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

Plaintiff filed suit against law enforcement officers, alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights, after he was tased when resisting arrest at an Occupy D.C. encampment. The district court concluded that the officers were protected by qualified immunity against plaintiff's claims because the officer's use of the Taser did not violate the Constitution. The court agreed with the district court that qualified immunity shields the officers from plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim, but on different grounds. The court held that a person actively resisting arrest does not have a clearly established right against a single use of a Taser to subdue him. The court also granted summary judgment to the officers on the First Amendment claim where plaintiff failed to meaningfully advance the argument on appeal. View "Lash v. Lemke" on Justia Law

Home Builders challenged a preliminary, internal determination, made by the EPA and the Corps in 2008, that two stretches of the Santa Cruz River in southern Arizona are traditional navigable waters. In Home Builders I, the court dismissed a similar suit involving the same parties for want of constitutional standing. The court held that Home Builders’ case for standing, although since supplemented with new declarations from members adding factual detail to their assertions of injury, is materially unchanged and thus precluded by Home Builders I. View "Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. EPA" on Justia Law

The Districts and the Trust petitioned for review of FERC's order determining that the La Grange Hydroelectric Project fell within the mandatory licensing provisions of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 817(1). Because the Trust has failed to establish standing either for itself or on behalf of its members, the court dismissed its petition for lack of jurisdiction. As to the merits of the Districts' arguments, the court concluded that FERC’s evidence of actual use in the past, together with current use of the Tuolumne River by California DFG crews, constitutes substantial evidence supporting FERC’s finding that La Grange is located on a navigable water of the United States; FERC properly relied on the results of its backwater analysis to conclude that the La Grange reservoir extends onto federal lands; and the Districts' challenges to FERC's finding that the La Grange Project is subject to FERC's mandatory licensing jurisdiction based on Congress's "authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States" are without merit. Accordingly, the court denied the petition, concluding that FERC's jurisdictional determinations were supported by substantial evidence and reached by reasoned decisionmaking. View "Turlock Irrigation Dist. v. FERC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against DHS, alleging twenty-one causes of action stemming from the Government's collection, maintenance, and use of information about him. The court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss each claim except those brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that DHS is in possession of his full and specific credit card number, along with information regarding the type and issuer of the card. That plaintiff possesses a major credit card of a specific type and number bears on his mode of living for purposes of the definition of "consumer report" within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's ruling that the Act's claims failed on the first prong of the definition of "consumer report" and remanded for further proceedings. View "Abdelfattah v. DHS" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of interstate travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor and was sentenced to 84 months' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court committed procedural error by failing to address his nonfrivolous sentencing manipulation argument when imposing the sentence. The court held that the Supreme Court’s post-Booker decisions required sentencing courts to consider nonfrivolous mitigation arguments at sentencing. When a judge fails to address a defendant’s nonfrivolous mitigation claim based on a 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factor, a reviewing court and the public cannot adequately evaluate the judge’s sentence selection. Moreover, where, as here, a district court may have thought it was prohibited, as a matter of law, from considering a claim for mitigation, the error seriously affects the public reputation of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court committed plain error by failing to consider defendant's nonfrivolous mitigation argument and the court vacated the sentence, remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Bigley" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Postal Service amended its mail preparation requirements so that mail pieces prepared according to the “basic-service Intelligent Mail” standard would no longer be eligible for a discounted “automation” rate available to mailers who use technologies to increase the Postal Service’s efficiency. In subsequent rate change proceedings before the Commission, mailers objected that this change in mail preparation requirements constituted a classification change resulting in an increase in rates that must be counted against the Postal Service’s price cap. The Commission agreed and the Postal Service petitioned for review. The court held that the price cap statute and the applicable regulations do not entirely foreclose the Commission from determining that some mail preparation requirements constitute “changes in rates;" however, the Commission's decision in this case is arbitrary and capricious for lack of reasoned decisionmaking; the court remanded to the Commission to enunciate an intelligible standard and then reconsider its decision in light of that standard; and, because the changes to the Domestic Mail Manual should continue to be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the remand, it is unnecessary for the court to vacate the Commission’s decision. View "USPS v. PRC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her complaint for failure to effect service of process as required under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1608(a)(3). In view of the resulting prejudice to plaintiff and the absence of any relevant prejudice to the Embassy of Zambia of allowing a further effort at service, the court concluded that that dismissal was too extreme a remedy because plaintiff's attempts at service came so close to strict compliance with the FSIA as to demonstrate a good faith effort at timely compliance amidst the sometimes confusing directions from the district court. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Barot v. Embassy of Zambia" on Justia Law

Representative Charles Rangel filed suit challenging his 2010 censure by the United States House of Representatives as a violation of the House Rules and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Rangel sued the former Chair, Ranking Member and Republican Members of the House Ethics Committee; the former Chief Counsel and two Committee staffers; and the current Speaker and Clerk of the House. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that Rangel lacked Article III standing, the complaint presented a nonjusticiable political question, and defendants were immune from suit under the Speech and Debate Clause. The court concluded that defendants' actions fall comfortably within the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause and they enjoyed legislative immunity in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision on this ground and did not consider Rangel's remaining arguments. View "Rangel v. Boehner" on Justia Law

Petitioners, large entertainment companies, sought review of the Commission's order requiring the major cable companies who were applying for merger to submit certain proprietary documents for review and proposal to make them available for examination by other players in the cable industry on an expedited schedule. The court granted the petition for review and vacated the order, concluding that the Commission has failed to overcome its presumption against disclosure of confidential information by failing to explain why VPCI is a "necessary link in a chain of evidence that will resolve an issue before the Commission." The order amounts to a substantive and important departure from prior Commission policy, and the Commission has failed to explain the departure. View "CBS Corp. v. FCC" on Justia Law

Petitioner Fallbrook Hospital petitioned for review of the Board's decision ordering it to pay negotiation expenses to the Union after the Board held that petitioner had violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (5). The Board found that the totality of petitioner's conduct made it clear that there was no intent to bargain and found multiple violations of the Act based on petitioner's conduct at the bargaining table. The court concluded that the Board's decision that negotiation expenses were warranted in this case is amply supported by substantial evidence in the record and has a rational basis in the law. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and granted the Board's cross-petition for enforcement. View "Fallbrook Hosp. Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law