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

HAI challenged the FAA's issuance of a rule requiring helicopter pilots to use a route one mile off the north shore of Long Island, New York for the purpose of noise abatement in residential areas. The court concluded that under the plain text of 49 U.S.C. 40103, the FAA had authority to prescribe air traffic regulations to protect individuals and property on the ground and HAI pointed to no express limitations on the FAA's general authority in such matters; HAI's contentions that the FAA's finding that there was noise problem was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record and that the Final Rule was an impermissible deviation from longstanding FAA authority; and the court rejected HAI's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court denied HAI's petition for review. View "Helicopter Assoc. Int'l v. FAA" on Justia Law

Environmental groups petitioned for review of the EPA's "Deferral Rule," which deferred regulation of biogenic carbon dioxide for three years. The EPA justified this Deferral Rule on the basis of the de minimis, one-step-at-a-time, and administrative necessity doctrine. Concluding that the dispute was ripe for review, the court rejected the EPA's use of the de minimus doctrine where EPA expressly disavowed this doctrine, explaining that the Deferral Rule had a three-year sunset provision whereas the de minimis doctrine was used to establish permanent exemptions; the EPA's invocation of the one-step-at-a-time doctrine was arbitrary and capricious where the EPA failed to explain in the Deferral Rule what "full compliance" with the "statutory mandate" means; the court rejected the administrative necessity doctrine where the EPA rejected a proposed middle-ground option; and the court rejected the absurd results doctrine that the EPA raised for the first time in its brief. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA" on Justia Law

Appellant, convicted of drug charges, appealed his sentence, claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The court need not decide whether the record before it was sufficient to resolve this claim because both parties agreed that it was not. Therefore, the court remanded for whatever proceedings were necessary to determine whether appellant was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, which could include an evidentiary hearing in the district court's discretion. The court rejected appellant's claims under the Fair Sentencing Act, Pub. L. No. 111-120, 124 Stat. 2372, as meritless where he was convicted a half year in advance of the Act's passage. View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Appellant traveled from South Korea to the United States and, while present in the United States, he gambled at slot machines frequently. The IRS contended that appellant must pay taxes on every winning pull at the slot machine and appellant disputed that interpretation pursuant to Tax Code 871, arguing that the IRS should calculate his winnings on at least a per-session basis. The court concluded that Section 871 allowed non-resident aliens, such as appellant, to calculate winnings or losses on a per-session basis. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the Tax Court and remanded to the Tax Court so the parties could determine the proper amount of appellant's tax liability. View "Park, et al. v. Commissioner of IRS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that the District police violated her common-law, statutory, and constitutional rights when they arrested her for disorderly conduct. The jury awarded her compensatory and punitive damages. The District and its officers appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of the radio log. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred by issuing a missing evidence instruction but that the error was not prejudicial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Huthnance v. District of Columbia, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant fled to the United States after a Hong Kong magistrate issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of smuggling, evasion of customs duties, bribery, conspiracy to defraud, and money laundering. On appeal, appellant challenged the district court's grant of an application under 28 U.S.C. 2467(d)(3) for a restraining order to preserve appellant's assets. The court concluded that the district court's restraining order was issued in a manner consistent with the procedural due process protections of 18 U.S.C. 983(j)(1)(A) where the applicable foreign criminal or forfeiture proceedings in this case afforded protections consistent with those afforded by the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint in the United States. The court need not decide whether all of those proceedings were required, or whether fewer or different proceedings would have sufficed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the proceedings appellant was afforded was sufficient to satisfy the mandate of section 2467(d)(3). View "Luan, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law

After defendant was charged with drug-related offenses, the Government committed a series of disclosure violations leading to, and then extending beyond, the district court's declaration of a mistrial based upon such violations. Before retrial, the prosecutor belatedly disclosed more information that defendant had subpoenaed before the first trial. Defendant argued that he would have seen the first trial through to a verdict but for the Government's latest disclosure violation. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment under the Double Jeopardy Clause but the district court denied the motion. The court affirmed, concluding that retrial was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the prosecutor's several violations were unintentional. View "United States v. McCallum" on Justia Law

In two unconsolidated cases, UBCJA and SWRCC (collectively, Carpenters) appealed the district court's confirmation of two arbitration awards in favor of Plasterers. The court concluded that these cases were not moot because future arbitrable jurisdictional disputes raising the same legal issue seem reasonably likely to occur; in Case No. 11-7161, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying briefing and argument on the timing issue; in Case No. 11-7155, the district court correctly declined to give Jordan Interiors I estoppel effect in Frye; and, on the merits, the court rejected Carpenters' challenges to the arbitrators' authority to enter their respective awards. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grants of summary judgment to the Plasterers, thereby confirming the arbitrators' awards in their favor. View "United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' Int'l Ass'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit after the WMATA bus that she was riding in collided with a car, causing her a variety of injuries. At issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in instructing the jury that it must treat the bus driver's violations of two District of Columbia traffic regulations as negligence per se rather than as evidence of negligence. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding that it was error to give a negligence per se instruction, but that the error did not warrant reversal because it did not affect the outcome of the trial. Giving a negligence per se instruction with respect to a statute or regulation that merely restated the common law standard was redundant rather than harmful. View "Sibert-Dean v. WMATA" on Justia Law

Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 49 U.S.C. 24101, empowers Amtrak and the FRA to jointly develop performance measures to enhance enforcement of the statutory priority Amtrak's passenger rail service has over trains. AAR challenged the statutory scheme as unconstitutional. The court concluded that section 207 impermissibly delegated regulatory authority to Amtrak. The court need not reach AAR's separate argument that Amtrak's involvement in developing the metrics and standards deprived its members of due process. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Assoc. of American Railroads v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., et al." on Justia Law