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

Petitioner, a Guantanamo Bay detainee, raised two challenges to the constitutionality of the United States Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR). The court held that petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief because this Court can consider his Appointments Clause and Commander-in-Chief Clause challenges on direct appeal, after the military commission renders a final judgment and the convening authority and the CMCR review it. Further, petitioner failed to demonstrate a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ. Therefore, the court denied petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition. View "In re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir" on Justia Law

After Abu Wa’el (Jihad) Dhiab, a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, went on a hunger strike, he was forcibly extracted from his cell and force-fed. The district court examined 32 classified videotapes of Dhiab's forcible cell extractions and force-feedings in order to grant Dhiab's motion to enjoin the government from forcibly extracting him from his cell and force-feeding him. At issue is the district court's grant of media organizations' motion to unseal and release the videotapes. The court concluded that, the district court’s decision did not terminate the action, and it does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction. Further, this case does not present the extraordinary circumstances required for mandamus relief. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied the request for a writ of mandamus View "Dhiab v. Obama" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs worked in the State Department as Diplomatic Security Special Agents and volunteered to serve one-year in Iraq. They arrived in Iraq in February 2004. Initially, their permanent duty station was in Washington, D.C., so they received “locality pay” in addition to base salary intended to equalize federal employees’ compensation with that of non-federal workers in the same geographic area, 5 U.S.C. 5301, 5304. Months later, their permanent duty station changed to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and they no longer received locality pay. Plaintiffs also received compensation for a significant number of overtime hours. In 2005, they returned to the U.S. After the Office of Personnel Management’s new regulations took effect, the plaintiffs received notices of a review of premium pay earnings involving Iraq, that “the rate of the annual premium pay cap that applies to you is $128,200,” that earnings to date “have already or will shortly put you above the cap for the current pay year,” and that the Department would seek collection of any overpayments. Each later received a letter requiring repayment of from $435.94 to $10,514.98. The D.C. Circuit held that the Department permissibly construed the statute and did not act arbitrarily in denying a discretionary waiver of the obligation to repay. View "Lubow v. Dep't of State" on Justia Law

Haselwander, an Army veteran, served in Vietnam and was honorably discharged in 1974. During his tour of duty Haselwander was wounded and knocked unconscious when an enemy rocket exploded near his sleeping quarters. He was picked up by medical personnel and treated for shrapnel wounds. He was called back to duty as soon as he had been bandaged. Those who treated his wounds never had a chance to complete paperwork, so Army records do not show that he was wounded in hostile action. In 2007, Haselwander sought to correct his records so that he could receive the Purple Heart, which is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces who is wounded or killed in action. Haselwander provided corroborative references and photographs, showing him with bandages on his face and shoulder and wearing a dispensary-issued scrub top. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records rejected the application, stating that Haselwander failed to show that he had been “treated for a wound that was sustained as the result of enemy action.” Haselwander unsuccessfully sought reconsideration, including a letter from another veteran who was wounded and treated at the same time and official Brigade and Platoon reports, detailing events on the day he was wounded. The district court affirmed. The D.C. Circuit reversed, stating that the: “Board’s decision defies reason and is devoid of any evidentiary support.” View "Haselwander v. McHugh" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from events surrounding six individuals formerly detained at Guantanamo Bay. At issue was whether the detainees cleared by a military tribunal but nevertheless subjected to continued detention and allegedly abusive treatment have sufficiently alleged that those authorizing and supervising their detention acted outside the scope of their employment. The actions at issue can be divided into two categories: (1) the continued detention of plaintiffs post- Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) clearance, and (2) all acts attendant to that continued detention that occurred during the post-clearance period. The court concluded that claims in both categories, as pled, failed to support the conclusion that defendants acted outside the scope of their employment. Accordingly, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.View "Allaithi v.Rumsfeld, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Guantanamo detainees, filed suit challenging two new policies that they claimed place an undue burden on their ability to meet with their lawyers. The first challenged policy concerns where the detainees may meet with their lawyers. The second challenged policy involves the search the detainees must undergo when meeting with their lawyers. The court concluded that administering a more thorough search in connection with attorney visits as well as with any other detainee movements or meetings is a reasonable response to a serious threat to security at Guantanamo. The court also concluded that it is reasonable to require that all meetings between detainees and their visitors, including counsel, take place in Camp Echo, which requires fewer guards than the housing camps. Further, the new policies are reasonable under the remaining factors of the Turner v. Safley test. The tenuous evidence of an improper motive to obstruct access to counsel in this case cannot overcome the legitimate, rational connection between the security needs of Guantanamo Bay and thorough searches of detainees. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Hatim, et al. v. Obama, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant, a retired officer of the Navy Reserve, seeks to correct his military record to reflect that he was retired by reason of physical disability. When appellant was discharged from the Selected Reserve and transferred to the Retired Reserve, he was found "Not Physically Qualified" to continue service. Appellant argued, inter alia, that he should have been given a physical disability retirement due to his psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. The district court dismissed the action because it was barred by an earlier CFC dismissal under the doctrine of res judicata. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims challenging his 1996 discharge from active duty, his 2002 discharge from the Selected Reserve, and the BCNR decisions issued between 2000 and 2002, because those claims were barred by the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., statute of limitations. However, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of appellant's challenges to the 2006 and 2007 BCNR decisions and remanded for further proceedings. Res judicata did not bar appellant's suit because the CFC dismissal did not constitute a final, valid judgment on the merits. View "Havens v. Mabus, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current and former members of the Navy and Marine Corps, filed suit against senior officials in the military and the Department of Defense, alleging that they were raped, sexually assaulted, or sexually harassed by their fellow Sailors and Marines, only to suffer retaliation from their superiors for reporting their plight. The Supreme Court has held that military officials are not subject to personal liability under the Constitution for their management decisions, including the choices they make about the discipline, supervision, and control of servicemembers. The court joined the Fourth Circuit in concluding that no Bivens remedy is available in this instance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit. View "Klay, et al. v. Panetta, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant, a Marine Corps. veteran who was honorably discharged, sought review of the BCNR's denial of an increase in appellant's disability rating. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal where the only claim ever properly placed at issue before the district court was rendered moot by a stipulated remand to the BCNR. The court did not reach the other issues briefed on appeal. View "Schmidt v. United States" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from an employment discrimination suit filed by appellant against the Navy. The Navy subsequently offered a stipulation of Settlement (the "Agreement"). After concluding that specific performance of the Agreement was no longer practicable, appellant sought nearly a million dollars in damages and attorney's fees. The court held that a settlement agreement embodied in a consent decree was a contract under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), and transferred the case to the Court of Federal Claims. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order dismissing the motion to enforce and remanded with instructions to transfer to the Court of Federal Claims. View "Franklin-Mason v. Mabus, Jr." on Justia Law