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

The County seeks attorneys' fees from the Government under the Voting Rights Act of 1965's (VRA), 52 U.S.C. 10310(e), fee-shifting provision after the County prevailed in a challenge to the constitutionality of the VRA. The court agreed with the district court that the County is not entitled to attorneys’ fees because its lawsuit did not advance any of the purposes that Congress meant to promote by making fees available. Even though the County has based its argument for fees entirely on Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., the district court considered whether the County might also be entitled to fees under the Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC standard, which would allow a fee award only if the Government’s defense of the coverage formula’s constitutionality was frivolous or without foundation. But since the County has never maintained that it could even theoretically obtain fees under that standard, the court did not resolve whether Christiansburg Garment should sometimes apply in cases like this one. The court concluded that it is enough to resolve this fee dispute by holding that the County is not entitled to fees under the only standard it has urged the court to apply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of attorneys' fees. View "Shelby County v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Nationals of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago abducted wealthy individuals, held them captive in the island's mountainous forests, and extorted ransoms from terrified family and friends. The conspirators were extradited to the United States, tried, and convicted of violating the Hostage Taking Act, 18 U.S.C. 1203. Principally at issue was whether the Act applies if the victim secured his United States citizenship through fraud. The court agreed with the district court that the Act does apply. The court concluded that, by its plain language, section 1203 broadly protects United States citizens. The statute imposes no restriction on this protection. It does not, for example, exclude citizens who, in retrospect, are unworthy of the honor. Nor does it exclude persons whose citizenship might at some later time be invalidated. In other words, section 1203 protects victims according to their status at the time of the hostage-taking. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment as to this issue. Further, the court affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the United States Attorney to initiate posthumous denaturalization proceedings against the victim under 8 U.S.C. 1451. The court rejected defendants' remaining claims. The court affirmed the convictions and the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Straker" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit contending that the government's "bulk data program" collection constitutes an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. The program operates pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, where section 215 of the Act empowered the FBI to request, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to enter, orders “requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism.” The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from collecting plaintiffs’ call records, but stayed its order pending appeal. After the court determined that the case was not moot, Judge Brown and Judge Williams wrote separate opinions stating the reasons for reversal. Judge Brown wrote separately to emphasize that, while plaintiffs have demonstrated it is only possible - not substantially likely - that their own call records were collected as part of the bulk-telephony metadata program, plaintiffs have nonetheless met the bare requirements of standing. Having barely fulfilled the requirements for standing at this threshold stage, plaintiffs fall short of meeting the higher burden of proof required for a preliminary injunction. Judge Williams wrote that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a “substantial likelihood” that the government is collecting from Verizon Wireless or that they are otherwise suffering any cognizable injury. They thus cannot meet their burden to show a “likelihood of success on the merits” and are not entitled to a preliminary injunction. View "Klayman v. Obama" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit claiming that 40 U.S.C. 6135's Assemblages and Display Clauses, by restricting his intended activities, violate his rights under the First Amendment. Plaintiff seeks to picket, leaflet, and make speeches in the Supreme Court plaza, with the aim of conveying to the Supreme Court and the public what he describes as “political messages” about the Supreme Court’s decisions. The district court declared the statute unconstitutional in all its applications to the Supreme Court's plaza. The court concluded, however, that the Supreme Court's plaza is a nonpublic forum and the government can impose reasonable restrictions on speech as long as it refrains from suppressing particular viewpoints. In this case, neither the Assemblages Clause nor the Display Clause targets specific viewpoints, and both clauses reasonably relate to the government’s long-recognized interests in preserving decorum in the area of a courthouse and in assuring the appearance (and actuality) of a judiciary uninfluenced by public opinion and pressure. The statute’s reasonableness is reinforced by the availability of an alternative site for expressive activity in the immediate vicinity: the sidewalk area directly in front of the Supreme Court’s plaza. Therefore, the court upheld the statute’s constitutionality. View "Hodge v. Talkin" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the SEC to invalidate a four-year-old rule, promulgated under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b, regulating campaign contributions by investment advisers. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appealed and concurrently filed a petition asking this court for direct review. The court consolidated and expedited the cases. The court held that courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to rules promulgated under the Investment Advisers Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. The court further held that such challenges must be brought in this court within sixty days of promulgation of the rule, and there are no grounds for an exception in this case: The law governing where to file was clear during the limitations period, and the length of time the statute affords for pre-enforcement review is adequate. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition as time-barred. View "New York Republican State Comm. v. SEC" on Justia Law

D.C. Code. Mun. Regs. Title 24, 121.1 is a municipal regulation that forbids any person from “set[ting] up, maintain[ing], or establish[ing] any camp or any temporary place of abode in any tent” on public property without the Mayor’s authorization. Members of the "Occupy Movement" filed suit alleging that their arrests for violating the regulation violated their rights under the Constitution and District law. The court held that the arresting officers had probable cause to conclude that plaintiffs had violated the temporary-abode regulation, and there is no dispute that plaintiffs “set up” a “tent” on public property, within the meaning of the District regulation. The court had no doubt that the officers’ judgment was reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, plaintiffs' arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment or constitute a false arrest. Further, the court concluded that qualified immunity bars plaintiffs' claim that the officers arrested them in retaliation for their protest in violation of their First Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The court noted that the district court’s decision to dismiss one count of the complaint without prejudice, as part of its final order dismissing the action in its entirety, did not deprive the court of appellate jurisdiction. View "Dukore v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Action, a nonprofit organization, filed a series of three Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, requests with the Federal Trade Commission seeking records related to the Commission's guides for the use of product endorsements in advertising. At issue is who should pay the costs of satisfying those requests. The Commission and the district court rejected Action’s claims for fee waivers regarding its first and second FOIA requests, and then concluded that Action’s claims regarding its third request were moot. The court concluded, however, that Action's claims regarding its third request were not moot because the Commission has not produced without charge all the non-exempt documents Action sought in its third request. Therefore, Action's entitlement to a public-interest or news-media fee waiver must be reconsidered in light of the full agency record and the clarifications set out by the court. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Cause of Action v. FTC" on Justia Law

Three associations of home care agencies filed suit challenging the Department's extension of the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., minimum-wage and overtime provisions to employees of third-party agencies who provide companionship services and live-in care within a home. The district court invalidated the Department’s new regulations, concluding that they contravene the terms of the FLSA exemptions. The court concluded, however, that the Supreme Court's decision in Long Island Care at Home Ltd. v. Coke, confirms that the FLSA vests the Department with discretion to apply (or not to apply) the companionship-services and live-in exemptions to employees of third-party agencies. Therefore, the Department’s decision to extend the FLSA’s protections to those employees is grounded in a reasonable interpretation of the statute and is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for the grant of summary judgment to the Department. View "Home Care Ass'n v. Weil" on Justia Law

The union petitioned for review of the Board's conclusion that the union committed unfair labor practices by operating a hiring hall that helped only its own members gain employment. The union operated a referral service for drivers seeking jobs in the entertainment production business in South Carolina. The dispute in this case stems from the employment of drivers for the television show called "Army Wives." The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusions that the union’s referral list was open only to its members, that the union refused to refer Thomas Coghill for employment because he was not a member, and that the union would not have added Coghill to its list even it had remained open because he was not a member. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "Teamsters Local Union No. 509 v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of travel fraud and wire fraud for a scheme in which he obtained funds from investors and home buyers based on false representations about how the funds would be used, appealed his convictions and sentence, raising several challenges. The court remanded defendant's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to offer certain testimony and evidence to establish Fourth Amendment standing and by failing to move for dismissal under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2). The court rejected defendant's remaining challenges, including a number of passing suggestions of ineffective assistance of counsel mentioned only in footnotes or conclusory statements in defendant’s briefing. Those passing references, which contain no discussion of the relevant law, are “not enough to raise [those] issue[s] for our review.” View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law