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

Defendant, convicted of fraud and embezzlement, argued that the district court erred in excluding two defense exhibits at trial. The fraud and embezzlement was in connection with defendant's management of a union of private security guards. The court concluded that it was error to exclude one of the defense exhibits, an employment contract, and remanded for the district court to determine whether that additional evidence affects defendant's sentence. In this case, the contract was potentially a significant piece of exculpatory evidence; the government has not identified any prejudice it would have suffered from the defense's use of the exhibit; and the district court did not find that the defense withheld the disputed contract in bad faith. Although the court rejected defendant’s conflict-of-interest theory, the court follows this circuit’s usual practice and remanded most of his ineffective assistance claims for initial determination by the district court. View "United States v. Gray-Burriss" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(9) and (b)(3) and implementing regulations are unconstitutional because the provisions, in effect, prohibit citizens not residing in any state from purchasing firearms. At issue was whether a citizen who permanently resides outside the United States has a right under the Second Amendment to purchase a firearm for self-defense while he is temporarily visiting this country. In this case, the court concluded that there are too many unanswered questions regarding plaintiff’s particular situation even though he seeks to mount an as applied challenge. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States and remanded for trial. View "Dearth v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Z Street filed suit against the Commissioner, alleging that the “Israel Special Policy” violates the First Amendment. Z Street alleges that the agency has an “Israel Special Policy” under which applications from organizations holding “political views inconsistent with those espoused by the Obama administration” receive increased “scrutin[y]” that results in such applications “tak[ing] longer to process than those made by organizations without that characteristic.” The court agreed with the district court that Z Street seeks not to restrain “the assessment or collection” of a tax, but rather to obtain relief from unconstitutional delay, the effects of which it is now suffering. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. View "Z Street v. Koskinen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against two police officers, alleging that they violated the Fourth Amendment and D.C. law because each officer assaulted her son and one killed him. The court concluded that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to the actions of the officer who fired the fatal shots, thus making himself the only surviving eyewitness to the actual killing. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his favor. The court affirmed the jury's verdict for the second officer. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Flythe v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

The NTSB completed an investigation and issued reports identifying Georgina Joshi, the pilot, as the most likely cause of a plane crash. Georgina's father filed a petition seeking reconsideration of its conclusion in light of new evidence he gathered. The Board denied the petition. The court reported that it may not review the reports or the denial of the petition for reconsideration because they are not considered a final order subject to judicial review. Accordingly, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Joshi v. NTSB" on Justia Law

In this appeal, both parties agree that the tax court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition filed by taxpayers challenging the seizure of their funds by the IRS. At issue was why, and the reason the tax court lacked jurisdiction. The court concluded that the tax court’s December 2013 denial of both parties’ motions and its terse order undercut any contention that it resolved precisely why jurisdiction was lacking in this case. Therefore, the court vacated the December order and remanded to the tax court to give that court an opportunity to state its reasons for dismissing the petition. Because the costs claim will be affected by the grounds of the tax court’s jurisdictional ruling, the court vacated the tax court’s denial of taxpayers’ motion for costs and leave it to the tax court to decide taxpayers’ motion anew, in light of the jurisdictional rationale it adopts; because the tax court’s December order did not address taxpayers’ alternative ground for jurisdiction, the tax court must first determine, on remand, whether the parties have preserved their arguments concerning this issue; and the court lacked jurisdiction to consider a new argument taxpayers attempt to raise for the first time on appeal regarding a collection due process hearing. View "Edwards v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

This dispute stemmed from a house that Debra Stevenson and her son Eugene Smith both own. After Stevenson refinanced her mortgage twice and then filed for bankruptcy, HSBC filed suit in Bankruptcy Court seeking equitable subrogation, which permits courts to declare that the owner of a mortgage (HSBC) has the same rights as an earlier-in-time owner of another mortgage (Wells Fargo). Only Stevenson signed the paperwork for the second refinancing with HSBC and Smith refused to sign because he thought the interest rate was too high. HSBC went ahead with the mortgage in full without Smith's signature. The court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's conclusion that HSBC is entitled to equitable subrogation and rejected Stevenson and Smith’s claims that the mortgage is invalid under D.C. and federal lending laws. The court affirmed the judgment. View "In Re: Debra M. Stevenson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, to the EOUSA, seeking grand jury information for two criminal cases. The EOUSA invoked exemption 3 to justify its nondisclosure of the dates and times of day that the grand jury met to hear testimony and consider evidence in the cases. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the EOUSA, holding that the dates and times of day the grand jury meets to consider a specific case are protected by exemption 3. View "Murphy v. EOUSA" on Justia Law

Kern River and the Shippers seek review of seven orders issued by FERC during rate proceedings. The Shippers ship natural gas using Kern River's pipeline. The court concluded that the Commission complied with the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717c, and the court's precedents; the Commission responded meaningfully to petitioners’ objections and articulated a rational explanation for its decisions under the particularly deferential standard of review the court applied to ratemaking decisions; and therefore, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Aera Energy LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, known as the Spectrum Act, authorizes the FCC to shift a portion of the licensed airwaves from over-the-air television broadcasters to mobile broadband providers. The Act directs the Commission to carry out the objective of repurposing spectrum through three interdependent initiatives: (i) a reverse auction to determine the prices at which broadcasters would voluntarily sell their spectrum rights; (ii) a reassignment of broadcasters who wish to retain their rights to new channels in a smaller band of spectrum; and (iii) a forward auction to sell the blocks of newly available spectrum to wireless providers, with the proceeds used to compensate broadcasters who voluntarily relinquished their spectrum rights and to pay the relocation expenses of broadcasters reassigned to new channels. Members of the television broadcast industry petitioned for review of the Commission's orders, arguing that the decisions announced in the orders conflict with the Act or are otherwise arbitrary and capricious. The court rejected petitioners’ contention at Chevron step one that the statute unambiguously forecloses the Commission’s use of the improved TVStudy program along with updated data inputs when applying OET-69 to determine a broadcaster’s coverage area and population served; the court rejected petitioners’ argument that the Commission’s decision to use TVStudy and updated inputs amounts to an unreasonable interpretation of the Act at Chevron step two; the court rejected petitioners' arbitrary-and-capricious arguments; in regards to petitioners' procedural challenge, any error in OET’s (rather than the Commission’s) issuing the Public Notice was harmless; and the court rejected petitioners' remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Nat'l Ass'n of Broadcasters v. FCC" on Justia Law