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

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

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