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

Plaintiffs, dog breeders and dealers in Missouri, challenged the Department's decision to release information in their annual reports relating to their gross revenue and business volume. Plaintiffs contended that the information requested by the Human Society under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, was covered by Exemptions 4 and 6. The court concluded that the Department's Exemption 4 conclusion was not arbitrary or capricious where the Department determined that Exemption 4 did not apply because the information at issue was unlikely to cause substantial competitive harm to plaintiffs. Further, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Department's conclusion that Exemption 6 did not apply to the information at issue was arbitrary and capricious. The Department concluded that the public's interest in the activities of the Department outweighed the negligible privacy interest in the number of animals bought and sold and the minimal privacy interest in the gross dollars earned from regulated activities and the dollars upon which the fee was based. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the Department and the Humane Society. View "Jurewicz, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture & Humane Society" on Justia Law

In 2008, Defendants Wyche and Smith moved for sentence reductions after amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines lowered the sentencing ranges for cocaine base crimes. The district court granted Smith's motion but did not then rule on Wyche's motion. In 2011, Wyche and Smith filed resentencing motions after the Sentencing Commission again lowered the sentencing ranges for cocaine base offenses. The district court denied Smith's most recent resentencing motion and both of Wyche's motions. Because Wyche's pre-2011 amendment total offense level was 41, his total offense level and guideline range under the 2011 amendment would in fact increase, thereby precluding relief under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Because the record reflected that the 2012 district court's calculation of 8.4 kilograms was not clearly erroneous, a quantity finding greater than 840 grams of cocaine base was not clearly erroneous either. And because Smith was not eligible for a second sentence reduction, the 2012 district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgments. View "United States v. Wyche" on Justia Law

Lilliputian, manufacturer of micro fuel cells powered by butane, challenged the prohibition in a final rule against airline passengers and crew carrying butane fuel cell cartridges in their checked baggage. Lilliputian argued that the final rule was arbitrary and capricious in light of the dissimilar treatment of other products that were not subject to the rigorous safety specifications imposed on fuel cell cartridges. The court concluded that the Safety Administration failed to provide the required "reasoned explanation and substantial evidence" for the disparate treatment. Accordingly, the court remanded for the Safety Administration to provide further explanation for the prohibition, including its response to Lilliputian's comments. View "Lilliputian Sys., Inc. v. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Admin." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the FDIC's repudiation of a residential construction loan agreement relieved them of any obligation to continue making loan payments. The FDIC then assigned its interest in the loan to Multibank and plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Multibank as a defendant. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claim against Multibank for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claim was subject to the administrative exhaustion requirements pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183. View "Westberg, et al. v. FDIC, et al." on Justia Law

BNSF petitioned for review of the Board's decision to adhere to a revenue-allocation methodology, known as Modified ATC, in determining that the rates BNSF charged WFA were unreasonably high. In 2010, the court remanded the case to the Board so that it could address one of BNSF's objections to Modified ATC in the first instance. On remand, the Board concluded that portions of BNSF's arbitrary challenge fell outside the scope of the case given the specificity of the court's 2010 remand. The court concluded that the Board erred in its failure to address BNSF's proportionality challenge on remand. Because the court never actually resolved BNSF's arbitrary and capricious challenge to Modified ATC, the court granted the petition, vacated the Board's decision, and again remanded the case to the Board. View "BNSF Railway Co. v. STB, et al." on Justia Law

In 2007, the Secretary revamped Medicare's Inpatient Prospective Payment System, updating the diagnostic weighting used to calculate reimbursements for hospitals treating the program's beneficiaries. Plaintiffs sought review of the Secretary's decision regarding a downward prospective adjustment for hospital-specific rate payments. The district court concluded that the statutory scheme was ambiguous and deferred to the Secretary's reasonable interpretation of the adjustment provisions. Applying Chevron deference, the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the statutory scheme was ambiguous and unclear. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Adirondack Medical Center, et al. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Appellant, a federal death row inmate, moved to intervene in this lawsuit, which challenged the government's method of carrying out lethal injections and its failure to disclose its execution procedures. The district court denied the motion. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that the this suit still presents a live controversy and was, therefore, not moot. The court also concluded that appellant's intervention was timely. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, directing the district court to grant appellant's motion to intervene as of right where granting the intervention was highly unlikely to disadvantage the existing parties. View "Roane, et al. v. Tandy, 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

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