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

After Abu Wa’el (Jihad) Dhiab, a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, went on a hunger strike, he was forcibly extracted from his cell and force-fed. The district court examined 32 classified videotapes of Dhiab's forcible cell extractions and force-feedings in order to grant Dhiab's motion to enjoin the government from forcibly extracting him from his cell and force-feeding him. At issue is the district court's grant of media organizations' motion to unseal and release the videotapes. The court concluded that, the district court’s decision did not terminate the action, and it does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction. Further, this case does not present the extraordinary circumstances required for mandamus relief. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied the request for a writ of mandamus View "Dhiab v. Obama" on Justia Law

Petitioners, PVC manufacturers, challenged EPA's 2012 rule setting first-time-ever limits on the emission of most hazardous air pollutants from PVC productions. Petitioners raised many of their objections for the first time in petitions for reconsideration with EPA that are awaiting resolution. The court concluded that it was precluded from reviewing these objections under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7412. In regards to petitioners' objections that are ready for review, the court held that EPA acted reasonably and in accordance with the CAA where EPA’s PVC-combined process vent limits do not conflict with other emissions limits, and EPA’s decision not to subcategorize process vents on the basis of their emissions control technology was reasonable; EPA’s bypass opening requirements are not arbitrary and capricious, and its requirement that PVC manufacturers install monitoring equipment on pressure relief devices is not irrational; and petitioners’ argument that some of EPA’s bypass regulations are unlawful beyond-the-floor MACT requirements stems from misapprehension of the CAA and is without merit. Therefore, the court denied the petition View "Mexichem Specialty Resins v. EPA" on Justia Law

Appellants, four associations involved in building and developing land, challenged consent decrees that require the Service to determine, in accordance with a settlement-defined schedule for action, whether 251 species should be listed as endangered or threatened. The court concluded that appellants lacked Article III standing, rejecting their claims of procedural injuries based on loss of opportunity to comment at the warranted-but-precluded stage, withdrawal of the warranted-but-precluded classification, and acceleration of final listing determinations. Appellants failed to allege a cognizable harm and appellants' members cannot show injury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., seeking an order requiring DCPS to provide her son with compensatory education. The district court dismissed the suit as moot because the school system responded to the complaint by offering an individualized education plan that is adequate to keep the child on track going forward. The court concluded, however, that the district court failed to address whether the child was entitled to compensatory education, which is a remedy that remains available. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Boose v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

Validus, a foreign corporation, filed suit seeking a refund of excise taxes imposed under 26 U.S.C. 4371, which taxes certain types of "reinsurance." The government contends that “the best reading of the statute” establishes its applicability to reinsurance purchased by a reinsurer because such policies (known as “retrocessions”) are “a type of reinsurance,” and also that interpretation carries out Congress’s intent “to level the playing field” between domestic (U.S.) insurance companies subject to U.S. income taxes and foreign insurance companies that are not so burdened. Validus responds, however, that the plain text, considered in the context of reinsurance, and the statutory structure make clear that the excise tax does not apply to retrocessions, and further, the presumption against extraterritoriality resolves any doubt that the tax is inapplicable to Validus’s purchases of reinsurance from a foreign reinsurer. The court concluded that the text of the statute is ambiguous with respect to its application to wholly foreign retrocessions, and the ambiguity is resolved upon applying the presumption against extraterritoriality because there is no clear indication by Congress that it intended the excise tax to apply to premiums on wholly foreign retrocessions. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on Validus's refund claims. View "Validus Reinsurance v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to federal charges stemming from a series of armed robberies. Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years in prison and ordered to pay restitution, as well as a special assessment. Both amounts were payable immediately under the district court's order. The sentencing order also provided that, during plaintiff's time in prison, he was to participate in the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) through which he would make payments to satisfy the restitution obligation. On appeal, appellant contended that the district court's delegation to the IFRP violated the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA)18 U.S.C. 3664(f)(2). Section 3664(f)(2) mandates that the court shall specify in the restitution order the manner in which, and the schedule according to which, the restitution is to be paid. Because the filing requirement under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b) is a non-jurisdictional, claim processing rule, the court proceeded to the merits of the appeal. The court concluded that in United States v. Baldwin, the court determined that restitution arrangements like the one at issue here do not constitute plain error. The court rejected Amicus' attempts to distinguish Baldwin and its claims that Baldwin is bad law. Accordingly, the court denied the appeal. View "United States v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Defendants challenged a district court order requiring that they add two statements to their cigarette packages and advertisements: an announcement that a federal court has ruled that they “deliberately deceived the American public” about the dangers of cigarettes; and a declaration that they “intentionally designed cigarettes” to maximize addiction. The court concluded that given its earlier decisions in this case, the manufacturers’ objection to disclosing that they intentionally designed cigarettes to ensure addiction is both waived and foreclosed by the law of the case. Those decisions make equally clear that the district court, in ordering defendants to announce that they deliberately deceived the public, exceeded its authority under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, to craft remedies that “prevent and restrain” future violations. 18 U.S.C. 1964(a). The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the SEC's order to cease and desist from violating the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77e(a), (c), and the agency's subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. Petitioner sold shares of stock in Lexington, Inc. through offshore bank accounts for millions of dollars in profit, but failed to comply with the SEC's registration requirements for the sale of securities. The SEC found that petitioner had violated the Act in two separate enforcement actions. The court found no merit in petitioner’s objections to the SEC’s application of the fraudulent concealment doctrine. The court further held that the Commission correctly rejected petitioner's affirmative defenses of equitable estoppel, judicial estoppel, and waiver. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Pierce v. SEC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, hospitals that participate in Medicare, filed suit against the Secretary, claiming that she violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., by engaging in arbitrary and capricious decision-making. This dispute arose from plaintiffs' belief that the Secretary set the monetary threshold for outlier payments too high in 2004, 2005, and 2006. The court affirmed the district court’s partial denial of the motion to supplement the administrative record and its rejection of the APA challenges to the 2005 and 2006 outlier thresholds. The district court erred, however, in concluding that the Secretary adequately explained the 2004 outlier threshold. Therefore, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment on this claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "District Hosp. Partners v. Burwell" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12102 et seq., discrimination suit in which a jury returned a verdict finding that plaintiff, a diabetic, was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. In this case, the district court correctly concluded that there was evidence presented at trial that plaintiff could control his diabetes by eating three meals a day, plus snacks, and taking his medication. The court concluded that there is no good reason to assume that the jury was misled by the Sutton v. United States Air Lines, Inc. instruction given by the district court where the jury had before it sufficient evidence to determine that plaintiff was allowed to eat his regular meals and snacks, and thus conclude that he did not have a disability under the ADA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Lee v. Government of D.C." on Justia Law