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

Petitioners, detainees who have been cleared for release but remain held at Guantanamo Bay, engaged in a hunger strike unless and until they were released. The government subsequently instituted a force-feeding protocol. Petitioners invoked the district court's habeas jurisdiction and moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the authorities from force-feeding them. Two district courts denied petitioners' request, concluding that the Military Commissions Act (MCA), Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600, stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to consider such challenges brought by Guantanamo detainees. The court concluded that, under the law of this circuit, petitioners' challenges to the conditions of their confinement properly sounded in habeas corpus and were not barred by the MCA. The court concluded, however, that petitioners failed to establish their entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district courts' denials of petitioners' applications for a preliminary injunction. View "Aamer, et al. v. Obama, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging the refusal of the Board of Correction of Naval Records to amend certain of her fitness reports. The court concluded that the decision of the Board was neither arbitrary nor capricious nor unsupported by substantial evidence, in contravention of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A); even if the court were to assume that plaintiff asked for and was denied counseling, such deprivation would not violate her due process rights; because plaintiff failed to demonstrate discriminatory intent, her equal protection claim also failed. Accordingly, the court held that the Board's denial of plaintiff's petition to correct her military records was neither arbitrary nor capricious and that her constitutional challenges were without merit. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Roberts v. United States, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant was detained at Guantanamo Bay for seven years as an enemy combatant. After the Supreme Court decided that Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to challenge the basis of their detentions in Boumediene v. Bush, the district court granted appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The United States released appellant and he filed a complaint a year later, seeking to recover injuries sustained during his detention. At issue was whether the district court has jurisdiction over appellant's claims. The court held that 28 U.S.C. 2241(e)(2) barred claims brought on behalf of aliens determined by Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) to have been properly detained. The court also concluded that the application of section 2241(e)(2) to appellant was constitutional. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of appellant's claims because Congress has denied the district court jurisdiction to entertain his claims under section 2241(e)(2). View "Janko v. Gates, et al." on Justia Law

Chaplains in the Navy who identified themselves as non-liturgical Christians and two chaplain-endorsing agencies filed suit claiming, inter alia, that several of the Navy's policies for promoting chaplains prefer Catholics and liturgical Protestants at the expense of various non-liturgical denominations. At issue on review was the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the Navy's use of the challenged practices. Given facially neutral policies and no showing of intent to discriminate, the chaplains' equal protection attack on the Navy's specific policies could succeed only with an argument that there was an intent to discriminate or that the policies lacked a rational basis. Because the chaplains attempted no such arguments, the court agreed with the district court that they have not shown the requisite likelihood for success. As to the Establishment Clause, the chaplains have not shown a likelihood of success under any test that they have asked the court to apply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "In re: Navy Chaplaincy, et al. v. United States Navy, et al." on Justia Law

In these three appeals, enemy combatants held by the United States at Bagram Airfield Military Base in northwest Afghanistan sought access to the writ of habeas corpus. Over three years ago, the court concluded that enemy combatants held at Bagram could not invoke the Suspension Clause to challenge their detentions. In these appeals, the court dismissed the petitions for want of jurisdiction where, because the Suspension Clause did not run to Bagram, section 7 of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600, did not effect any unconstitutional suspension of the writ. The court remanded Hamidullah's petition to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether he is in the sole custody of the government of Pakistan. View "Maqaleh, et al. v. Panetta, et al." on Justia Law

Abdul Razak Ali was captured in 2002 by U.S. and Pakistani forces and detained as an enemy combatant. When captured at a guesthouse in Pakistan, Ali was with an al Qaeda-associated terrorist leader named Abu Zubaydah. Ali subsequently challenged the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Based on Ali's presence at the guesthouse with Abu Zubaydah, his participation in Abu Zubaydah's training program, his admission to traveling to Afghanistan to fight in the war against U.S. and Coalition forces, and other evidence connecting Ali to Abu Zubaydah fighters, the district court concluded that it was more probable than not that Ali was in fact a member of Abu Zubaydah's force. The court concluded that the facts justify the President's decision to detain Ali as an enemy combatant under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Pub. L. No. 107-40, section 2(a), 115 Stat. 224. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Ali's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. View "Ali v. Obama, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force seeking, inter alia, correction of his military records to reflect promotion to major general, along with active duty back pay and retired pay. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346, vests district courts with concurrent jurisdiction for civil actions or claims against the United States, not exceeding $10,000 in amount, founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress. Because the jurisdiction of the district court was based, at least in part, on the Little Tucker Act, the court concluded that the Federal Circuit possessed exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal and transferred the appeal to that court. View "Schwalier v. Hagel, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an attorney, filed suit against the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Navy and others, alleging violation of his constitutional rights in an administrative decision which suspended him from practice before naval courts. The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from plaintiff's filing of an appellate brief containing statements he knew were false and misleading. The court concluded that the district court did not err in holding that the Navy JAG had authority to discipline plaintiff; plaintiff received ample due process and his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated during the proceedings against him; and the record did not support plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551, 701, and 706, claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims and denied his request for mandamus review. View "Partington v. Houck, et al." on Justia Law

Appellants - AFGE, several AFGE locals that represent Air Reserve Technicians (ARTs), and ART Mark Winstead - challenged three Air Force instructions requiring ARTs to wear military uniforms while performing civilian duties. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 5 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal because the exclusive remedial scheme of the CSRA precluded AFGE's claims. View "American Federation of Government Employees, et al v. Secretary of the Air Force" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request for records held by the CIA pertaining to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) to carry out targeted killings. The district court affirmed the CIA's Glomar response, concluding that a response refusing to confirm or deny that the CIA had such records was justified under the circumstances of this case. The court concluded that it was not "logical or plausible" for the CIA to contend that it would reveal something not already officially acknowledged to say that the CIA "at least has an intelligence interest" in such strikes. The court held that the CIA's broad Glomar response was untenable and therefore, the court reversed the district court's judgment dismissing plaintiffs' FOIA action and remanded for further proceedings. View "American Civil Liberties Union, et al v. CIA" on Justia Law