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

The DC Circuit denied a petition for review of the Secretary of Transportation's award of a foreign air carrier permit to Norwegian Air International Limited. Petitioners, four airline-employee unions, argued that the airline's business model and labor practices were not in the public interest. The court held that the unions have Article III standing to challenge the Secretary's decision. The court held, on the merits, that their petition failed because neither federal law nor international agreement required the Secretary to deny a permit on freestanding public-interest grounds where, as here, an applicant satisfied the requirements for obtaining a permit. View "Air Line Pilots Association v. Chao" on Justia Law

Appellee, a United States citizen who has been detained by the United States military in Iraq for several months, sought release from military custody in a habeas corpus action. While the habeas petition remained pending, appellee argued that the government could not forcibly -- and irrevocably -- transfer him to the custody of another country. The DC Circuit sustained the district court's two orders: the first requiring the government to give 72 hours' notice before transferring appellee to the custody of another country; and the second enjoining the government from effecting a transfer to another country after the government reached an agreement with that country to transfer appellee to its custody. The court held that the government did not possess the authority to forcibly transfer a U.S. citizen to a different foreign country than the one in which she is already present nor to forcibly transfer as long as the receiving country has some legitimate sovereign interest in her (whether or not related to criminal prosecution). View "Doe v. James Mattis" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit denied a petition for review of the Board's finding that Local 58's policy on resignation and revocation of dues-deduction authorization was an unlawful restriction on its members' statutory rights. Rather, the court held that the Board's determination that Local 58's policy unlawfully restricted its members' rights was reasonable, in part because the Board reaffirmed that all procedural requirements were not barred. The court held that where the Board reasonably construed its precedents in concluding that Local 58's policy restricted members' rights to resign, it was not required under Scofield v. NLRB, 394 U.S. 423, 429 (1969), to weigh Local 58's interest. View "Local 58 v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit denied StaffCo's petition for review of the Board's order finding that it violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by unilaterally discontinuing contributions to a Union pension plan upon the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. The court rejected StaffCo's defense that the Union expressly waived its right to bargain as to pension contributions, the Union impliedly waived its right to bargain by failing to diligently request bargaining; and it was impossible for StaffCo to continue making contributions because the pension plan would not have accepted the payments. Rather, the court held that the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence where StaffCo did not deny that by failing to make pension contributions, it failed to meet its status quo obligations. View "StaffCo of Brooklyn, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Company petitioned for partial review of the Board's finding that it violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. At issue was whether the Board's finding that a dancer was discharged for engaging in protected concerted activity was supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. The DC Circuit held that, based on the current record, how the Board reconciled its conclusion on pretext and the credibility finding was unclear. Accordingly, the court remanded for clarification by the Board of its treatment of the ALJ's credibility finding and the Company's evidence that the contract decisions were non-pretextual. The court otherwise denied the petition for review save for the issues the Board requested to be remanded. View "David Saxe Productions, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A district court's failure to comply with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N), by failing to discuss the appeal waiver at the plea hearing, does not affect a defendant's substantial rights if the defendant still knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to appeal. The court explained that, to determine whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to appeal, the court of appeals must examine the entire record, including both the written plea agreement and the plea hearing. In this case, defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his within-Guidelines sentence. Therefore, the district court's Rule 11(b)(1)(N) error at the plea hearing did not affect defendant's substantial rights and the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Parents of Z.B. filed suit alleging that DCPS failed to offer Z.B. a fourth grade education appropriate to her needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that DCPS complied with the IDEA in offering Z.B. the 2015 individualized education program (IEP), but remanded for the determination as to whether it did so when it offered her the 2014 IEP. In this case, it remained unclear whether and how DCPS itself made a valid assessment of Z.B.'s needs before it offered the 2014 IEP—and so whether that IEP was adequate. The court explained that the issue was whether each of the IEPs that was proffered was adequate at the time, not that it was the parents' burden to show that any possible placement in DCPS was not a viable option or would not have worked. View "Z. B. v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

PruittHealth appealed the Board's finding that the company's refusal to bargain constituted an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5), and order requiring the company to bargain with the union. The DC Circuit denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. The court held that the Board's adoption of the Regional Director's decision overruling PruittHealth's blocking and threats-related objections was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with Board precedent. The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction over PruittHealth's claim that the Board erred in dismissing its unlawful photographing objection. In this case, the company failed to raise the claim with the Board in representation proceedings, as required by Section 10(e) of the Act. View "PruittHealth-Virginia Park, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

SBA filed suit seeking to enjoin rescission of an informal opinion letter issued by the FTC (the 2016 Letter). The 2016 Letter stated that it was the FTC staff's opinion that telemarketing technology used by SBA's members was subject to the FTC's regulation of so-called "robocalls," and it announced the rescission of a 2009 FTC staff letter that had reached the opposite conclusion. The DC Circuit dismissed the complaint for failure to state claim and held that because the 2016 staff opinion letter did not constitute the consummation of the Commission's decisionmaking process by its own terms and under the FTC's regulations, it was not final agency action. Finally, SBA's speech claims were pleaded as Administrative Procedure claims under 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(B) and could not proceed without final agency action. View "Soundboard Association v. FTC" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a complaint seeking an injunction and declaratory relief to block the Department from pursuing administrative actions to determine whether Arch was obligated to pay benefits to certain of its former employees under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901–45 (2012). The court held that Congress intended the Act's statutory scheme to be exclusive with respect to the claims to which the statute applied. In this case, Arch's claims were of the type that Congress intended to be reviewed within the Act's statutory structure. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court's dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction because the Act assigned exclusive jurisdiction over Arch's challenges to the Department's administrative process and then the relevant federal court of appeals. View "Arch Coal, Inc. v. Acosta" on Justia Law