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

Petitioners sought partial vacation of a final rule designating certain areas of nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter standard. Petitioners challenged the inclusion of parts of Tooele and Box Elder Counties within the Salt Lake City nonattainment area. The EPA concluded that emissions from eastern portions of both Box Elder County and Tooele County contributed to nearby violations of the 24-hour fine particulate matter. Because EPA's nine-factor test was intended to be applied on a case-by-case basis to account for diverse considerations, including the varying effects of local topography and meteorology on the 24-hour fine particulate matter dispersion, and EPA reasonably explained its designations, the court denied the petition for review. View "ATK Launch Systems, Inc. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Several company operators filed a complaint against petitioner with the FCC, which ruled that petitioner's increased pole attachment rates violated the Pole Attachment Act, 47 U.S.C. 224(d), and the FCC's implementing regulations. Petitioner now sought review of that order, arguing that the Act failed to provide for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment and that the FCC's decision was arbitrary and capricious, or was otherwise not supported by substantial evidence. The court found the doctrine of collateral estoppel a fatal bar to petitioner's assertion of the constitutional issue, and its remaining arguments unavailing. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Gulf Power Co. v. FCC, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant sued to recover $373.00 in expenses he incurred from the alleged unlawful levy of his social security benefits under 26 U.S.C. 7433. The district court concluded that appellant's suit was untimely because he did not bring suit within two years of when he had a "reasonable opportunity to discover all essential elements of a possible cause of action." The court agreed and affirmed, holding that the two-year statute of limitations on appellant's cause of action began to run no later than June 2005 after he received notice of the levy on his benefits. Because appellant did not sue until December 2008, more than three years after he received notice of the levy, his claim was time-barred. View "Keohane v. United States" on Justia Law

Appellants, as representatives of the estates of their deceased sons, brought this action against federal officials and employees in district court seeking money damages relating to the alleged mistreatment and eventual death of those sons while they were detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. The district court granted the motion of the United States to be substituted as defendant and the motion of the United States for dismissal of the claims. Because the court was satisfied that neither the district court nor this court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action due to the jurisdictional bar created by section 7(a) of the Military Commissions Act (MCA), 28 U.S.C. 2241(e), the court affirmed the judgment of dismissal, although on different grounds than those relied upon by the district court. The court held that the Supreme Court did not declare section 2241(e)(2) unconstitutional under Boumediene v. Bush and that provision retained vitality to bar those claims. Therefore, the decision of the district court dismissing the claims should be affirmed, although for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) rather than for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Al-Zahrani v. Rodriquez" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition with the court, purporting to challenge the NRC's decision to reinstate the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) construction permits for the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant. Petitioner stated that it was not challenging the NRC order, but rather, petitioner asserted that its petitions for review challenged only a compilation of "Response Sheets" filed by individual Commissioners in December 2008 and January 2009. Petitioner contended that this compilation of Commissioners' views resulted in a final order on January 27, 2009. Under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2342(4), the court had jurisdiction to review only "final orders" of the NRC. The court held that the petitions at issue did not seek review of final NRC orders and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed. View "Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. NRC, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal focused on two Decisions and Orders issued by the Board. Allied petitioned for review to challenge certain aspects of the Board's actions and the Board cross-petitioned for enforcement. The principal issue on appeal was whether the relationship between Allied and the Union - which had extended over two decades - was governed by section 8(f), 29 U.S.C. 158(f), or section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. The court held that substantial evidence in the record, reasoned decisionmaking, and established case law supported the Board's finding that Allied and the Union were parties to a 9(a) bargaining relationship. Therefore, the Board's decision was eminently reasonable. The court found no merit in Allied's petition for review and granted the Board's cross-petition for enforcement. View "Allied Mechanical Services, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Chapour Bakhtiar's family members, asserted that Iran was responsible for Bakhtiar's murder and filed suit in U.S. District Court against Iran and an Iranian government agency. Plaintiffs brought claims under California tort law. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1604, foreign nations were generally immune from suit in U.S. courts, but plaintiffs were able to maintain their case under the Act's exception for state-sponsored terrorism under section 1605(a)(7). At issue on appeal was whether plaintiffs could obtain punitive damages in their state-law tort suit against Iran without complying with the congressionally specified procedures for seeking punitive damages against a foreign nation. The court concluded that, for plaintiffs with suits pending against foreign nations as of January 28, 2008, Congress provided three options for obtaining the benefits of section 1605A and seeking punitive damages: a motion to convert the action, a refiling of the action or the filing of a related action. Because plaintiffs did not pursue any of these statutorily provided options, plaintiffs could not obtain punitive damages from Iran. The court considered all of plaintiffs' arguments and found them without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bakhtiar, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for charges related to a premeditated murder while armed. At issue was whether defendant's statements, which the government conceded the police obtained in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, were nonetheless admissible for purposes of impeachment should he testify at trial. The court held that the government met its burden in demonstrating that defendant's statements were voluntary where, although it was possible that the police could subtly overcome the will of a 33-year-old man even if he was provided water, had no apparent mental impairment, and generally answered questions intelligently, nothing in this case undermined the record evidence of voluntariness. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Murdock" on Justia Law

Braintree, and other municipally owned utilities in southeastern Massachusetts, petitioned for review of four orders of the Commission. The orders denied petitioners' claim that they were being unjustly charged in order to ensure system reliability on Cape Code. The dispute was first addressed in a FERC-approved settlement agreement that reserved certain litigation rights to the petitioners. Because the Commission reasonably resolved the claims that were reserved, and reasonably construed the settlement agreement to foreclose petitioners' additional claims, the court affirmed the Commission's orders and denied the petitions for review. View "Braintree Electric Light Dept., et al. v. FERC, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the Government, seeking to disclaim their legal entitlement to Medicare Part A benefits for hospitalization costs. Plaintiffs wanted to disclaim their legal entitlement to such benefits because their private insurers limited coverage for patients who were entitled to Medicare Part A benefits. Plaintiffs preferred to receive coverage from their private insurers rather than from the Government. The district court granted summary judgment for the Government because there was no statutory authority for those who were over 65 or older and receiving Social Security benefits to disclaim their legal entitlement to Medicare Part A benefits. The court understood plaintiffs' frustration with their insurance coverage. But based on the law, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hall, et al. v. Sebelius, et al." on Justia Law