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

An individual who formerly worked at major international banks provided information to the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (UK FCA) regarding alleged manipulation of widely used foreign exchange benchmark rates. This person asserted that traders at certain banks engaged in practices to benefit the institutions at the expense of clients during the setting of the benchmark rates. The UK FCA later became publicly linked to the issue through a media article describing the manipulation scheme. The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) subsequently initiated an investigation based on the media article, ultimately resulting in enforcement actions and significant penalties against five banks for attempted manipulation of the benchmark rates.After the CFTC’s enforcement actions concluded, the individual submitted an application for a whistleblower award, asserting that his information provided to the UK FCA had set the investigation in motion and led to the enforcement actions. The Whistleblower Claims Review Staff at the CFTC determined that the applicant was ineligible for an award, concluding that the information he provided was not sufficiently specific, credible, or timely to have triggered the investigation, and that the investigation was prompted by the media article rather than his contributions. The applicant challenged the denial, arguing both that his information was central to the investigation and that there was improper internal influence affecting the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the CFTC’s denial under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court held that the CFTC’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, finding that the investigation was initiated by the media article’s detailed reporting, not by the applicant’s information, and that no evidence demonstrated improper influence or prejudice in the agency’s process. The court denied the petition for review, upholding the CFTC’s denial of the whistleblower award. View "The Estate of Jennions v. CFTC" on Justia Law

Several environmental organizations challenged a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that modified how the agency determines whether a stationary source of air pollution requires a permit for modifications under the Clean Air Act’s New Source Review (NSR) program. The core factual issue concerned whether, in assessing if a physical or operational change at a facility triggers the need for an NSR permit, the EPA may consider both emission increases and decreases attributable to a single project (“project emissions accounting”) at the initial step of the permitting process.Previously, the EPA used a two-step process: Step One evaluated whether a proposed project would itself cause a significant emissions increase, and Step Two determined whether any source-wide emissions decreases would offset that increase. The challenged rule allowed for netting both increases and decreases within a single project at Step One. Petitioners argued that this change would allow regulated entities to avoid NSR by aggregating unrelated activities and relying on emissions decreases that were not contemporaneous with increases.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the petitions after several environmental groups sought judicial review following the EPA’s adoption of the project emissions accounting rule and related interpretive guidance. The court found that at least one petitioner had standing based on alleged injury from increased emissions at a specific facility. The court held that the EPA’s rule was not contrary to law and did not violate the Clean Air Act, as it consistently applied the statutory definition of “modification” and fell within the agency’s reasonable interpretive discretion. The court further held that the rule was not arbitrary or capricious, finding the EPA’s explanations for its approach to project aggregation and recordkeeping requirements sufficient. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA" on Justia Law

PhantomALERT, a developer of a traffic app that crowdsources real-time data, modified its app in early 2020 to help users spot and avoid Covid-19 outbreaks. Apple rejected PhantomALERT’s updated app from its App Store, citing new guidelines limiting Covid-19-related apps to those from recognized health entities and requiring apps in highly regulated fields to be submitted by legal entities, not individual developers. PhantomALERT was invited to revise and resubmit its app for compliance. The Google Play Store also rejected the app for similar reasons. Apple later updated its guidelines, allowing certain Covid-related apps endorsed by government entities, but PhantomALERT alleged it was not notified of this change.PhantomALERT sued Apple in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, California antitrust law, and California unfair competition law. Apple moved to dismiss, and PhantomALERT missed the deadline for an opposition brief, instead filing an amended complaint. The district court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice as conceded and denied leave to late-file the amended complaint, finding it futile. The court determined PhantomALERT’s antitrust allegations failed to define a relevant product or geographic market and that prerequisites for injunctive relief under California law were not met.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s order de novo, finding the dismissal was final and appealable. The Circuit affirmed, holding that PhantomALERT failed to plausibly allege relevant product markets for its Sherman Act claims, including the alleged App Store single-brand aftermarket and submarket for Covid-19-related tracing apps. The court concluded the amended complaint did not state a claim under federal or California antitrust laws, nor under California’s unfair competition law. The dismissal was affirmed without prejudice. View "PhantomALERT Inc. v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

In the aftermath of the 2008 housing crisis, Congress created the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and authorized it to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. The FHFA and the U.S. Treasury entered into agreements whereby the Treasury would provide capital to these companies, initially in exchange for fixed-rate dividends. In 2012, these agreements were amended so that Fannie and Freddie were required to pay the Treasury dividends equal to their net worth above a specified reserve, a change known as the “Net Worth Sweep.” The announcement of this amendment caused the value of Fannie and Freddie shares to drop significantly, and shareholders, including those holding both common and junior preferred shares, filed suit alleging various statutory and contract violations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially dismissed most claims, but after appellate review and remand, permitted the shareholders’ implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim to proceed to trial. The jury found the FHFA had violated this implied covenant by adopting the Net Worth Sweep, awarding over $612 million in damages, which the district court increased to $812 million with prejudgment interest. The district court denied the FHFA’s post-trial motions and rejected shareholders’ attempts to seek restitution or reliance damages beyond expectation damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the implied covenant claim was not foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent or by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, that the claim was available against the FHFA as conservator, and that the Net Worth Sweep violated the reasonable expectations of shareholders. The court also determined that post-Net Worth Sweep purchasers of shares could pursue the claim, and that the denial of restitution and reliance damages was proper. Accordingly, the award of expectation damages was affirmed. View "Fairholme Funds, Inc v. FHFA" on Justia Law

A non-profit river conservation and recreation organization, whose members include kayakers and canoers in Missouri, sought to intervene out of time in a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license surrender proceeding for the Niangua Hydroelectric Project in Missouri. The project, completed in 1930, impounded the Niangua River and created Lake Niangua. After decades of operation and relicensing, the licensee decided not to pursue relicensing, proposing to decommission the project but leave the dam in place. The organization argued its members would be directly affected and that its participation would represent public interest, but it missed the intervention deadline due to lack of awareness of the proceeding.FERC denied the organization’s unopposed motion to intervene out of time, finding it failed to demonstrate good cause for late filing under its procedural rules. FERC also denied rehearing, reiterating that lack of awareness of a publicly noticed proceeding did not constitute good cause and that, per its precedent, failure to show good cause was sufficient to deny intervention without considering other factors. The Commission subsequently approved the license surrender with the dam left in place, rejecting the organization’s comments.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. It held that FERC did not err in interpreting its rule to require a late intervenor to show good cause for the late filing, but concluded that FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by inconsistently applying its precedent on late intervention without providing a reasoned explanation. The court vacated FERC’s orders and remanded the case for reconsideration and a reasoned explanation consistent with FERC’s precedent. View "American Whitewater v. FERC" on Justia Law

A long-serving correctional officer at the District of Columbia Department of Corrections was terminated from her position after nearly three decades of service. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she became increasingly vocal about perceived failures in the Department’s response to the crisis. In her role as a union leader, she forwarded internal Department emails to union attorneys and participated in a local television interview criticizing the Department’s pandemic management. The Department launched an investigation, ultimately determining that she violated confidentiality policies and terminated her employment, despite a hearing officer’s recommendation for a lesser penalty.After her termination, she filed suit in D.C. Superior Court against the Department’s leadership, alleging that her firing violated her First Amendment rights. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court found triable issues of fact regarding whether her termination was motivated by protected speech and denied qualified immunity to the individual defendants. The defendants sought reconsideration, which was denied, and then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to her claim that she was fired for forwarding confidential emails, finding no violation of a clearly established First Amendment right in those circumstances. However, the court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for the claim that she was fired for giving a media interview, concluding that if her termination was motivated by the interview, it would violate clearly established First Amendment law. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Johnson v. DC" on Justia Law

Spanish investment companies alleged that Argentina unlawfully expropriated their airline investments, violating a bilateral treaty. After Argentina took over private airlines, the investors initiated arbitration at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). The ICSID tribunal awarded over $320 million to the investors, and an internal appellate committee later affirmed the award and added more than $1 million in costs. The investors then assigned their rights to Titan Consortium 1, LLC, which sought enforcement of the award in the United States four years after the initial award.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed Titan’s petition to enforce the arbitral award. Argentina moved to dismiss, arguing the petition was untimely under a three-year statute of limitations. The district court denied the motion, holding that the twelve-year statute of limitations for enforcement of money judgments under D.C. Code § 15-101 applied. It granted summary judgment for Titan, enforcing the award.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed Argentina’s appeal, which challenged only the timeliness ruling. The court considered which statute of limitations applies to enforcement actions under 22 U.S.C. § 1650a, the statute implementing the Washington Convention. The court held that D.C. Code § 15-101’s twelve-year limitations period for enforcement of money judgments is the closest analogue and applies to petitions enforcing ICSID awards under § 1650a. It rejected Argentina’s arguments for a three-year limitations period under federal or D.C. arbitration statutes, noting the differences in statutory text and enforcement procedures. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding Titan’s enforcement action was timely. View "Titan Consortium 1, LLC v. Argentine Republic" on Justia Law

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers participating in the federal 340B program, which requires them to provide discounted drugs to qualifying healthcare providers, proposed changing how they fulfill this obligation. Historically, these manufacturers complied by offering upfront discounts on eligible drug purchases. In 2024, they sought to implement a new rebate model, where providers would purchase drugs at full price and receive a post-purchase rebate to reach the required discounted price. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), responded that such rebate mechanisms had not been approved for these entities, requested further information, and stated that the manufacturers could not move forward with the new models without official approval.The manufacturers sued the Secretary in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the statute allowed them to unilaterally implement rebate models unless expressly disapproved by the Secretary. Advocacy groups and hospitals intervened, contending that rebate models were not permitted at all. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary, concluding that manufacturers could not implement such rebate systems without prior approval.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the statutory text of Section 340B permits rebate models but requires the Secretary to affirmatively provide for such mechanisms before manufacturers may implement them. The court found that the statute vests authority in the Secretary to determine acceptable pricing mechanisms and that manufacturers cannot act unilaterally in this regard. Because the Secretary had not approved the proposed rebate models, the court concluded that the manufacturers’ intended implementation was properly blocked. The appellate court therefore affirmed the district court’s decision in favor of the Secretary. View "Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans and its subsidiary, which sell securities including variable annuities and life insurance contracts, are required as broker-dealers to be members of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). FINRA’s rules mandate that disputes with customers be arbitrated in FINRA’s forum and prohibit class action waivers in customer agreements, which conflicted with Thrivent’s preferred arbitration process. Thrivent sought to have its own dispute resolution program, culminating in binding arbitration in a non-FINRA forum, applied to all customer disputes involving these products. After FINRA interpreted its rules as prohibiting Thrivent’s program, Thrivent petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to amend or abrogate the relevant FINRA arbitration rules, arguing they violated the Federal Arbitration Act.After receiving no response for nearly a year, Thrivent sought mandamus relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which was denied. Eventually, the SEC denied the petition for rulemaking in a brief letter that cited resource constraints and agency discretion but did not specifically address Thrivent’s arguments or provide a substantive rationale. Thrivent then petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review of the SEC’s denial.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that while agency discretion in rulemaking is broad, the SEC’s denial was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to provide a reasoned explanation particular to Thrivent’s petition. The court did not address the underlying merits of Thrivent’s claim or the validity of the FINRA rules. Instead, it granted the petition in part, remanding the matter to the SEC for further consideration and a more reasoned explanation. The court otherwise denied Thrivent’s petition for review. View "Thrivent Financial for Lutherans v. SEC" on Justia Law

Peter Navarro, a former senior adviser in the Trump administration, published materials and made public statements in 2021 about a plan to delay the certification of the 2020 presidential election. The U.S. House Select Committee investigating the January 6th Capitol attack subpoenaed Navarro for documents and deposition testimony related to these statements. Navarro refused to comply, asserting executive privilege before even seeing the subpoena and declining to engage with the Committee regarding his privilege claim. After the compliance deadline passed, the House voted to hold him in contempt, and a grand jury indicted him on two counts of contempt of Congress.In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Navarro moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that former President Trump had invoked executive privilege on his behalf. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found no evidence that Trump or his designee had actually invoked executive privilege in connection with the subpoena and denied the motion to dismiss. The court also granted a government motion to prevent Navarro from arguing at trial that a good-faith belief in executive privilege excused his noncompliance. A jury found Navarro guilty on both counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that only the President or a designated official can invoke executive privilege and that the district court did not clearly err in finding no such invocation occurred for Navarro’s subpoena. The court further held that executive privilege, even if properly invoked, would not have excused Navarro’s blanket refusal to comply, especially regarding his public statements and writings. It also affirmed that a mistaken belief in the applicability of executive privilege is not a defense to contempt of Congress. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Navarro" on Justia Law