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

Plaintiff filed suit against the DOJ for violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, in an action seeking records from the FBI relating to a deceased Internet activist. The court held that the FBI met its burden to demonstrate that its withholdings and redactions were justified under the FOIA exemptions and therefore affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the DOJ as to that issue. However, as to the adequacy of the FBI's search, the court remanded for any further proceedings with respect to the records from FBI case identification number 315T-HQ-C1475879-IP, serial 91. In this case, the FBI released a redacted version of Serial 91 to plaintiff following oral arguments. View "Shapiro v. DOJ" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to police officers in an action alleging that they violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him without probable cause and using excessive force to subdue him. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim of an unlawful arrest because the officers could have reasonably believed plaintiff was intoxicated and posed a danger to himself or others. Therefore, the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff. The court also held that plaintiff's contention that one of the officers intended to slam plaintiff's head into the bar window when executing a takedown was not supported by the record and the takedown maneuver used by the officer did not violate clearly established law. Therefore, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. View "Hedgpeth v. Rahim" on Justia Law

Proctor, a cocaine user and informant, told the Metropolitan Police Department that a"Boo" was selling crack cocaine in Lincoln Heights. The cell-phone number Proctor provided belonged to Haight. Shown a photograph Proctor said, “That’s Boo.” After Proctor made three controlled purchases of cocaine, officers executed a warrant at the apartment where Boo sold the cocaine. Officer Clifford, outside the building, saw two men jump from a window and run; he later testified that he was “90 percent” sure that one was Haight. Ferguson, who lived in the apartment, eventually testified that Haight used his apartment to process and sell crack cocaine. Officers searched Ferguson’s apartment and found drugs, a loaded handgun, cash, and a cell phone with a picture of Haight on its home screen. A bedroom window screen had been pushed out. Weeks later, the police arrested Haight. While staking out Haight’s apartment building, officers searched a backpack carried by Haight’s girlfriend as she left the building. It contained several pounds of marijuana, Haight’s employment documents, and writings that expressed Haight’s desire to deal drugs. After securing a warrant, the police searched Haight’s apartment and found another gun. Convicted on six counts,Haight was sentenced to 150 months in prison. The D.C. Circuit affirmed Haight’s conviction, upholding the district court’s refusal to postpone his trial and evidentiary rulings, but remanded an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Vacating his sentence, the court found that Haight was subject to a 15-year mandatory-minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act because of three prior convictions for violent felonies and serious drug offenses. View "United States v. Haight" on Justia Law

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order 1000 encourages the development of “interregional” electricity transmission projects, calling for regional providers to jointly evaluate interregional projects. Poviders must adopt cost-allocation methodologies for dividing up the costs of a joint project to assure that the relative costs borne by a particular transmission provider be commensurate with the relative benefits gained by the provider. MISO, which operates transmission facilities on behalf of providers across 15 midwestern states, proposed to conduct cost allocation for interregional projects using a “cost-avoidance” method. The share of costs allocated to MISO under that method corresponds to the benefits to MISO of its regional projects that would be displaced by the interregional project. In identifying which regional projects should be regarded as displaced, MISO proposed to exclude any project that had already been approved by the MISO board. The Commission rejected MISO’s cost-allocation approach, reasoning that excluding approved regional projects would fail to account for the full potential benefits of an interregional project. The D.C. Circuit denied a petition for review. Although MISO had standing and its claims were ripe, one claim was not properly presented to the agency in a request for rehearing. On the merits of the other claims, the court held that the Commission adequately responded to concerns about the possible effects of including approved regional projects in the cost-allocation calculation. View "Ameren Services Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that certain documents subpoenaed by the FTC were covered by the attorney-client privilege. The court held that obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes of the communications at issue. In this case, the relevant communications consisted primarily of the transmission of factual information from Boehringer's employees to the general counsel, at the general counsel's request, for the purpose of assisting the general counsel in formulating her legal advice regarding a possible settlement. Other communications were between the general counsel and the corporation's executives regarding the settlement. Therefore, all of the communications were protected by the attorney-client privilege. View "FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law

The DC Circuit granted Verizon's petition for review of the Board's decision affirming the ALJ's finding that Verizon’s discharge of an employee for lying during an investigation was a pretext to rid the company of a prominent union supporter. The court held that there was insufficient probative evidence to support a finding of anti-union animus. In this case, it was not unlawful for Verizon to consider the collateral consequences of its personnel decisions, and there was no evidence that the employee's union activity played a role in her termination. Furthermore, the court rejected the ALJ and Board's alternative finding that even if the employee did lie, it was within the context of an inquiry into protected activity, and therefore she was immune. View "Cellco Partnership v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit claiming that the Secretary's failure to supplement the Federal Coal Management Program's programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) violated both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the Secretary's motion to dismiss, holding that neither NEPA nor the APA required the Secretary to update the PEIS for the Program. Accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to compel the Secretary to update the PEIS. View "Western Organization of Resource Councils v. Zinke" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit dismissed EPIC's petition for review of the FAA's rule promulgated under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, in which Congress directed the Secretary to consider whether certain small unmanned aircraft systems (drones) could be safely integrated into the national airspace and to establish requirements ensuring their safe operation. The court did not reach the merits of the complaint and held that EPIC failed to establish standing. In this case, because EPIC could not meet its burden to show that at least one of its members suffered the requisite injury for standing, its claim of associational standing failed. Furthermore, EPIC submitted no affidavits in support of its standing as an organization but, instead, presented only vague assertions in its brief. View "Electronic Privacy Information Center v. FAA" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). Although the district court concluded defendant was eligible to have his sentence reduced, it denied the motion after considering defendant's leadership role in the drug conspiracies, the large scale of the narcotics distribution operation, the purity of the narcotics involved, and that the sentence was determined upon applying a variance. The court held that the district court did not err procedurally or abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to reduce his sentence. View "United States v. Galaviz" on Justia Law

Petitioners, CREW and its executive director, filed suit alleging that the Commission acted "contrary to law" in 2015 when it dismissed their administrative complaint against an unincorporated association. On appeal, CREW raised the judicial review provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The DC Circuit affirmed, holding that the Commission's dismissal of the complaint constituted the "agency action" supporting the district court's jurisdiction. In this case, the district court held that the Commission's explanation of its failure to prosecute was a rational exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The court dismissed CREW's arguments to the contrary. The court addressed remaining issues and the dissent's position before affirming the judgment. View "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC" on Justia Law