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

This case arose from the Secretary’s decision in 2005 to change the boundaries of the geographic areas used to compute regional wage indices. A group of hospitals challenged the Secretary's decision to include wage data from Southcoast campuses outside the Boston-Quincy area in calculating the index for that area for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. The court concluded that the Secretary's treatment of Southcoast hewed to the existing administrative treatment of such multi-campus hospital groups; there were substantial informational and operational obstacles to implementing a different computational method quickly in 2006 or retroactively; appellants admit that the temporary effect of Southcoast’s multi-campus data on the wage index was a “one-off” occurrence arising from “unusual circumstances” that apparently did not affect any other multi-campus hospital group’s treatment; and nothing in the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq., or established principles of administrative review mandate that the Secretary individually tailor one hospital’s reporting treatment to fit appellants' preferred computational outcome. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Anna Jacques Hospital v. Burwell" on Justia Law

This case concerns an IRS regulation that imposes a “penalty” on U.S. banks that fail to report interest paid to certain foreign account-holders. Two Bankers Associations challenged the legality of the regulation. At issue was whether a challenge to a tax-related statutory or regulatory requirement that is enforced by a “penalty” – as opposed to a challenge to a statute or regulation that imposes a tax – is covered by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. 7421. The court concluded that the Tax Code defines some penalties as taxes for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. In those cases, such as the one here, the Anti-Injunction Act ordinarily applies because the suit, if successful, would invalidate the regulation and thereby directly prevent collection of the tax. The penalty at issue here is located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of the Tax Code. The Tax Code provides that penalties in Chapter 68, Subchapter B are treated as taxes under the Anti-Injunction Act. Accordingly, the Anti-Injunction Act bars this suit as premature. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with directions to dismiss the case. View "Florida Bankers Ass'n v. US Dep't of the Treasury" on Justia Law

The IRS Appeals Office denied appellant a Collection Due Process hearing based on its unexplained determination that all the reasons he gave for requesting a hearing were frivolous. Further, the Appeals office contends that its frivolousness determination is not subject to judicial review. However, the tax court held that it has jurisdiction to conduct a review limited to whether the IRS correctly treated appellant’s arguments as frivolous. The court affirmed the tax court’s conclusion regarding jurisdiction; the court also affirmed the tax court’s assessment that the IRS’s boilerplate letter rejecting appellant’s arguments as frivolous was inadequate; and, after remand, the Appeals Office held a Collection Due Process hearing, and the tax court correctly decided that the Office did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the IRS could proceed with collection actions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the tax court’s decision in its entirety. View "Ryskamp v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a pork producer and two animal welfare organizations who count pork producers among their members, filed suit claiming that the National Pork Board has misappropriated millions of dollars from a fund for pork promotion into which pork producers are required to pay. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. The court concluded that this case involves a concrete and particularized harm caused by an agency’s failure to confer a direct economic benefit on a statutory beneficiary; the court rejected the government’s argument that plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; and the Pork Act’s, 7 U.S.C. 48019b)(1), provision for administrative review would not offer plaintiffs adequate relief, and therefore they were not required to pursue it. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Humane Society v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

Appellants, a criminal defense attorney and two legal investigators, were convicted in 2012 of breaching duties owed to the court by fabricating evidence and suborning perjury during a 2008 trial in which they represented another individual as defendant. In this appeal, appellants raise claims of prosecutorial misconduct. Two appellants raise claims under Brady v. Maryland, for reversal of their convictions based on the Government’s undisputed breach of its obligation to timely turn over exculpatory evidence. The court agreed with Appellant Daaiyah Pasha that but for the Brady deficiency, there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome in her case. Therefore, the court directed a new trial for Daaiyah Pasha, with appropriate remedies to cure the damage caused by the Government’s delayed disclosure. However, the court did not agree with Appellants Charles Daum and Iman Pasha on the challenges they raise, and so the court affirmed their convictions. View "United States v. Pasha" on Justia Law

Cable operators’ retransmission of religious and devotional programming produced a pool of royalties that Congress charged the Copyright Royalty Judges with distributing to the copyright owners. In this appeal, Devotional Claimants argue that the Royalty Judges wrongly calculated their respective shares by allowing IPG to press claims without proper authority and refusing to accept Devotional Claimants' evidence regarding how the relative value of claims should be calculated. Devotional Claimants claim that, after the Royalty Judges rejected both their and IPG’s proposed methodologies, the Royalty Judges’ final allocation simply split the difference between the two parties, and that decision was arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence. The court agreed with Devotional Claimants' latter claim, concluding that the Royalty Judges are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706. The court affirmed the Royalty Judges’ procedural rulings resolving which IPG claims could go forward and whether the Devotional Claimants’ methodological evidence could be properly considered. View "Settling Devotional Claimants v. CRB" on Justia Law

KBR seeks a second writ of mandamus challenging the district court's conclusion that: (1) the Code of Business Conduct (COBC) documents at issue must be produced under Federal Rule of Evidence 612 on the theory that KBR waived attorney-client privilege and work product protection, and (2) KBR waived attorney-client privilege and work product protection for the COBC documents under the doctrine of “at issue” waiver. The court concluded that the district court’s Rule 612 ground for its production order was clear error because there was no basis for the fairness balancing test it conducted and, even had there been, the test failed to give due weight to the privilege and protection attached to the internal investigation materials. The district court may not, in resolving the motion for summary judgment, make any inference in KBR’s favor based on the contents of the privileged documents. The court further concluded that even a cursory review of the compelled documents shows that the December 17 order would require KBR to produce materials that are attorney-client privileged. In addition, the order compelled disclosure of numerous mental impressions of the investigators, based on a clearly erroneous finding that such conclusions were only “background materials” and therefore fact work product. The court granted the writ of mandamus, concluding that the writ will correct the legal error in this case and resolve the dispute over production of the COBC documents in favor of KBR. View "In re: Kellogg Brown & Root" on Justia Law

PETA filed suit against the USDA, arguing that the USDA's failure to craft avian-specific animal welfare regulations pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq., violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(1). The district court granted the USDA's motion to dismiss, concluding that the USDA’s enforcement decisions are committed by law to its discretion. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that PETA has organizational standing. On the merits, the court concluded that, even if the USDA has adopted an interim policy of non-enforcement pending the adoption of bird-specific regulations, as PETA alleges, nothing in the AWA requires the USDA to apply the general animal welfare standards to birds before it has promulgated more appropriate bird-specific regulations. In this case, the USDA has not failed to take action where, even assuming that the USDA is compelled by law to act, the court has no power to say that it must do so before finalizing its bird-specific regulations, at least in light of PETA’s abandonment of its argument that the USDA “unreasonably delayed” enforcement. Further, the AWA's mandatory licensure requirement is not directed to the USDA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "PETA v. USDA" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a mutual fund, challenged the Commission's denial of an exemption from rules governing the calculation and reporting of petitioner's deferred tax liability. The court concluded that petitioner’s attacks on the Commission’s “hypothetical speculation” affords no basis for setting aside the Commission’s reasonable conclusion that petitioner’s proposal to provide for only a small fraction of its full potential tax liability may result in inequitable treatment of redeeming and non-redeeming shareholders, contradicting a primary purpose of the Investment Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80a-22(a). The court rejected petitioner's remaining claims. Accordingly, petitioner's arguments fail to carry the high burden required to overturn the Commission’s denial of an exemption and, therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Copley Fund, Inc. v. SEC" on Justia Law

IBS, a nonprofit association representing college and high school radio stations, appealed the determination by the Copyright Royalty Board setting royalty rates for webcasting. The court rejected IBS's contention that the Board’s determination violated the Appointments Clause because it was tainted by the previous Board’s decision. The court concluded that the Judges’ determination was an independent, de novo decision by a properly appointed panel seized with the full authority of the prior Board. This court has twice before considered the validity of decisions made after the replacement of an improperly appointed official and both cases support the validity of a subsequent determination when -- as here -- a properly appointed official has the power to conduct an independent evaluation of the merits and does so. Because neither this court’s vacatur order nor any statute bars the procedural approach the Board took on remand, the court rejected Intercollegiate’s claim that the Board’s approach contravened the court's order. The court also rejected IBS's challenge to the Board's determination on the merits because the Board's imposition of a $500 annual minimum fee for all noncommercial webcasters was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion and the Board acted reasonably in setting the fee. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Intercollegiate Broadcasting v. CRB" on Justia Law