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

The Service has long allowed American hunters who shoot Tanzanian elephants to repatriate their trophies because, according to the Service, doing so “would not be detrimental to the survival of the species.” However, in 2014, the Service changed course and indefinitely suspended issuance of import permits due in part to a “significant decline in Tanzania’s elephant population.” Two organizations representing hunters challenged the suspension in district court as substantively and procedurally flawed. The district court dismissed for lack of final agency action and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court concluded that the de facto permit denial gives Safari Club Article III standing. The court also rejected the Service's claims of mootness and concluded that the relief Safari Club seeks extends well beyond the two 2014 findings. Because Safari Club is unable to fully litigate a challenge to the findings underlying the suspension without taking on risk that the permitting scheme is designed to avoid, the controversy evades review. Finally, the court rejected the Service's arguments regarding finality and exhaustion. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Safari Club International v. Jewell" on Justia Law

Appellant challenged the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The court concluded that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2253(a) to consider the merits of the appeal because the district court issued a certificate of appealability as to appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in cross-examining a witness. On the merits, the court concluded that appellant failed to show a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different without the allegedly deficient open-ended questioning by defense counsel on cross-examination. Therefore, the court rejected appellant's argument and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gooch, Jr." on Justia Law

The Postal Service contends that the Commission’s action denying its parcel reclassification request was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), for failing to acknowledge, much less explain, its decision to depart from precedent granting similar requests. The court found, in the challenged order, that the Commission neither acknowledged a change in course nor explained it. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded to the Commission for further proceedings. View "USPS v. PRC" on Justia Law

Kelly Foster filed suit against Appellees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a), to enforce her rights under short-term and long-term disability benefit plans that had been adopted by her employer, Sun Trust Bank. The district court granted summary judgment to Appellees and dismissed Foster's complaint. The district court then denied Foster's motion for reconsideration. The court affirmed the district court's finding that the short-term disability plan is an ERISA-exempt “payroll practice” under Department of Labor regulations; held that the district court appropriately applied a deferential standard of review to the administrator’s denial of benefits under the long-term disability plan because the terms of the plan unambiguously granted the administrator, and the administrator alone, the power to construe critical terms of the plan and to decide an employee’s eligibility for benefits; and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Foster's motion for reconsideration. View "Foster v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The Union petitions the court for review of the PRC's denial of its complaint, alleging that the Postal Service failed to comply with First-Class Mail service standards. The court concluded that the PRC reasonably determined that whether service standards are violated must be evaluated in reference to external performance goals. Based on this interpretation, the court concluded that the PRC logically construed the Union’s amended complaint as asserting a claim for violation of service standards in the aggregate, in accordance with the relevant performance goals. The PRC’s subsequent dismissal of this amended complaint was not arbitrary or capricious because the amended complaint failed to allege new issues of material fact or law. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "American Postal Workers Union v. PRC" on Justia Law

In this case, the court addresses the fees that local exchange carriers (LECs) can charge inter-exchange carriers (IXCs) for certain services they provide, in coordination with providers of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), for the completion of “inter-exchange” calls. The FCC concluded that the disputed services are end-office switching services. Petitioner AT&T says that they are tandem switching services. In 2011, the Commission made a broad effort to update its system for regulating intercarrier compensation (the Transformation Order). The Commission, in In re Connect America Fund, ruled that the disputed services are indeed end-office access under subsection (3) of 47 C.F.R. 51.903(d). AT&T challenges the Declaratory Ruling. The court found that the Declaratory Ruling does not disclose the Commission’s reasoning with the requisite clarity to enable it to sustain such a conclusion. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded the order to the Commission for further explanation. The court need not reach AT&T's second challenge. View "AT&T Corp. v. FCC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, diagnosed with Insulin Treated Diabetes Mellitus (ITDM), seeks the first class medical certificate necessary to serve as a commercial airline pilot. Plaintiff holds a third class medical certificate authorizing him to pilot non-commercial flights in the United States. The FAA contends it did not issue a final order regarding plaintiff's first class medical certificate application; it purportedly ruled solely on his independent request for a third class medical certificate and specifically indicated the first class certificate remained under review. The court concluded, however, that the specific facts presented here establish a constructive denial of plaintiff's application for a first class certificate. The court held that where, as here, an agency has clearly communicated it will not reach a determination on a petitioner’s submission due to petitioner’s recalcitrance but simultaneously refuses to deny the petitioner’s submission on those grounds, it has engaged in final agency action subject to the court’s review. Although plaintiff's case is subject to judicial review, the court noted that there is a complete absence of a relevant administrative record to review. Accordingly, the court remanded to the FAA to offer reasons for its denial of plaintiff's application for a first class medical certificate. View "Friedman v. FAA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a 59-year-old African-American, filed suit alleging that he was improperly terminated by his employer in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. 1981; and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Washington Post. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the Washington Post’s proffered non-discriminatory reason – “willful neglect of duty and insubordination” – “was not the actual reason” for plaintiff's termination. Furthermore, a reasonable jury could conclude that, but for the fact that plaintiff was fifty-nine years old, he would not have been terminated. View "DeJesus v. WP Company LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to one count of distribution of a mixture or substance containing phencyclidine (PCP) and was sentenced to a 77-month term of imprisonment and 36 months of supervised release. The court held that, under the circumstances of this case, defendant did not preserve his claim that the district court failed to adequately address his sentencing manipulation argument; the court found no plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights; and the court held that the district court did not clearly err in calculating the quantity of the liquids containing PCP that were the subject of the drug transactions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mack" on Justia Law

In Order No. 1926, the Commission—recognizing that the Great Recession of 2008 was an exigent circumstance—allowed for a rate increase but also sought to calculate the extent to which decreased mail volume was “due to” the economic downturn in order to determine how long that rate increase should remain in effect. The Commission created a “new normal” test to determine when the “extraordinary or exceptional circumstances” no longer supported a rate increase. The Postal Service petitioned the court for review of the "new normal" test and the court upheld the Commission's approach. The Postal Service now seeks reconsideration, claiming that the Commission altered its original decision. The court dismissed the Postal Service's petition for lack of jurisdiction because the Commission's denial of reconsideration is unreviewable. View "USPS v. PRC" on Justia Law