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

The Authority faced a funding shortfall for at least the period immediately after its opening in 2014. To cover the shortfall, the Authority, with emergency authorization from the District’s Council, levied a charge on all insurance policies above a certain premium threshold sold by health carriers in the District. American Council raised statutory and constitutional challenges to that charge and the district court rejected Council's arguments, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court agreed with the District that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case because the charge levied by the Authority was a tax rather than a fee. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment for lack of jurisdiction and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction because the assessment is a tax. View "American Council of Life Ins. v. District of Columbia Health" on Justia Law

Appellants filed suit challenging the Service's withdrawal of its 2010 proposal to list the dunes sagebrush lizard, whose habitat is in New Mexico and Texas, as endangered. Between the time the Service proposed listing the lizard and the time it decided to withdraw that proposal, the Service received updated information about the conservation efforts in the two States and by the Bureau of Land Management in New Mexico. Based on this information, the Service concluded that “current and future threats are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the . . . lizard is in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The court concluded that appellants failed to show the Service did not rationally apply its policy in evaluating the Texas plan inasmuch as the Service’s factual conclusions are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell" on Justia Law

The Institute, a Section 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, filed suit against the FEC, challenging the constitutionality of the disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 52 U.S.C. 20104(f). The district court denied the Institute's request to convene a three-judge district court pursuant to the statutory provision that requires three-judge district courts for constitutional challenges to the BCRA. On the merits, the district court held that the Institute's claim was unavailing under McConnell v. FEC, and Citizens United V. FEC. The Institute appealed. The court concluded that, because the Institute’s complaint raises a First Amendment challenge to a provision of BCRA, 28 U.S.C. 2284(a) entitles it to a three-judge district court. In this case, the Institute’s attempt to advance its as-applied First Amendment challenge is not “essentially fictitious, wholly insubstantial, obviously frivolous, and obviously without merit.” Therefore, section 2284 “entitles” the Institute to make its case “before a three-judge district court.” Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated the district court's judgment, remanding for further proceedings. View "Independence Institute v. FEC" on Justia Law

Sixteen defendants were indicted for charges related to their involvement in a conspiracy to run a large-scale and violent narcotics-distribution business centered in Washington D.C. Many of the indicted defendants pleaded guilty to the charges, while the others went to trial in two separate groups. The Group One trial culminated in guilty verdicts and substantial sentences for each defendant. Group Two consisted of five defendants: Deon Oliver, Franklin Seegers, Kenneth Simmons, James Alfred, and Ronald Alfred. Keith McGill was indicted of charges related to his participation in the same conspiracy and joined the Group Two defendants. The jury found Oliver, Simmons, James Alfred, Ronald Alfred, and McGill guilty on all counts and found Seegers guilty on seven of the charged counts. The six Group Two defendants appealed. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict on all of the challenged counts; the court rejected most of the claims of error or find that the alleged errors were harmless under the appropriate standard of review; the court reversed the convictions on two counts against Seegers, however, and the court also remanded to the district court to determine whether any of defendants’ conspiracy convictions must be vacated because of a Confrontation Clause violation; certain of McGill’s sentencing arguments have merit, moreover, and the court remanded for examination of claims by Simmons and Ronald Alfred that they received ineffective assistance of counsel before the district court. View "United States v. McGill" on Justia Law

Liberty appealed the district court's order compelling it to arbitrate its ongoing labor dispute with the Union. The district court determined that under the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the question of when the CBA expired had to be submitted to arbitration. The court concluded that the district court properly exercised its jurisdiction under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. 185(a). On the merits, the court concluded that, because expiration turns on impasse - and Liberty cannot make a clear showing that impasse occurred - the issue is plainly arbitrable under the terms of the CBA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "District No. 1, Pacific Coast v. Liberty Maritime Corp." on Justia Law

NBC petitioned for review of the Board's 2014 Decision and Order finding that NBC had violated sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (5), by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the Content Producers’ exclusive collective bargaining representative, and by failing to provide the Union with information necessary to the fulfillment of its duties. The court could not determine – either from the ARD’s decision or the Board’s decision adopting the Clarification Decision – how the Board determined that all NBC employees represented by NABET are part of a single, nationwide bargaining unit. The conclusion may or may not be right, but the reasoning supporting the Board’s judgment – in particular, the ARD’s application of Board precedent – is incomprehensible. The court denied both the petition for review and the Board's cross-application for enforcement and remanded the case for clarification. View "NBCUniversal Media, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to making false statements to government authorities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). Plaintiff was told by her managers at Blackhawk to certify that Blackhawk guards had received training that they had not in fact received, thereby enabling Blackhawk to charge more for each guard’s services. As part of her sentence, she was jointly and severally liable for $442,330 in restitution. But, the district court also expressed a clear intention that the actual restitution amount should be much smaller, perhaps as little as $0. A federal court had already entered judgment against Blackhawk for more than $1 million. And the district court said, in sentencing defendant, that she would not be on the hook at all if Blackhawk paid its fine. Even in the absence of such a payment, defendant would only have to pay “at a rate of not less than $50 each month.” In 2013, defendant found out that the Treasury Department had seized tax refunds due her and that it had acted under the Treasury Offset Program (TOP), 31 U.S.C. 3716, 3720A. Defendant then filed a Motion for Clarification or Modification of Supervised Release in the sentencing court, asking that the tax refunds be returned and future seizures stopped. At the first hearing, the district court vacated defendant’s sentence, stating that it had not anticipated or intended that she be subject to such a harsh sentence. At the second and third hearings, the district court entertained further arguments about the resentencing. At the fourth hearing, the district court reimposed its original sentence. The court held that the sentence manifested a clerical error which the district court should have corrected. The court also held that, in light of the necessary corrections in the sentence, the district court’s refusal to remedy the TOP collection was error. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to require the government to return defendant's tax refunds and to cease withholding payments. View "United States v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that she was terminated by her former employer, the Hospital, based on racial discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The district court granted summary judgment to the Hospital. The court concluded that, by providing evidence that similarly situated non-black nurses were treated more favorably, plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding her termination, which ought to be resolved by a jury. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wheeler v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp." on Justia Law

Defendant and others in New York City sought to build an Islamic community center and mosque in lower Manhattan, a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001. Plaintiff, a former New York firefighter filed suit, against defendant alleging that the plan to build a mosque and community center near the World Trade Center site constituted a nuisance, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and assault. Larry Klayman represented plaintiff in that lawsuit. Defendant, through his attorney Adam Bailey, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted. Then plaintiff and his his counsel, Klayman, filed suit against Bailey, alleging infliction of emotional distress caused by the statements Bailey made in dismissal papers filed in New York Supreme Court and the reporting of one of those statements in the New York Post. Klayman and plaintiff voluntarily dismissed that suit and then filed the present action against Bailey. Bailey filed a motion to dismiss on multiple grounds. The court concluded that, under controlling circuit precedent, the complaint makes no plausible allegation of personal jurisdiction over Bailey, and the district court should have promptly dismissed the case on that basis. However, because the district court dismissed the case, the court can affirm the district court’s judgment on the alternative ground that it lacked jurisdiction. View "Forras v. Rauf" on Justia Law

Judicial Watch filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, to compel disclosure of documents that had been placed under seal. The district court granted summary judgment for the Department. The court concluded that the intended effect of the district court's order is ambiguous because the judge's statement, "I don't want to know," bars the parties from divulging the contents of their settlement discussions. Nor has the Department pointed to extrinsic evidence, such as information that the district court customarily protects the confidentiality of settlement discussions before a case is referred to mediation, that supports its preferred reading. An ambiguous court order does not protect a record from disclosure pursuant to the FOIA. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded this matter to the judge in order to give the Department an opportunity to seek clarification from her regarding the intended effect and scope of her order. View "Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOJ" on Justia Law