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

The Service listed three antelope species – the scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle – as endangered. On the same day that the Service designated the antelope species as endangered, it issued a blanket exemption for qualifying domestic entities and individuals that breed the antelope species in captivity. The district court determined that the Captive-Bred Exemption violated Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. President Obama then signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76, div. G, tit. I, 127, 128 Stat. 5, 315-16 (Section 127), which reinstated the Captive-Bred Exemption. Friends of Animals filed suit alleging that the Reinstatement Rule violates the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706, and that Section 127 violates the United States Constitution. The district court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment and denied Friends of Animals' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that, under FEC v. Akins, Friends of Animals has informational standing to pursue its claims, so there is no jurisdictional impediment to this lawsuit. The court rejected Friends of Animals' claims on the merits, concluding that Congress acted within its constitutional bounds when it passed Section 127. Therefore, the court concluded that there can be no doubt that the Service was fully authorized to reinstate the Captive-Bred Exemption. View "Friends of Animals v. Jewell" on Justia Law

Rhea Lana sought pre-enforcement declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department’s determination that it was out of compliance with the Act. The Department sent Rhea Lana a letter informing it that its failure to pay its salespeople violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 216(e)(2). The court concluded that the Department’s letter to Rhea Lana is final agency action because it is more than mere agency advice. By notifying Rhea Lana that the company was in violation of its wage-and-hour obligations, the court concluded that the letter rendered knowing any infraction in the face of such notice, and made Rhea Lana susceptible to willfulness penalties that would not otherwise apply. Therefore, the letter transmitted legally operative information with a “legal consequence” sufficient to render the letter final. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the suit. View "Rhea Lana, Inc. v. DOL" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenge the NRC's rule and generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) concerning the continued, and possibly indefinite, storage of spent fuel from nuclear power plants in the United States. Petitioners contend that the NRC failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The court concluded that the NRC appropriately characterized its rule and considered alternatives and mitigation measures; the GEIS sufficiently analyzes the impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel where the GEIS considered essentially common risks to reactor sites and the NRC evaluated the probability of failure to site a repository, the GEIS assessed the cumulative impacts of the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel, the NRC did not ignore short-term high-volume leaks, and the NRC's waiver process ensures consideration of site-specific impacts; and the NRC's assumptions are not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "State of New York v. NRC" on Justia Law

Diag Human appealed the district court's dismissal, sua sponte, of its claim for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found for Diag Human on both of the contested Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(6), issues here: Diag Human and the Czech Republic shared a legal relationship, and their arbitration “may” be governed by the New York Convention. Therefore, the Czech Republic is not entitled to sovereign immunity in this matter under the FSIA’s arbitration exception. Here, Diag Human’s relationship with the Czech Republic qualifies as a commercial legal relationship, and the arbitration at issue here arises out of that commercial legal relationship. Because a legal basis exists for federal courts to enforce this arbitration award, the court concluded that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Whether the arbitration award is final will be a question going to the merits of the case, as it could determine whether the arbitration award can be enforced or not. The court expresses no view on the matter. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic - Ministry of Health" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a legally-blind, African-American woman, filed suit alleging that she was denied a promotion at the Department because of her race and disability. The court concluded that, as a matter of law, at least where a manager regularly requests and receives upgraded vacancies that are earmarked for his subordinates, his decision not to engage in that process because of an employee’s disability or race can be an adverse employment action under the court's case law. The court nevertheless concluded that plaintiff failed to show that she was denied her promotion because of her race or disability. In this case, no reasonable juror could find from the record that her supervisor contributed to the agency's inaction in creating a GS-11 position for plaintiff. Rather, the record supplies ample evidence that the supervisor made the request for the GS-11 position that plaintiff desired, and plaintiff provides no probative evidence in response. Whatever the reason for the Deputy Assistant Secretary’s denial, it could not have been based on discrimination if, as plaintiff recognizes, he was not aware that the requested position was designed to facilitate plaintiff’s promotion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff. View "Chambers v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base and possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court concluded that the district court clearly erred in considering, as an aggravating factor, evidence that defendant was involved in an unrelated gunfight. The court could not conclude that the consideration of the evidence did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on defendant's sentence. Accordingly, because the error was not harmless, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Kpodi" on Justia Law

Petitioners seek review of the FCC's order finding that the rates it charged long-distance telephone carrier AT&T for use of its network exceeded the amount allowed by Commission regulations. The court concluded that the Commission reasonably concluded that Great Lakes was subject to the Commission’s benchmark rule in the years prior to AT&T’s 2014 complaint. Because the Commission failed to adequately explain its conclusion that Great Lakes did not qualify for the Commission’s “rural exemption,” which would have allowed it to charge the challenged rates, the court remanded the issue to the Commission for further consideration. The court also concluded that the Commission reasonably selected the correct incumbent local exchange carrier or ILEC for purposes of determining the applicable benchmark rate. The court disposed of Great Lakes' remaining challenges and denied the petition for review in all other respects. View "Great Lakes Comnet, Inc. v. FCC" on Justia Law

Appellant, an African-American temporary employee of the U.S. Department of Labor, filed suit against the Department, alleging that it dismissed him from his position as a Veterans Employment Specialist because of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The district court granted summary judgment to the Department for want of evidence of racial discrimination. The court affirmed on the slightly different ground that no reasonable juror could find that the Department's stated, nondiscriminatory reasons for dismissing appellant were not its real reasons. In this case, the Department’s position is that it terminated appellant because his performance was deficient and his demeanor was argumentative in response to supervisor feedback. Appellant has failed to identify record evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that race played a role in his discharge. View "Johnson v. Perez" on Justia Law

IronTiger petitioned for review of the Board's determination that it failed to timely respond to a union request for information the Board deemed presumptively relevant, even though ultimately found irrelevant. The company claimed that the union was seeking to harass the company by asking for obviously burdensome and irrelevant material. The court rejected IronTiger's broad challenge to the Board's policy requiring an employee to timely respond to a union's request for information that is presumptively relevant. The court concluded, however, that the company's complaint may have been justified but the ALJ and the Board did not respond to this contention. Therefore, the Board must consider both the petitioner's defense and the implication of a rule that would permit a union to harass an employer by repeated and burdensome requests for irrelevant information only because it can be said it somehow relates to bargaining unit employees – without even a union’s statement of its need. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "IronTiger Logistics, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellant, while pursuing her Ph.D. in Politics, submitted requests to the DOD under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. By statute, educational institutions are eligible for reduced fees when they make FOIA requests. The Government has long determined that teachers who make FOIA requests are eligible for those reduced fees because teachers are part of an educational institution. But at the same time, the Government has determined that students who make FOIA requests are not eligible for those reduced fees because they are supposedly not part of an educational institution. The court disagreed, concluding that if teachers can qualify for reduced fees, so can students. Students who make FOIA requests to further their coursework or other school-sponsored activities are eligible for reduced fees under FOIA because students, like teachers, are part of an educational institution. Therefore, appellant is eligible for reduced fees for her FOIA request in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sack v. DOD" on Justia Law