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

During the time EPA had been applying the incorrect (and more relaxed) statutory framework to fine particulate matter, some of the stricter compliance deadlines that would have applied under the correct statutory framework had already elapsed. In its implementation rule, the agency made certain adjustments to those deadlines in an effort to avoid treating states as having already missed deadlines of which they were never aware. WildEarth Guardians challenges EPA’s authority to adjust the deadlines. The court held that, in the novel circumstances presented here, EPA reasonably acted within its statutory authority in adopting new deadlines aimed to avoid imposing retroactive burdens on states seeking to achieve compliance with governing air quality standards. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition as it concerns the 1997 standard and otherwise denied the petition for review. View "WildEarth Guardians v. EPA" on Justia Law

Quicken forbids its mortgage bankers to use or disclose a broad range of personnel information without Quicken’s prior written consent or to criticize publicly the company and its management. The Board determined that such rules violate the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., because they unreasonably burden the employees’ ability to discuss legitimate employment matters, to protest employer practices, and to organize. The court denied Quicken’s petition for review and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement, concluding that there was nothing arbitrary or capricious about that decision and no abuse of discretion in the Board’s hearing process. In this case, the Board appropriately determined that employees would reasonably construe the sweeping prohibitions in Quicken’s Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Rules as trenching upon their rights to discuss and object to employment terms and conditions, and to coordinate efforts and organize to promote employee interests. View "Quicken Loans, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

The Cowlitz gained legal status as a tribe in the eyes of the government in 2002 and then successfully petitioned the Department of the Interior to take into trust and declare as their “initial reservation” a parcel of land. The Cowlitz wish to use this parcel for tribal government facilities, elder housing, a cultural center, as well as a casino. Two groups of plaintiffs, Clark County and Grande Ronde, filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., challenging the Interior Secretary’s decision to take the land into trust and to allow casino-style gaming. The district court consolidated the actions and subsequently ruled in favor of the Secretary and Cowlitz. The court concluded that the Secretary reasonably interpreted and applied the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq., to conclude that the Cowlitz are a recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction; the Secretary reasonably determined that the Cowlitz meet the “initial-reservation” exception to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.; and the court rejected plaintiffs' remaining claims of error under the IRA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and 25 C.F.R. 83.12(b), based on the Secretary’s alleged failure independently to verify the Tribe’s business plan and membership figures. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde v. Jewell" on Justia Law

Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association and Military-Veterans Advocacy filed suit challenging the VA's policy requiring "blue-water" veterans to prove on a case-by-base basis that they were exposed to Agent Orange during their military service in order to be considered for certain benefits. Plaintiffs argued that the policy was arbitrary and capricious and otherwise unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2). Plaintiffs sought injunctive and mandamus relief to prevent the VA from denying the presumption of Agent Orange exposure to blue-water veterans. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing 38 U.S.C. 511(a), which bars review in district court of VA decisions “under a law that affects the provision of” veterans benefits. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that Congress stripped the district court of jurisdiction over the claims at issue. View "Blue Water Navy Vietnam v. McDonald" on Justia Law

AILA submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., requests for disclosure of records related to complaints about the conduct of immigration judges. The government disclosed thousands of pages of records, but redacted information in those records that it believes is either statutorily exempt from disclosure or non-responsive to the request. The district court upheld both categories of redactions. The court concluded that the government's across-the-board approach of redacting the immigration judges’ names from all of the disclosed records cannot be sustained in light of the variety of privacy and public interests that may be at stake in connection with the disclosure of an immigration judge’s name. Therefore, the court remanded for a more individualized inquiry into the propriety of redacting judges’ names. In this case, the government, after determining that records were responsive to AILA’s request, redacted discrete information within the records on the basis of non-responsiveness even if no statutory exemption shielded the information from disclosure. The court concluded that such an approach cannot be squared with the statutory scheme. Finally, the court agreed with the district court that complaint resolutions fall outside the statute’s affirmative disclosure mandate. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "American Immigration Lawyers v. Exec. Office for Immigration" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.; the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. CODE 28-3901 et seq.; and the District of Columbia Debt Collection Law, D.C.CODE 28-3814 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that the debt collection letter sent to her from defendant violated these statutes because the letter falsely implies both that defendant is meaningfully involved with the case as an attorney and that the creditor is threatening to bring a lawsuit to collect the debt. The court concluded, however, that the letter does not threaten any legal action, and the prominent disclaimer made clear that defendant was acting only in his capacity as a debt collector. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on the pleadings. View "Jones v. Dufek" on Justia Law

In order to determine how much federal funding goes to each hospital for providing care, the Secretary of HHS makes certain “estimates” as required by the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(r). Tampa General filed suit arguing that the Secretary’s reliance on “obsolete” data rather than “the most recent data available” violated federal law. The district court dismissed the hospital’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that section 1395ww(r)(3), which precludes judicial review of the Secretary’s “estimate” of a hospital’s amount of uncompensated care, bars review of the Secretary’s choice of data used in determining that estimate. The court agreed and held that the bar on judicial review of the Secretary's estimates precludes review of the underlying data and affirmed that section 1395ww(r)(3) bars Tampa General’s challenge. View "Florida Health Sciences v. Secretary of DHHS" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Urban Outfitters’ and Anthropologie’s zip code requests at the cashier stand violated two District of Columbia consumer protection laws. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case because neither plaintiff has alleged a concrete Article III injury tied to disclosure of her zip code that could support standing. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for dismissal of the case. View "Hancock v. Urban Outfitters, Inc." on Justia Law

In Kloeckner v. Solis, the Supreme Court held that when the Board dismisses a mixed-case appeal without reaching the merits on a procedural ground - there, untimeliness - judicial review resides in district court (as when the Board reaches the merits), not the Federal Circuit. At issue in this appeal is whether Kloeckner effectively overruled this court's decision in Powell v. Dep’t of Def. The court held that it does not and that the court's precedent requires transferring the case to the Federal Court. The court found that Powell is materially indistinguishable from this case. Like Powell, petitioner resolved a disciplinary issue by agreeing to a significant employment action that could be appealed to the Board if involuntary. Like Powell, petitioner then claimed that his agreement had been involuntary due to discrimination. As in Powell, the Board disagreed, finding that the agreement was voluntary and thus dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. And like Powell, petitioner contends that review of the Board’s dismissal lies in district court. The court rejected that argument in Powell. Accordingly, the court transferred the petition for review to the Federal Circuit. View "Perry v. MSPB" on Justia Law

The Mackinac Tribe filed suit to compel the Secretary of the Interior to convene an election allowing the Tribe to organize under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), 25 U.S.C. 476(a). Although the Mackinac Tribe does not appear on the Secretary’s list of federally acknowledged tribes and has not been acknowledged through the Secretary’s Part 83 process, see 25 C.F.R. pt. 83, the group alleges it is federally recognized for IRA purposes because it is the historical successor to a tribe the federal government previously recognized via treaty. The district court found that the Mackinac Tribe failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by first seeking acknowledgment through the Part 83 process. As the district court did, the court reserved the question whether a group must be recognized to be eligible to organize under the IRA and whether that recognition must be marked by the group’s appearance on the Secretary’s list of federally recognized tribes. The court read the Tribe's complaint as seeking a writ of mandamus. The court declined the requested mandamus because review will be possible after the Mackinac Tribe has completed the Part 83 procedure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell" on Justia Law