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

Appellant seeks information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, relating principally to his detention in Yemen from four federal agencies. After filing suit to compel disclosure, the district court granted summary judgment to the agencies and denied appellant's motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that it has jurisdiction to consider appellant’s challenges to the district court’s grants of summary judgment in the FBI and the CIA cases. On the merits, the court concluded that the FBI had performed an adequate search in response to the FOIA request; the FBI and CIA did not waive their application of FOIA Exemption I; and the FBI properly classified certain responsive records after it received his FOIA request. The court rejected appellant's challenges under the Privacy Act where the FBI's declarations satisfied the requirements of Doe v. FBI and the documents withheld by the CIA were not housed in a “system of records” and therefore are beyond the reach of the Privacy Act. Finally, the court found unpersuasive appellant's contention that the district court abused its discretion when it twice declined to review in camera an FBI document, which he claims was improperly classified. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mobley v. CIA" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks review of the Board's conclusion that petitioner's refusal to reinstate the striking workers was itself an unfair labor practice and order of reinstatement. The court denied the petition and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement, concluding that the Board’s categorization of the strike as an unfair labor practice strike is supported by substantial evidence showing that at least part of the employees’ motive to strike was petitioner’s unlawful refusal to reinstate an employee who had been unlawfully discharged. The court also concluded that the Board was reasonable in concluding that the employees’ respect for a prior contractual agreement did not convert their otherwise lawful strike into an unprotected partial strike, and ample evidence supports the Board's conclusion that the labor relations of two entities, SM and SMI, were centrally controlled. View "Spurlino Materials v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellant received his 2006 income tax refund twice and the IRS sought to recover the erroneous refund by levy. At the tax court stage, the IRS conceded that the levy was an improper collection method, zeroed out appellant's disputed tax liability and moved to dismiss the case as moot. Appellant objected to the dismissal. Appellant argued that, because he paid $5,100 to the IRS during the course of the administrative proceedings and he is entitled to a return of those funds, this controversy precludes dismissal on mootness grounds. The court affirmed the tax court's rejection of appellant's argument, concluding that the abeyance of a pending levy meant that no case or controversy remained. In this case, appellant has received all the relief that 26 U.S.C. 6330 authorizes the tax court to grant him, and he must seek relief in the Court of Federal Claims for the disputed $5,100. View "Willson v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

Hyundai challenged the Board's order invalidating five rules in the employee handbook maintained by Hyundai because the rules violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 157, 158(a)(1). The Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Canning made clear that the three Board members on the panel in this case were validly appointed, and the court restored the case to its active docket after placing it in abeyance. The court found that the Board had jurisdiction over the claims against four rules - ones that the complaint linked to the dismissal by asserting that Hyundai discharged an employee because of her violations of those rules. In regard to the fifth rule, however, the court concluded that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the General Counsel never alleged it to have played a causal role in the dismissal. Therefore, as to the four rules properly before the Board, the court enforced the Board’s order as to three but reversed as to the fourth. View "Hyundai Amer. Shipping Agency v. NLRB" on Justia Law

EPA exercised its authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q, to issue a Final Rule designating 29 areas as not meeting its new sulfur dioxide standards. Treasure State Resource Industry Association challenged the one designation for part of Yellowstone County, Montana, and U.S. Steel challenged the one for part of Wayne County, Michigan. The court upheld the Final Rule's designation of part of Yellowstone County as nonattainment and rejected the Association's argument that the data on which EPA relied were so unreliable that its reliance was arbitrary and capricious, and the Association's argument that EPA's application of the Act was retroactive within the meaning of Landgraf v. U.S.I. Film Products. The court rejected the Association's remaining claims. The court concluded that U.S. Steel meets the requirements of standing by demonstrating a rederessable injury in fact, and rejected EPA's argument that its Final Rule is not final. On the merits, the court upheld EPA's designation of part of Wayne County as nonattainment because the court found neither a violation of the Act nor any arbitrariness in EPA's action. The court denied the petitions for review of the Final Rule and EPA's denial of petitions for reconsideration. View "Treasure State Resource v. EPA" on Justia Law

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a professional association of certified public accountants and their firms, challenged an IRS program that allows previously uncredentialed tax return preparers who take required courses and fulfill other prerequisites to obtain a “Record of Completion.” The program also requires them to have their names listed in the IRS’s online “Directory of Federal Tax Return Preparers.” The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing, finding that the Institute lacks actual or imminent harm. The court concluded that the Institute has adequately alleged the program will subject its members to an actual or imminent increase in competition and that it therefore has standing to pursue its challenge. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "American Institute of Certified Public Accountants v. IRS" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to injuring a dwelling and placing lives in jeopardy, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's inadvertent indication on the written judgment of conviction that defendant register as a sex offender, and challenged the sentence as substantively and procedurally unreasonable. Because the government had not asked the court to enforce the appeal waiver regarding the sex offender registration requirement, the court addressed defendant's challenge on the merits and remanded to the district court to conform the written judgment to the oral sentence. However, the court agreed with the government that defendant validly waived his right to appeal the reasonableness of his sentence and dismissed defendant's challenge to his term of imprisonment. View "United States v. Ortega-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a law firm, provided legal services to three companies owned and managed by defendants. After defendants failed to pay legal bills, the law firm filed suit and prevailed. The court concluded that the Confession of Judgment entered in Michigan state court had no preclusive effect and therefore did not bar the current suit under principles of res judicata; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying amendment; the Retention Letter did not incorporate the Promissory Note’s choice-of-law and attorney’s fee clauses; and D.C. law applies to the Retention Letter and does not preclude the law firm from recovering fees incurred while representing itself. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bode & Grenier, LLP v. Knight" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics action against the FBI, alleging that the FBI violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when they detained, interrogated, and tortured him over the course of four months in three African countries. The district court dismissed the suit. The court held that in this case, where the agents' actions took place during a terrorism investigation and those actions occurred overseas, special factors counsel hesitation in recognizing a Bivens action for money damages.Two special factors are present in this case. First, special factors counseling hesitation have foreclosed Bivens remedies in cases “involving the military, national security, or intelligence.” Second, the Supreme Court has never “created or even favorably mentioned a nonstatutory right of action for damages on account of conduct that occurred outside the borders of the United States.” The court further concluded that the weight of authority against expanding Bivens combined with the court's recognition that tort remedies in cases involving matters of national security and foreign policy are generally left to the political branches, counsels serious hesitation before recognizing a common law remedy in these circumstances. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of dismissal because plaintiff has not stated a valid cause of action. View "Meshal v. Higgenbotham" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant. In this case, based on his girlfriend's statement that defendant was the owner of the bag containing the bullets, the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant constructively possessed the ammunition, and based on defendant's phone call from the police interview room where he instructed his girlfriend to conceal contraband. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law