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

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA), 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1)(A), base limits on individual contributions to candidates. The DC Circuit rejected plaintiffs' challenge to Congress's decision to fashion FECA's base contribution limits for individuals as per-election ceilings. The court explained that the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), rejected a constitutional challenge to those ceilings, and that holding remains undisturbed. The Supreme Court reasoned that, as long as a contribution limit is not so low as to prevent candidates from mounting effective campaigns, the judiciary would generally defer to Congress's determination of the limit’s precise amount. The court concluded that the same was true of Congress's intertwined choice of the timeframe in which that amount may be contributed. View "Holmes v. FEC" on Justia Law

A case in which a district court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a prisoner's state-law claims does not count as a strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The PLRA does not require or allow a later district court to simply defer to an earlier district court's contemporaneous statement that a dismissal counts as a strike. The later district court must independently evaluate whether the prior dismissals were dismissed on one of the enumerated grounds and therefore count as strikes. In this case, the DC Circuit held that plaintiff had only one strike and thus he was entitled to in forma pauperis status and may maintain his lawsuit. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of his in forma pauperis status and dismissal of his case. View "Fourstar v. Garden City Group, Inc." on Justia Law

AOPL petitioned for review of FERC's issuance of an order adopting the index formula to govern oil pipeline rates for the 2016 to 2021 period. The DC Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that there was no merit to AOPL's claim that FERC impermissibly relied solely on the middle 50 percent of pipeline cost-change data and failed to incorporate the middle 80 percent of cost-change data, and that FERC impermissibly used "Page 700" cost-of-service data to calculate the index level. The court held that the record makes it plain that the Commission adequately and reasonably explained its decision not to consider the middle 80 percent of pipelines' cost-change data; nothing in any of FERC's past index review orders bound the agency to use the middle 80 percent of pipelines' cost-change data; the Commission's rationale for utilizing the cost-of-service data from Page 700 was clear and reasonable; and there was nothing in the record to support AOPL's claim that FERC's decision to use Page 700 data indicates an unexplained shift in its measurement objective. View "Association of Oil Pipe Lines v. FERC" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit vacated defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to distribution of more than 28 grams of cocaine. In this case, the government breached its plea agreement with defendant to not use any incriminating statements he provided during a confidential debriefing session against him. The prosecutor relayed to the trial court information derived from the debriefing session and the government acknowledged that the transmittal of this information breached the agreement. The court held that there was at least a reasonable likelihood that defendant would have received a lower sentence in a proceeding untainted by the government's violation. The court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. King-Gore" on Justia Law

This appeal involved the Company's effort to have declared invalid a Crossing Agreement entered into in 2012 by Michigan State officials and the Government of Canada to build another bridge spanning the Detroit River, within two miles of the Ambassador Bridge. The DC Circuit held that the district court properly granted summary judgment as to Count 7, which alleged that the Secretary failed to inquire adequately into Michigan law and, to the extent an inquiry was made, the Secretary's action was arbitrary and capricious. The court reasoned that neither the plain text of Section 3 nor other provisions of the International Bridge Act (IBA), 33 U.S.C. 535 et seq., require the Secretary to inquire into state law. Therefore, the Secretary did not clearly err in approving the Crossing Agreement and the court affirmed summary judgment. The court also held that the district court properly dismissed Counts 2 and 3, which alleged that approval of the Crossing Agreement was unlawful because it contradicted federal laws; Count 1, which alleged a non-delegation claim; and Count 6, which alleged that the issuance of a Presidential Permit by the Secretary of State was final agency action, regardless of whether this authority was delegated by the President, and thus it was reviewable. View "Detroit International Bridge Co. v. Government of Canada" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment interpreting the preclusion-of-review provision in Section 1877 of the Social Security Act (the Stark Law), 42 U.S.C. 1395nn(a)(1)–(2), to deprive it of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that "the process under this paragraph" encompasses all of section 1395nn(i)(3), including the granting or denial of expansion applications. Therefore, section 1395nn(i)(3)(I) precludes judicial review of plaintiff's claims. View "Knapp Medical Center v. Hargan" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the FCC's order denying Press's application for review of the FCC Media Bureau's decision. The court held that FCC regulations, decisions, and practice support the Commission's contention that applications for minor modifications are subject to the spacing requirements articulated in 47 C.F.R. 73.207. Any nonconforming application requires a waiver of that rule, and Press failed to justify such waiver. Therefore, the FCC's Order was valid based on the failure of Press's proposed channel swap with Equity to comply with the applicable short spacing bar or establish its entitlement to a waiver of that bar. Because the short spacing defect was independently sufficient to support the order, the court did not reach Press's alternative argument. View "Press Communications LLC v. FCC" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the provisions in the Master Agreement between the Agency and the Union covered a matter with respect to which the parties had a dispute after the Master Agreement was signed. The Agency argued that the DC Circuit's decision in BOP I, 654 F.3d 91 (D.C. Cir. 2011), was controlling. In BOP I, the court held that "Article 18 covers and preempts challenges to all specific outcomes of the assignment process." The court held, in accord with BOP I, that the subject of consolidated relief rosters was covered by Article 18 of the Master Agreement. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and reversed the decision of the Authority. View "DOJ v. FLRA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that author James Risen, together with publishers, made false and damaging statements about plaintiff in a book. A chapter of the book focuses on software that plaintiff pitched to the United States as a counterterrorism tool, but that ultimately was widely seen as a "hoax." The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants where plaintiff failed to put into the record any evidence that would permit a factfinder to evaluate the legitimacy of his bare assertions. In this case, plaintiff produced virtually no evidence of the software's functionality to factually rebut Risen's statements that it never worked as plaintiff said it did. View "Montgomery v. Risen" on Justia Law

After the Sixth Circuit ruled that CMS's method for counting hospital beds conflicted with the plain language of the applicable regulation, CMS amended the regulation to permit its preferred counting method but applied the Sixth Circuit's interpretation to hospitals located within that circuit until the revised regulation took effect. The DC Circuit held that the agency acted reasonably given that obeying judicial decisions was usually what courts expect agencies to do. View "Grant Medical Center v. Hargan" on Justia Law