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

The United States government thought that three banks, headquartered in China, held records that might clarify how North Korea finances its nuclear weapons program. After the government subpoenaed those records, the Banks resisted and claimed that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction, that the Patriot Act subpoena exceeded the government's statutory authority, and that compelling production would run afoul of comity principles. The district court overruled the Banks' objections and subsequently held the Banks in civil contempt for failing to produce the requested records.The DC Circuit affirmed the contempt orders, holding that the Banks' jurisdictional challenges were meritless where Banks One and Two consented to jurisdiction when they opened branches in the United States and, although Bank Three has no U.S. branch and executed no such agreement, its choice to maintain correspondent accounts in the United States established an adequate connection to the forum and the enforcement action to sustain jurisdiction.The court also held that records "related to" a U.S. correspondent account, under 31 U.SC. 5318(k)(3)(A)(i), include records of transactions that do not themselves pass through a correspondent account when those transactions are in service of an enterprise entirely dedicated to obtaining access to U.S. currency and markets using a U.S. correspondent account. In this case, Bank Three's subpoena under the Patriot Act did not exceed the Attorney General's statutory authority, because all records pertaining to the Company's Bank Three account and its correspondent banking transactions, no matter where they occurred, are "related to" the Bank's U.S. correspondent accounts.In regard to the Banks' comity concerns, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the subpoenas despite the fact that the United States chose not to pursue the process designated in the Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (MLAA) between the United States and China. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the civil contempt orders in light of the circumstances. View "In re: Sealed Case" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit denied petitions for review challenging the Commission's orders permitting Transcontinental Gas to move forward with a pipeline expansion called the Atlantic Sunrise Project. The court held that the administrative record foreclosed the Homeowners' and Environmental Associations' three arguments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the Commission's market-need determination did not violate the Natural Gas Act; and circuit precedent foreclosed the Environmental Associations' and Homeowners' argument that the Commission's authorization for construction to go forward while their rehearing petitions were still pending—and thus before the Commission's decision was final and judicially reviewable—denied them due process. View "Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC" on Justia Law

Exhaustless petitioned for review of the FAA's latest interim orders limiting the number of flights serving LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy Airports in New York and seeking implementation of Exhaustless's patent-pending product to manage the allocation of takeoff and landing slots to airlines.The DC Circuit dismissed the petitions based on lack of standing, holding that the company failed to demonstrate that vacating the interim FAA orders would redress its injury—i.e., a lack of market opportunity for its product. Furthermore, vacating the interim orders would leave takeoffs and landings at the airports unregulated, eliminating the need for the company's product at the federal level. To the extent that Exhaustless argued that the local airport authority could employ its product if there were no federal regulation, the court found any such possibility too speculative to support standing. View "Exhaustless Inc. v. FAA" on Justia Law

Defendant argued that the lag between his January 2017 arrest and his December 2017 revocation hearing violated both due process and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(1). The DC Circuit agreed with the government and held that defendant forfeited his right to appeal the district court's decision rejecting these claims by failing to object to the magistrate judge's adverse recommendation. Furthermore, because Rule 59(b)(2) was not cast in jurisdictional terms, the courts have discretion to excuse a waiver under the rule. In this case, the district court did not excuse his waiver and defendant's due process argument was without merit. Alternatively, the court declined to remand for an evidentiary hearing on two claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during the revocation proceedings. View "United States v. Islam" on Justia Law

ACLA filed suit alleging that the Secretary's final ruling implementing the Protecting Access to Medicare Act's (PAMA) definition of "applicable laboratory" unlawfully excluded most hospital laboratories from PAMA's reporting requirements. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As a preliminary matter, the DC Circuit held that ACLA had standing.In view of PAMA's text, its structure, and the distinct nature of the processes of data collection and establishment of payment rates, the court could not conclude that the bar against reviewing the "establishment of payment amounts" also prevents its review of the rule setting up a new and detailed process for collecting data on market rates that private insurers pay to laboratories. Because the statute is "reasonably susceptible" to this interpretation, the court held that it does not bar judicial review of the Secretary's rule establishing the parameters of data collection under 42 U.S.C. 1395m-1(a). Finally, the court rejected ACLA's claim that the Secretary's rule was ultra vires. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's holding on subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings. View "American Clinical Laboratory Assoc. v. Azar" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that DHS engaged in discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court granted summary judgment for DHS and denied plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings to allow for discovery.The DC Circuit held that the district court erroneously concluded that the evidence sought by plaintiff could not create a dispute of material fact as to whether DHS's proffered reasons for taking adverse action were pretextual. The court also held that summary judgment was inappropriate with respect to plaintiff's claim that her reassignment to the Resource Management Branch was retaliatory. However, summary judgment was appropriate with respect to DHS's initial decision to extend her detail, because plaintiff did not create a genuine dispute of material fact. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cruz v. McAleenan" on Justia Law

Appellant asked to proceed anonymously before the tax court when challenging the IRS's denial of his application for a whistleblower award, but the tax court denied the request.Determining that it had jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine, the DC Circuit held that the tax court abused its discretion because identifying the appellant was not necessary to enable the public to gauge the extent to which serial filers affect the work of the tax court or whether any particular petitioner was a serial filer. Accordingly, the court remanded for the tax court to reconsider whether appellant has otherwise made out a fact-specific basis for protecting his identity under Tax Court Rule 345(a). View "In re: Sealed Case" on Justia Law

After defendant filed an unopposed motion asking the district court to direct the probation officer to disclose the sentencing recommendation in his case, the district court denied the request pursuant to its policy of always treating the recommendations as confidential.The DC Circuit vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e)(3) requires a district court to exercise discretion in deciding whether to withhold the recommendation. In this case, the discretion must be based on case-specific reasoning rather than on a uniform policy. On remand, the district court must disclose the probation officer's sentencing recommendation unless it finds that case-specific reasons justify nondisclosure. View "United States v. McIlwain" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit denied a petition for review challenging the EPA's February 2018 decision not to issue financial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry. The court deferred to the EPA's interpretation that it should set financial responsibility regulations based on financial risks, not risks to health and the environment, because the use of "risk" in section 9608(b) in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), in the general mandate and amount clauses, was ambiguous and the EPA's interpretation was reasonable. Furthermore, nothing in section 9608(b) mandates the EPA to promulgate financial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry, authorizing the EPA to decline to do so.The court also held that the EPA's financial risk analysis and economic analysis were neither arbitrary nor capricious. Finally, under Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, the court held that the EPA's Final Action not to adopt financial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry constitutes a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule. View "Idaho Conservation League v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit denied a petition for review of the Board's findings, including the finding that Ingredion violated the National Labor Relations Act by dealing directly with employees and denigrating a union in the eyes of employees. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's factual finding that Ingredion engaged in direct dealing with employees; Ingredion misrepresented the union's position in a way that tended to cause employees to lose faith in the union; although the format of the new contract was a major issue, it did not create an overall impasse; Ingredion's delay in providing requested information was unreasonable; and Ingredion violated the Act when one of its managers made threats of job loss to employees. The court also held that Ingredion's contentions that the Board violated its due process rights and improperly imposed a notice-reading remedy lacked merit. In regard to the Board's remedial order, the court held that Ingredion was on notice and was therefore not denied due process. Furthermore, the Board had broad discretion in fashioning remedies for violations of the Act. View "NLRB v. Ingredion Inc." on Justia Law