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

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

The Association filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, seeking to compel the DOJ to release the Federal Criminal Discovery Blue Book. The Blue Book is a manual created by the Department to guide federal prosecutors in the practice of discovery in criminal prosecutions. It contains information and advice for prosecutors about conducting discovery in their cases, including guidance about the government’s various obligations to provide discovery to defendants. The court agreed with the district court and the Department that the Blue Book fell within the attorney work-product privilege, and thus Exemption 5, because it was prepared by (and for) attorneys in anticipation of litigation. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "National Ass'n of Criminal Defense Lawyers v. US DOJ" on Justia Law

The Corps issued Mingo Logan a permit to excavate the tops of several West Virginia mountains, then the EPA withdrew approval from two of the disposal sites, and Mingo Logan challenged the EPA's statutory authority to withdraw the two sites from the Corps permit after it had been issued but the court determined that the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C 1251, authorized the EPA to do so. The court remanded for the district court to consider Mingo Logan's remaining challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706. This appeal concerns the district court's resolution of the APA claims. The court concluded that the EPA did not violate the APA in withdrawing specification of certain disposal areas from the permit; rather, it considered the relevant factors and adequately explained its decision. The EPA’s ex post withdrawal is a product of its broad veto authority under the CWA, not a procedural defect. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mingo Logan Coal v. EPA" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to a drug possession charge and completed his term of imprisonment in 2008. Before the expiration of his four year term of supervised release, defendant pled guilty to new charges in 2012 and was sentenced to 150 months in prison. The district court that presided over his previous drug conviction revoked defendant's supervised-release term and sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 36 months in prison, to run consecutive to the 150 months imposed for the new charges. Defendant appealed. The court held that 18 U.S.C. 3624(e), which provides that “[a] term of supervised release does not run during any period in which [a] person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a Federal, State, or local crime,” does not toll a supervised-release term during a period of pretrial detention if the defendant is later convicted of the charges on which he is held and receives credit toward his sentence for the time served in pretrial detention. Therefore, because the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke defendant's term of supervised release and to impose a further period of incarceration, the court vacated the district court's order revoking the supervised-release term and sentencing defendant to 36 months’ imprisonment. View "United States v. Marsh" on Justia Law

The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 501(b), sets out fiduciary duties that officers and other agents of unions owe the union that employs them. At issue is whether section 501 provides a union with a federal cause of action against its agent for breach of a fiduciary duty owed to the union. Weaver v. United Mine Workers of America holds, at least, that where union members have properly sued under section 501, the union itself may take control of the suit and displace the union members. Because the Union’s section 501 claim is properly before the district court, supplemental jurisdiction exists for the Union’s state law claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order dismissing the Union's claims under section 501 and state law for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "International Union v. Faye" on Justia Law

Friends of Animals, a non-profit organization, filed suit alleging that the Secretary violated section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., by not timely issuing 12-month findings in response to its listing petitions. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that Friends of Animals has not suffered an informational injury because this deadline provision does not itself mandate the disclosure of any information and therefore Friends of Animals does not have informational standing. Essentially, Friends of Animals has invoked informational standing prematurely. At this stage in the administrative process, Friends of Animals is not entitled to any information. View "Friends of Animals v. Jewell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 702, 705, challenging the authority of the Department of the Interior to take title to a particular tract of land under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), 25 U.S.C. 465. The land (the Bradley Property) had been put into trust for the use of the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians in Michigan, otherwise known as the Gun Lake Band or the Gun Lake Tribe. After the Supreme Court determined that plaintiff had prudential standing to bring this suit, Congress passed the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act (the Gun Lake Act), Pub. L. No. 113-179, 128 Stat. 1913, a stand-alone statute reaffirming the Department’s decision to take the land in question into trust for the Gun Lake Tribe, and removing jurisdiction from the federal courts over any actions relating to that property. The court affirmed the district court's determination that the Gun Lake Act is constitutionally sound and thus plaintiff's suit must be dismissed. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to strike a supplement to the administrative record. View "Patchak v. Jewell" on Justia Law