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

Petitioners challenged the FAA's no hazard determinations in 2012 for proposed wind turbines in Nantucket Sound. The court concluded that the FAA could reasonably view its Handbook procedures implementing the Secretary's regulations to establish a threshold finding necessary to trigger a further "adverse effects" analysis; given the record evidence and the level of FAA expertise involved in drawing factual conclusions from the reports, conducting the aeronautical study, and responding to comments, petitioners failed to show that the FAA findings were unsupported by substantial evidence; and petitioners' contention that the FAA was required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332, to perform or participate in an analysis of the environmental impacts of its no hazard determinations was based on a flawed premise. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Town of Barnstable, MA v. FAA" on Justia Law

PEER sought records under the Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. 552, related to two dams located on the border between the United States and Mexico. PEER first argued that it was entitled to the expert report on structural deficiencies in Amistad Dam and the U.S. Section asserted Exemption 5, which covers inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters. The court vacated the district court's judgment as to Exemption 5 and the expert report and remanded for the district court to determine whether officials of the Mexican agency assisted in preparing the expert report. The court concluded that the emergency action plans and the inundation maps readily satisfy Exemption 7's threshold "complied for law enforcement purposes" requirement where disclosure of the emergency action plans would risk circumvention of the law and where U.S. Section has connected the release of the inundation maps to a reasonable threat of harm to the population downstream of the dams. Therefore, the plans fell within Exemption 7(E) and the maps fell within Exemption 7(F). Accordingly, the court affirmed with respect to its holding on Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F). View "Public Employees. v. U.S. Section, Intl. Boundary & Water Comm'n" on Justia Law

Oklahoma petitioned for review of the EPA's final rule establishing a federal implementation plan for the attainment of national air quality standards in "Indian country." The court held that a state has regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., over all land within its territory and outside the boundaries of an Indian reservation except insofar as an Indian tribe or the EPA has demonstrated a tribe has jurisdiction. In this instance, the EPA was without authority to displace Oklahoma's state implementation plan on non-reservation Indian country where the agency requires a tribe to show it has jurisdiction before regulating Indian country outside a reservation, yet made no demonstration of tribal jurisdiction before itself regulating those areas. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and vacated the Rule with respect to non-reservation lands. View "OK Dept. Environmetal Quality v. EPA" on Justia Law

Appellants, federally registered lobbyists, wishing appointment to one type of advisory committee, the Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs), challenged the constitutionality of the presidential ban on federally registered lobbyists from serving on advisory committees. Appellants alleged that the government has conditioned their eligibility for the valuable benefit of ITAC membership on their willingness to limit their First Amendment right to petition government. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court concluded, however, that appellants have pled a viable First Amendment unconstitutional conditions claim. The court remanded for the district court to develop the factual record and to undertake the Pickering v. Board of Education analysis in the first instance. The district court must determine whether the government's interest in excluding federally registered lobbyists from ITACs outweighed any impingement on appellants' constitutional rights. View "Autor, et al. v. Pritzker, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose after the IRS Office of Chief Counsel and the National Treasury Employees Union renegotiated their collective bargaining agreement. At issue on appeal was the Authority's interpretation of section 7106 of the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. When an agency asserts that a contract provision falls outside section 7106(b)(3)'s exception to section 7106(a), whether the question concerns the agency's duty to bargain, or the provision's consistency with law, the underlying issue is precisely the same: does the provision represent a appropriate arrangement. In applying two different standards in these contexts, the court concluded that the Authority set forth two inconsistent interpretations of the very same statutory term. Therefore, the Authority acted arbitrarily and capriciously and, therefore, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "U.S. Dept. of the Treasury v. FLRA" on Justia Law

EFF appealed the district court's denial of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., request for disclosure of a legal opinion prepared for the FBI by the OLC. The court held that the opinion, which was requested by the FBI in response to the OIG's investigation into its information-gathering techniques, was protected by the deliberative process privilege; the FBI did not adopt the opinion and thereby waive the deliberative process privilege; and because the entire opinion was exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege, the court need not decide whether particular sections were properly withheld as classified or whether some material was reasonably segregable from the material properly withheld. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Electronic Frontier Found. v. Dept. of Justice" on Justia Law

ATRA petitioned for review, challenging revisions made by OSHA to the wording of a paragraph (a)(2) of OSHA's hazard communication (HazCom) standard, 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200. HazCom establishes labeling requirements for chemicals used in the workplace. The changes reflect the agency's view that HazCom preempts state legislative and regulatory requirements, but not state tort claims. The court rejected ATRA's arguments under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 651-678, concluding that OSHA has no authority to speak with the force of law on preemption and the agency never meant for the disputed paragraph to have the effect of a legislative rule. Because Paragraph (a)(2) is merely interpretive, it is not subject to notice and comment rulemaking and was not subject to judicial review. Accordingly, ATRA's challenge was unripe for review. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "American Tort Reform Assoc. v. OSHA, et al." on Justia Law

In 2007, the FCC promulgated a rule requiring "hybrid" cable companies to "downconvert" from digital to analog broadcast signals from must-carry stations for subscribers with analog television sets. In 2012, the FCC allowed the downconversion requirement to expire and promulgated a new rule that allowed cable operators to provide conversion equipment to analog customers, either for free or at an affordable cost (Sunset Order). Petitioners, a group of must-carry broadcasters, sought review of the Sunset Order, arguing that the FCC's new rule could not be squared with Congress's mandate that must-carry broadcast signals "shall be viewable via cable on all television receivers of a subscriber which are connected to a cable system" pursuant to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the Cable Act), 47 U.S.C. 534(b)(7). The court concluded that petitioners' claims lack merit. The FCC's 2007 rule was not mandated by the statute. Rather, the rule was promulgated by the Commission as a stopgap measure. Since 2007, the telecommunications market has changed dramatically. Petitioners' argument effectively freezes time in the face of shifting technology and finds no support in the law. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Agape Church, Inc, et al. v. FCC, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, WildEarth and others, challenged the BLM's decision to approve the West Antelope II tracts for lease in the Wyoming Powder River Basin. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding that plaintiffs lacked standing to raise one of their arguments and that their remaining arguments failed on the merits. The court concluded, however, that plaintiffs adequately raised their theory of procedural injury below and therefore had standing to challenge each of the alleged deficiencies in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). On the merits, the court concluded that the BLM satisfied its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., in considering climate change and that the BLM satisfied its obligations under NEPA in considering the effect the lease developments would have on local ozone levels. The court considered and rejected plaintiffs' remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "WildEarth Guardians, et al. v. Salazar, et al." on Justia Law

The BOP challenged a decision and order of the Authority regarding United States Penitentiary I, a high security facility in Coleman, Florida. The Authority held that BOP was required to bargain with the Union over two proposals relating to BOP's installation of two metal detectors in the compound through which prisoners must pass to enter or exit the recreation yard. The court denied the BOP's motion to dismiss on grounds of mootness and its motion to vacate the Authority's decision and order. The court granted the Authority's cross-petition to enforce its decision and order regarding Proposal 1, and granted BOP's petition to vacate the Authority's decision and order regarding the third sentence in Proposal 2. The court remanded to the Authority to allow it to determine whether, in light of the changed circumstances occasioned by the changed use of the metal detectors, the order to bargain over Proposal 1 should be revised. View "U.S. DOJ v. FLRA" on Justia Law