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

Fortuna petitioned for review of a NLRB order finding that Fortuna violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), by suspending seventy-seven employees for participating in an on-site work stoppage. Applying the ten Quietflex Manufacturing Co. factors, the Board concluded that the work stoppage was protected and Fortuna's suspension of participating employees violated the Act. The court denied the petition and granted the Board's cross-petition for enforcement, concluding that the Board issued a reasonable order that was supported by substantial evidence. View "Fortuna Enterprises v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Whole Foods, alleging mistreatment that amounted to discrimination based on his disability and his race. Plaintiff suffers from a cognitive disability due to traumatic brain injury. He alleged that Whole Foods employees mistreated him and eventually orchestrated his false arrest for theft and trespassing. The court dismissed the suit. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff's pleadings set out allegations sufficient to survive dismissal of his Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12182(a), claim. The court held plaintiff's Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000a(a), claim in abeyance until he complies with the CRA notice provision. Accordingly, the court reversed the dismissal of both the ADA and CRA claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brown v. Whole Foods" on Justia Law

The Secretaries appealed the grant of summary judgment and issuance of a mandatory injunction to sell a certain amount of timber annually from federal land managed under the Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of 1937, 43 U.S.C. 1181a et seq. The court concluded that none of the plaintiff timber companies or timber organizations have demonstrated Article III standing. The declarations that the companies submitted before judgment fail to establish Article III standing for any plaintiff. None of the organizational plaintiffs identify individual injured members. The declarations are speculative with respect to the claimed threat to plaintiffs’ interests and conclusory or silent with respect to their claims of causation and redressibility. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint. View "Swanson Group Mfg. v. Jewell" on Justia Law

The Secretary issued regulations that effectively prohibit physicians who lease medical equipment to hospitals from referring their Medicare patients to these same hospitals for outpatient care involving that equipment. The association challenged the regulations as exceeding the Secretary's statutory authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. Although one majority agrees with the district court that the statute is ambiguous as to the regulation of leases that charge on a per-use basis, a different majority concludes that the Secretary’s explanation for prohibiting these leases is unreasonable; the court unanimously concludes that the Secretary’s interpretation of the statute to apply to the physician-groups performing the procedures is reasonable, and that the Secretary complied with the RFA; and therefore, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court with instructions to remand the regulation relating to leases charging by use to the Secretary for further proceedings. View "Council for Urological Interests v. Burwell" on Justia Law

The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (Act), 15 U.S.C. 18a, added section 7A to the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. 12 et seq., to establish notification and waiting requirements for large acquisitions and mergers. The principal purpose of the Act is to facilitate Government identification of mergers and acquisitions likely to violate federal antitrust laws before the proposed deals are consummated. In 2013, the FTC modified its reportable asset acquisition regulations to clarify that, even if patent holders retain limited manufacturing rights or co-rights, transfers of patent rights within the pharmaceutical industry constitute reportable asset acquisitions if all commercially significant rights are transferred. PhRMA filed suit challenging the FTC's Rule and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the FTC. The court concluded that the Rule does not violate the plain terms of the Act; the court owes deference to the FTC because the contested rule embodies a permissible construction of the Act; and the Commission's action also survives review under the arbitrary and capricious standard. Because the FTC's action is supported by reasoned decisionmaking and PhRMA's claims are without merit, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Pharmaceutical Research v. FTC" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged EPA’s anticipated rule restricting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Petitioners argue that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(d), does not grant EPA authority to limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants and therefore, petitioners ask the court to enjoin EPA from issuing a final rule limiting those carbon dioxide emissions. The court concluded that the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), does not authorize a court to circumvent finality principles in order to review proposed agency rules; EPA's public statements about its legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions does not constitute final agency action subject to judicial review; and the court rejected petitioners' challenge of a 2011 settlement agreement that EPA reached with several other states and environmental groups. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review and the petition for a writ of prohibition where the court does not have authority to review proposed agency rules. View "In Re: Murray Energy Corp." on Justia Law

Developer filed suit against the University after the University terminated the lease agreement between the parties because Developer failed to make a rental payment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the University. The court vacated and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that there is a genuine dispute whether a rental payment was due on May 30, 2013, and therefore whether the University was entitled to terminate the lease and to collect damages. View "Howard Town Center Developer v. Howard University" on Justia Law

Crossroads GPS, the beneficiary of a favorable decision by the Commission, moved to intervene as a defendant in a suit challenging the Commission’s ruling. The district court denied intervention, finding Crossroads’ interests were aligned with the FEC’s Office of General Counsel’s, which was defending the ruling. The court concluded that Crossroads has Article III standing because it has a concrete stake in the favorable agency action currently in place. The court rejected the Commission's argument that prudential standing prevents the court from hearing this case, because Crossroads' interest do not fall within the zone of interests the law protects, where the zone of interest has no applicability to an intervening defendant in this instance. The court further concluded that Crossroads easily met the minimal burden of showing inadequacy of representation and should be allowed to intervene as of right. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Public Citizen v. FEC" on Justia Law

The Postal Service and others sought review of the Commission's order (Order 1926) where the Commission agreed that the recession that started in 2008 was an “extraordinary or exceptional circumstance” that warranted some rate increase, but the Commission only permitted the Postal Service to recover $2.8 billion in lost revenue. Applying a deferential standard of review, the court upheld most of Order 1926 as neither arbitrary nor capricious, and as supported by substantial evidence. However, the court reversed the Commission’s determination that lost mail volume can only be counted for one year, as the rationale that the Postal Service should have been able to identify and adjust to that downturn immediately is at war with the Commission’s “new normal” holding, which openly endorsed a longer period of time for such adjustments. According, the court granted the Postal Service’s petition for review in part, vacated the “count once” portion of the Commission’s order, and otherwise denied the petition. The court also denied the Mailers’ petition for review. The case is remanded for further proceedings. View "Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers v. PRC" on Justia Law

Section 308(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1408(1), designates persons born in American Samoa as non-citizen nationals. Plaintiffs, individuals born in the United States territory of American Samoa, challenged section 308(1), as well as State Department policies and practices implementing the statute on Citizenship Clause grounds and under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On appeal, plaintiffs reassert their constitutional claim. The court concluded that, while the language of the Thirteenth Amendment may be broader than that found in the Citizenship Clause, this comparison yields no dispositive insight as to whether the Citizenship Clause’s use of the term “United States” includes American Samoa or similarly situated territories. Even assuming a background context grounded in principles of jus soli, the court is skeptical that the framers plainly intended to extend birthright citizenship to distinct, significantly self-governing political territories within the United States’s sphere of sovereignty - even where, as is the case with American Samoa, ultimate governance remains statutorily vested with the United States Government. The court held it anomalous to impose citizenship over the objections of the American Samoan people themselves, as expressed through their democratically elected representatives. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Tuaua v. United States" on Justia Law