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

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

PLN filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., request to the Bureau seeking all documents showing money the Bureau paid in connection with lawsuits and claims brought against it between January 1, 1996, and July 31, 2003. The Bureau subsequently withheld information pursuant to exemption 6 and 7(C) of FOIA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bureau. The court reversed, agreeing with PLN that the Bureau’s use of a categorical explanation for the redactions was improper because of the varied nature of the documents and of the individuals shielded from disclosure, and that the district court did not adequately balance the privacy and public interests at stake. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings View "Prison Legal News v. Samuels" on Justia Law

Petitioners seek review of EPA's final rule, which determined that supercritical carbon dioxide injected into Class VI underground wells for purposes of geologic sequestration is “solid waste” within the meaning of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6903(27). The court dismissed the petitions for review because petitioners lacked Article III standing. In this case, neither Southern nor Occidental can show any injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III; Carbon Sequestration Council lacks standing because Southern lacks standing; and American Petroleum Institute lacks standing because Occidental lacks standing. View "Carbon Sequestration Council v. EPA" on Justia Law

WRC, operator of an oil refinery, seeks review of EPA's denial of its petition for an extension of its exemption from EPA's renewable fuels program. The court rejected WRC’s various challenges other than those identifying two mathematical errors in EPA’s independent analysis of WRC’s financial data. EPA concedes those errors. Because the conceded errors significantly alter important figures in EPA’s independent analysis of WRC’s financial data, the court cannot conclude with sufficient certainty that the agency would have made the same decision absent its errors.Therefore, the court vacated EPA’s decision and remanded to allow the agency to reevaluate WRC’s petition using the correct figures. View "Hermes Consol. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit stemming from the workers' compensation benefits owed to class members under the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq., for injuries suffered while working for United States government contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Members of the class suffered lost limbs in massive explosions, suffered traumatic brain injuries from “concussive blasts, mortars, rockets, and bombs,” and developed post-traumatic stress disorder after witnessing “gruesome scenes of carnage.” The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ class-wide tort claims in light of Hall v. C&P Telephone Company as well their Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-68, claims because plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action under the statute and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901-950, claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; however, this dismissal does not preclude any individual plaintiff from bringing independent claims outside of the Base Act’s statutory scheme; with respect to the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., claims brought by three individual plaintiffs, the court remanded to the district court to reconsider and explain its denial of leave to amend the complaint. View "Brink v. Continental Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the EPA’s determination that certain geographic areas are, or are not, in “attainment” with the EPA’s ground-level ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The court concluded that the EPA’s final designations of Delaware and Connecticut counties are consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; EPA's designation of Uinta Basin, Utah as "unclassifiable" is rational and in accordance with the CAA; EPA's refusal to use uncertified 2011 air-quality data during the designation process is rational and in accordance with the CAA; the EPA's use of 2008 to 2010 data to classify the counties within the Memphis, Tennessee area is rational and in accordance with the CAA; and the court rejected the remaining challenges. Accordingly, the court denied the consolidated petitions. View "MS Comm. Environ. Quality v. EPA" on Justia Law