary for takeoff or landing. The court rejected Palmer's claim of inadequate notice as legally unsupported and facially implausible. The court also found no error in the ALJ’s reliance on expert witness testimony and the Board’s subsequent affirmance. The court denied Palmer’s petition for review. View "Palmer v. FAA" on Justia Law

The case involves Dr. Elizabeth Schacht, a staff anesthesiologist and critical care physician at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital complex in Colorado. In 2018, she was fired due to consistent and serious problems with her patient care, professionalism, and communication. The hospital Director deemed her performance as a potential imminent threat to patient welfare. After her dismissal, Dr. Schacht appealed to a VA Disciplinary Appeals Board, which upheld her discharge following a four-day evidentiary hearing. Dr. Schacht then filed an action in federal district court, challenging the Board's decision.The district court initially granted in part and denied in part both parties' motions for summary judgment. It rejected most of Dr. Schacht's procedural claims except her contention that the Board's failure to explain why it had excluded her additional evidence was arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded the case for the Board to provide either an explanation for its evidentiary ruling or a revised decision. Upon remand, the Board explained that it had rejected Dr. Schacht's submission due to its late submission and irrelevance to the case. The district court accepted the Board's reasoning and granted summary judgment to the agency.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. It found that the Board's decision to reject Dr. Schacht's late submission was reasonable and not arbitrary. The court also held that the Board's decision to uphold Dr. Schacht's firing was not arbitrary or capricious as it adequately explained why it believed no alternative penalty would redress Dr. Schacht's unprofessional conduct. View "Schacht v. Lieberman" on Justia Law

The case involves Absolute Healthcare, operating as Curaleaf, a company that runs medical marijuana dispensaries across the United States. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Curaleaf committed four unfair labor practices, including unlawfully firing an employee, Anissa Keane, for attempting to unionize a Curaleaf store in Gilbert, Arizona. The NLRB also ordered Curaleaf to read aloud to its Gilbert-based employees a notice describing the Board’s findings and to grant the union access to Curaleaf’s Gilbert store.The case was initially heard by an administrative law judge who found in favor of the NLRB on all four charges. The judge ordered Curaleaf to reinstate Keane with backpay, to read aloud a notice of the unfair labor practice findings to Curaleaf Gilbert employees, and to grant the union access to Curaleaf Gilbert’s facilities any time Curaleaf spoke to its employees about unionization. Curaleaf appealed to the NLRB, challenging only the unlawful-discharge finding and the notice-reading and union-access remedies. A divided three-member panel of the NLRB affirmed the administrative law judge's decision.The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court held that the NLRB's finding that Curaleaf unlawfully fired Keane was not supported by substantial evidence. The court also held that the NLRB's notice-reading and union-access remedies could not be enforced. However, the court granted the NLRB's cross-application for enforcement as to the three uncontested unfair labor practices. View "Absolute Healthcare v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

The case involves journalist Robert Schilling's attempt to obtain records related to the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the United States House of Representatives' use of outside consultants as part of a congressional investigation. Schilling sought these records under the common law right of access, alleging that the hearings were part of a series of public-private collaborations targeting political opponents of the climate policy agenda. He claimed that the requested records would show that the Committee used unpaid consulting services to prepare for the hearings, in violation of federal law and House rules.The district court dismissed Schilling's petition, ruling that the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause barred the case. The court held that the Clause acts as an absolute jurisdictional bar to suits seeking compelled disclosure of materials related to legislative activity. Schilling appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, but on different grounds. The appellate court did not address the question of whether the Speech or Debate Clause barred Schilling's claim. Instead, it dismissed the case on the grounds of sovereign immunity. The court found that the documents Schilling sought were not "public records," and thus, there was no duty imposed on Congress to grant Schilling's request. As a result, the Larson-Dugan exception to sovereign immunity did not apply, and Schilling's claim was barred by sovereign immunity. View "Schilling v. United States House of Representatives" on Justia Law

An investigative reporter, Jason Leopold, sought access to the written directives of the United States Capitol Police and audits and reports prepared by the Inspector General of the Capitol Police. He invoked the District Court’s mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, claiming a common law right to access public documents and a statutory right under 2 U.S.C. § 1909(c)(1). The District Court dismissed these claims, holding that sovereign immunity barred the suit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissals for lack of jurisdiction, but for different reasons. The court found that Leopold failed to establish that the Capitol Police had a clear, indisputable, and ministerial duty to provide access to the records. The court also rejected Leopold's argument that the Inspector General of the Capitol Police breached his duty to publish all audits and reports that recommend corrective action under 5 U.S.C. § 404(e)(1)(C), as applied to the Inspector General of the Capitol Police under 2 U.S.C. § 1909(c)(1). The court concluded that even if this duty existed, the Inspector General was forbidden from publishing the audits and reports due to their designation as "security information" under 2 U.S.C. § 1979. The dismissal was affirmed without prejudice, allowing Leopold to refile his complaint with the requisite allegations to satisfy the mandamus standard if he so desires and if he plausibly believes that he can prove those allegations. View "Leopold v. Manger" on Justia Law

The case involves Bainbridge Fund Ltd. (Bainbridge), which sought to attach property owned by the Republic of Argentina (Argentina) in partial satisfaction of a judgment entered against Argentina in 2020. The property in question, the Chancery Annex, was a building owned by Argentina in Washington, D.C. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) stipulates that the property of a foreign sovereign cannot be attached unless the sovereign waives immunity and the property is used for commercial activity in the United States. The district court denied Bainbridge’s application after finding that the property in question is not used for commercial activity.Previously, in the Southern District of New York, Bainbridge obtained a judgment against Argentina for $95,424,899.38, arising out of Argentina’s default on a bond owned by Bainbridge. The bond contained a waiver of sovereign immunity by Argentina. Bainbridge sought to attach and execute upon the Chancery Annex to satisfy the judgment in part.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Bainbridge’s application. The court found that the Chancery Annex was not “used for commercial activity” at the time of filing. The court also rejected Bainbridge's argument that Argentina had waived the “commercial activity” requirement under Section 1610(a) of the FSIA. The court held that the bond did not evince an explicit promise or intent by Argentina not to raise FSIA defenses. View "Bainbridge Fund Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

The case involves Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and United Therapeutics Corporation, both drug manufacturers, and the Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA). The dispute centers around Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act, which mandates drug manufacturers to sell certain drugs at discounted prices to select healthcare providers. These providers often contract with outside pharmacies for distribution. The manufacturers argued that these partnerships have left the Section 340B program vulnerable to abuse, leading them to impose their own contractual terms on providers, such as limits on the number of pharmacies to which they will make shipments. The government contended that these restrictions violate the statute.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The district court ruled that Section 340B does not prohibit manufacturers from limiting the distribution of discounted drugs by contract.The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court agreed with the district court's ruling, stating that Section 340B does not categorically prohibit manufacturers from imposing conditions on the distribution of covered drugs to covered entities. The court further held that the conditions at issue in this case do not violate Section 340B on their face. The court did not rule out the possibility that other, more onerous conditions might violate the statute or that these conditions may violate Section 340B as applied in particular circumstances. The court affirmed the district court's decision to set aside the enforcement letters under review, while reserving the possibility of future enforcement under theories of liability narrower than the one pressed here. View "Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Eghbal Saffarinia, a former high-ranking official in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of the Inspector General (HUD-OIG), was required by federal law to file annual financial disclosure forms detailing most of his financial liabilities over $10,000. One of Saffarinia’s responsibilities was the allocation of HUD-OIG’s information technology contracts. An investigation revealed that Saffarinia had repeatedly falsified his financial disclosure forms and failed to disclose financial liabilities over $10,000. The investigation also revealed that one of the persons from whom Saffarinia had borrowed money was the owner of an IT company that had been awarded HUD-OIG IT contracts during the time when Saffarinia had near-complete power over the agency operation.Saffarinia was indicted on seven counts, including three counts of obstruction of justice. A jury convicted Saffarinia on all seven counts, and the District Court sentenced him to a year and a day in federal prison, followed by one year of supervised release. Saffarinia appealed his conviction, arguing that the law under which he was convicted did not extend to alleged obstruction of an agency’s review of financial disclosure forms because the review of these forms is insufficiently formal to fall within the law’s ambit. He also argued that the evidence presented at trial diverged from the charges contained in the indictment, resulting in either the constructive amendment of the indictment against him or, in the alternative, a prejudicial variance. Finally, Saffarinia challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found no basis to overturn Saffarinia’s conviction. The court held that the law under which Saffarinia was convicted was intended to capture the sorts of activity with which Saffarinia was charged. The court also found that the government neither constructively amended Saffarinia’s indictment nor prejudicially varied the charges against him. Finally, the court found that the evidence presented at Saffarinia’s trial was sufficient to support his conviction. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "USA v. Saffarinia" on Justia Law

The case involves a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by American Oversight seeking communications between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress regarding healthcare reform. The agencies invoked Exemption 5 of the FOIA to withhold certain communications, arguing that they were "intra-agency" communications. The district court sided with the agencies, holding that the communications were protected from disclosure under Exemption 5.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed with the lower court's decision. The court held that the communications between the agencies and Congress were not "intra-agency" communications and therefore not protected by Exemption 5. The court reasoned that under the "consultant corollary" to Exemption 5, the term "intra-agency" encompasses nearly all documents used by an agency in its deliberative process, even if the author or recipient is not an employee of that same agency. However, the court concluded that agencies may not invoke Exemption 5 to withhold agency records generated by a government consultant with its own stake in the outcome of the agency’s decision-making process.The court also found that HHS's search for responsive records was inadequate because it failed to include obvious alternative terms for the subject matter of American Oversight’s request. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to HHS and OMB on the applicability of Exemption 5 to the records at issue and to HHS on the adequacy of its search. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "American Oversight v. HHS" on Justia Law

The case involves the Jibril family, who alleged that they were wrongfully placed on the U.S. Government’s terrorist watchlist, known as the "Selectee List." The family claimed that this placement resulted in extensive and intrusive security screenings and significant delays during their domestic and international travels. They filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and other federal officials, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act.The District Court initially dismissed the case for lack of standing, as the Government neither confirmed nor denied the Jibrils’ Selectee List status. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision in part, holding that the Jibrils had plausibly alleged that they were on a terrorist watchlist and faced imminent risk of undue Government actions sufficient to support most of their claims for prospective relief.On remand, the Government filed a renewed motion to dismiss, this time submitting an ex parte declaration to the District Court for in camera review. Based on this submission, the District Court again dismissed the case, holding that the Jibrils lacked standing to pursue their complaint for prospective relief.The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, agreeing that the Jibrils lacked standing to seek forward-looking relief. The court also held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the Government’s ex parte submission to address matters implicating national security concerns. Finally, the court found no error in the District Court’s denial of the Jibrils’ motion for leave to amend their complaint. View "Jibril v. Mayorkas" on Justia Law