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

Plaintiffs challenged the Service's application of the 2012 Colorado Rule to allow development of a proposed egress ski trail on once-roadless land within the Special Use Permit boundary for the Snowmass Ski Resort in Aspen. The court agreed with the district court that the Service offered ample reasons for its decision to exclude existing designated ski areas from the Colorado roadless inventory, and that the Service’s six-year public rulemaking process satisfied all applicable notice requirements. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment because the Service adequately explained the limited ski-area exclusion and did not violate any applicable notice requirements. View "Ark Initiative v. Tidwell" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for multiple counts of drug crimes resulting from his role in a phencyclidine (PCP) distribution ring. Defendant raised multiple challenges to his conviction, almost all of which are without merit. The court addressed two arguments in full. First, the court rejected defendant's claim that the government failed to adequately authenticate and prove chain of custody for the samples tested at the DEA laboratory and used to show defendant's constructive possession of the PCP; and second, the court rejected defendant's claim that the district court erred in admitting portions of a DEA Investigator's testimony as a summary witness where any such error was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824d(a), mandates that all rates and charges demanded, or received by any public utility for the transmission or sale of electric energy subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission shall be just and reasonable. Xcel petitioned for review of three of the Commission's orders denying a retroactive refund for unlawful rates. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that, to the extent the Commission denied Xcel relief because it lacks authority to order refunds from Tri-County, a non-jurisdictional entity, this was not responsive to Xcel’s request. On the merits, the court concluded that the Commission’s reliance on section 2.4(a) of its regulations and related cases to deny Xcel retroactive relief is misplaced. Because the Commission’s reliance on section 2.4(a) of its regulations as applied in its precedent is inapposite, and its position that its section 205 error of law is irremediable beyond prospective relief under section 206 appears irreconcilable with the authority Congress granted it in section 309 to remedy its errors, the court granted the petition in part and remanded the case to the Commission for appropriate action. View "Xcel Energy Servs. Inc. v. FERC" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for firearms offenses. In this appeal, the United States challenges the district court's order suppressing defendant's statements to agents of the Secret Service, and barring the government from introducing items recovered from the car he illegally parked near the National Mall. The court concluded that the government carried its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's statements were voluntary within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. In this case, the agents did not use coercive conduct, the interview lasted less than an hour, the agents asked straightforward questions in conversational tones, and the agents made no threats or promises. Therefore, the district court erred in suppressing physical evidence derived from his statements. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for the district court to reconsider Miranda v. Arizona’s applicability. View "United States v. Hallford" on Justia Law

The FEC filed suit alleging that former Senator Larry E. Craig, his campaign committee, and the committee’s Treasurer converted campaign funds to the Senator’s personal use in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4). The district court granted summary judgment to the FEC and ordered the Senator to disgorge $197,535 and to pay a civil penalty of $45,000. Appellants had spent campaign funds to pay legal fees the Senator incurred in connection with efforts to withdraw his guilty plea to a criminal charge of disorderly conduct. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not err in finding that appellants unlawfully converted campaign contributions to personal use by spending them on Senator Craig’s effort to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering disgorgement to the United States Treasury and payment of the civil penalty. View "FEC v. Craig for U.S. Senate" on Justia Law

Timothy LaBatte, a class member in a class action against the USDA, seeks to intervene in that class action – despite the fact that the action was settled and closed – after his claim for compensation under the terms of the action’s settlement agreement was denied. The district court determined that it lacked ancillary jurisdiction to hear LaBatte's challenge. The court affirmed, concluding that LaBatte’s motion to intervene is unrelated to the underlying lawsuit and the district court was not required to hear LaBatte’s motion in order to effectuate its decrees. View "Keepseagle v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

Energy Answers seeks to build a waste incinerator in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Sierra Club seeks to vacate a 1980 rule promulgated by EPA that implements the Clean Air Act's (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7470 et seq., and 7501 et seq., permitting scheme as it relates here to the regulation of the waste incinerator’s lead emissions. The court concluded that, because Sierra Club does not bring its petition within 60 days of any after-arising grounds, its petition is time-barred under 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1). Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition. View "Sierra Club de Puerto Rico v. EPA" on Justia Law

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