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

Bellagio challenged the Board's decision and order determining that Bellagio violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), when it interfered with employee Gabor Garner's right to have a union representative present during an investigatory meeting; retaliated against him for invoking that right by placing him on "Suspension Pending Investigation" (SPI); unlawfully surveilled Garner after placing him on SPI; and then coercively prevented him from discussing his suspension with other employees. The court concluded that Bellagio did not violate Garner's Weingarten right to Union representation when a supervisor asked Garner to fill out a written statement after the employee had requested a Union representative; Bellagio did not unlawfully retaliate against Garner; Bellagio did not engage in unlawful surveillance; and the finding of unlawful coercion cannot stand. Accordingly, the court granted Bellagio's petition for review and denied the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Bellagio, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from the parties' dispute over the precise language used in "corrective statements" cigarette manufacturers were ordered to disseminate. The district court's remedy requiring the manufacturers to issue corrective statements complied with the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1964(a), because the manufacturers would be impaired in making false and misleading assurances about cigarettes if simultaneously required to tell the truth. In this case, the court held that the modified preambles satisfy RICO. Therefore, the court rejected the manufacturers' argument that the only reason to prefer the government's proposal is to taint manufacturers with implications of past wrongdoing. In regard to the manufacturers' First Amendment challenge, the court concluded that the preamble requirements are reasonably related to the government's interest in preventing deception of consumers. Here, the preambles are confined to purely factual and uncontroversial information, geared toward thwarting prospective efforts by manufacturers to either directly mislead consumers or capitalize on their prior deceptions by continuing to advertise in a manner that builds on consumers' existing misperceptions. In regard to the manufacturers' challenge to the topic descriptions in the preambles to Statements C and D, the court concluded that the manufacturers waived its argument as to Statement D, but the language in Statement C was not previously considered and is indeed backward-looking, because it implies that the manufacturers previously sold and advertised cigarettes in such a way. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

SoundExchange, a nonprofit entity, charged with the responsibility of collecting royalties for performing artists and copyright owners of music, filed suit under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., against Muzak, a company that supplies digital music channels to satellite television networks who, in turn, sell to subscribers. SoundExchange alleged that Muzak underpaid royalties owed. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that the better interpretation of the statute is that the term "service" under section 114(j)(11) contemplates a double limitation; both the business and the program offering must qualify before the transmissions are eligible for the favorable rate. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court. View "SoundExchange, Inc. v. Muzak LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of individuals who resolved their misdemeanor charges using the District of Columbia's post-and-forfeit procedure, filed suit challenging the procedure and the statute authorizing it as unconstitutional. The district court dismissed the claims. The court concluded that the post-and-forfeit statute does not deprive arrestees of their procedural due process rights under the Due Process Clause. The court could not say that the post-and-forfeit procedure offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental, and does not transgress any recognized principle of fundamental fairness in operation. The court explained that offering arrestees an option to participate in the voluntary post-and-forfeit procedure does not unfairly deprive any arrestee of an opportunity for a hearing. The court concluded that plaintiffs' vagueness challenge to the post-and-forfeit statute is likewise unavailing. The court explained that the fact that the post-and-forfeit statute gives police the discretion to offer an arrestee an opportunity to post and forfeit does not render the statute unconstitutionally vague. Therefore, the post-and-forfeit statute complies with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Kincaid v. Government of the District of Columbia" on Justia Law

CFPB filed a petition to enforce a civil investigative demand, seeking information relating to unlawful acts and practices in connection with accrediting for-profit colleges. The district court denied the petition. The court affirmed, concluding that the civil investigative demand (CID) did not comply with the governing statute, 12 U.S.C. 5562(c)(2). In this case, pursuant to section 5562(c)(2), the CID failed to advise ACICS of the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation which is under investigation and the provision of law applicable to such violation. View "CFPB v. Accrediting Council For Independent Colleges and Schools" on Justia Law

CREW filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, after the FBI declined to provide requested information related to former House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay. On appeal, CREW challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for the DOJ and denial of CREW's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The district court concluded that Exemption 5 shielded certain FBI correspondence and that Exemptions 6 and 7(C) could be invoked to protect names and other personal information contained in responsive records. The court concluded that the Government's assertion of Exemption 5 was untimely and, before ruling on Exemptions 6 and 7(C), a more particularized balancing of the interests was required. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. DOJ" on Justia Law

Allied, a commercial airline fuel service provider, challenged the Board's decision that Allied violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by failing to recognize and bargain with the Union. The court held that Allied's petition failed to establish jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.; a constitutionally adequate Board panel's certification of the Union as the employees' representative cured any defect in the Board's earlier order; and substantial evidence supports the Board's statutory-supervisor classifications. The court concluded that the Board's decision was legally correct and supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Allied Aviation Service Comp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the Commissions' determinations following compliance filings by the regional transmission organization for New England's electric grid. The court concluded that the Transmission Owners have standing to bring their challenges, but concluded that the Commission's orders were not inconsistent with its past decisions; the Commission did not apply the wrong legal standard for measuring whether the Mobile-Sierra presumption had been overcome; and the Commission's determination was in accord with the evidence before it. In regard to State Petitioner's challenges, the court concluded that, in light of the clarifications made by the Commission, there is no inconsistency with Order No. 1000. The court also concluded that the Commission did not exceed its bounds of authority under the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824(a). Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Emera Maine v. FERC" on Justia Law

The court affirmed defendant's convictions on direct appeal for convictions of conspiracy and related offenses involving the large-scale distribution and sale of unlawful drugs in Washington, D.C. Defendant then filed a series of motions collaterally attacking his convictions. This appeal challenged the amended judgment entered by the district court following the partial grant of defendant's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court explained that it need not decide whether the Fair Sentencing Act, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, 2372, 2374, applies to a resentencing upon a successful collateral attack pursuant to Section 2255; the district court left intact defendant's original trial sentence in 1989 except to apply intervening changes in the law on the merger of offenses; the district court's limited revision to an otherwise final judgment was not a reevaluation of the appropriateness of defendant's original sentence; as a Section 2255 "correction" and not a "resentencing" at which the government has acknowledged the more lenient penalties under the Fair Sentencing Act would apply, this entitled defendant to no relief under the Act; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment because defendant's due process challenge to his continuing criminal enterprise conviction also afforded no relief. View "United States v. Palmer" on Justia Law

Wilfred I. Aka appealed the Tax Court's decision to disbar him and, alternatively, its failure to include in its disbarment order instructions for his reinstatement. The court held that it has jurisdiction to review Tax Court disbarment orders and that the court will review the Tax Court's factual findings for clear error. Nonetheless, the court considered de novo Aka's argument. On the merits, the court concluded that Aka offered no legal authority for his contention that the Tax Court violated his due-process rights, and neither procedural nor substantive due process provided a basis for reversing the Tax Court's order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the disbarment order and declined to order the Tax Court to propose additional steps for reinstatement. View "Aka v. United States Tax Court" on Justia Law