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

Rattigan is a black male of Jamaican descent who worked at the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia as the FBI’s primary liaison to the Saudi intelligence service. In 2001, he accused supervisors in the FBI’s Office of International Operations, of discriminating against him on the basis of race and national origin and pursued charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Office. One of those supervisors later sent Special Agent Leighton on a short assignment to Riyadh, where he evidently grew suspicious about Rattigan. The FBI Security Division conducted an investigation and concluded that the alleged security risks were “unfounded.” Rattigan filed suit under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000. On remand, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the FBI because the memo on which Rattigan based his claim had been prepared not by one of the accused supervisors, but by Special Agent Donovan Leighton, who was not charged with discrimination and had no apparent reason to retaliate against him. The D.C. Circuit affirmed. View "Rattigan v. Holder" on Justia Law

The 2008 contract for the design and construction of nuclear electrical generating units at a Georgia power plant specifies that it is to be governed by Georgia law. The contractor sought payment after Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements delayed the project and imposed additional costs. The contract calls for mediation. After 60 days, either party may proceed to litigation “in a court of competent jurisdiction,” the parties “agree to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for any legal proceedings.” After mediation the contractor filed its District of Columbia complaint, seeking more than $900 million. The court’s electronic filing log reported “11/01/2012 20:00:01” as the filing time. Georgia Power filed in the Southern District of Georgia, seeking to recover more than $100 million paid under protest and a declaratory judgment. The hard copy of the complaint notes November 1, 2012, 8:00 p.m. as the time of the filing. The district court did not decide who filed first, but determined that the controversy should be adjudicated in Georgia, regardless of which party filed first. The D.C. Circuit affirmed. A clause permitting first-to-file challenges (comparing one lawsuit to another) contemplated that the venue clause was permissive. View "Stone & Webster, Inc. v. Georgia Power Co." on Justia Law

The TSA screens passengers and property moving by passenger aircraft, 49 U.S.C. 44901(a) and is authorized to impose a “uniform fee . . . on passengers . . . in air transportation and intrastate air transportation originating at airports in the United States.” Airlines collect the fees from passengers and remit the funds to TSA. In 2013, Congress reset the fee to “$5.60 per one-way trip in air transportation or intrastate air transportation that originates at an airport in the United States.” TSA implemented the amendment; a “one-way trip” means a continuous trip from one point to another with no stopover exceeding specified limits, so that a trip from New York to Los Angeles to San Francisco and back to New York, with stopovers exceeding four hours would be three one-way trips. Airlines challenged TSA’s rules, arguing that TSA lacked authority to impose fees in excess of $11.20 on roundtrip itineraries that involved multiple “one-way trips.” While the case was pending, Congress amended the statute, mooting that claim. The airlines also claimed that the statute precludes TSA from charging a fee on travel that begins abroad but includes a connecting flight within the U.S. The D.C. Circuit held that the airlines have standing but accepted TSA’s explanation that its construction of ambiguous text better aligns the imposition of the fee with those who benefit from the security services provided. View "Airlines for Am. v. Transp. Sec. Admin" on Justia Law

The Immigration and Nationality Act limits the number of annual visas, 8 U.S.C. 1101, creates categories for which visas may be granted, and imposes country-based limits. The category at issue, “Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers” (EB-3) has a general limit of about 40,000 visas annually in three subcategories. Xie fits within the subcategory EW for workers in occupations that require less than two years of training, education, or experience, and for which qualified workers are not available in the U.S. The subcategory is subject to a separate cap of 5,000. The government indicated that the current annual EW limit for China is 319. Under a complicated system of cut-off dates, Xie has waited for over eight years. She argued that widely differing cutoff dates for Chinese EW applicants, other Chinese EB-3 applicants, and EW applicants from other countries violate section 203’s temporal priority mandate. The district court dismissed, stating that Xie failed “to identify any discrete agency action that DOS is required to take” and failed to point to any authority requiring that action. The D.C. Circuit reversed. Xie specifically sought application of 8 U.S.C. 1153(e)(1), which directs State to process applications in the order of their filing. While varying lengths of wait among categories may comply with the mandate, Xie is entitled to have her claim assessed. View "Xie v. Kerry" on Justia Law

The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) extends roughly 200 miles into the ocean to the limit of U.S. international-law jurisdiction. Billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas lie beneath the OCS. Concerns about ecological vulnerability and potential harm to coastal tourism led to moratoriums on OCS drilling from 1982 until they were partially lifted in 2009. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster renewed debate about the safety of offshore drilling, but energy companies remain interested in offshore drilling. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) created a framework for exploration and extraction of OCS oil and gas deposits. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a program every five years with a schedule of proposed leases for OCS resource exploration and development; the program must balance competing economic, social, and environmental values, 43 U.S.C. 1344. CSE challenged the latest leasing program as failing to comply with Section 18(a), which governs the balancing of competing economic, social, and environmental values; quantifying and assessing environmental and ecological impact; and ensuring equitable distribution of benefits and costs between OCS regions and stakeholders. CSE claimed that the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement violated National Environmental Policy Act procedural requirements by using a biased analytic methodology and providing inadequate opportunities for public comment. The D.C. Circuit denied CSE’s petition. While CSE had associational standing to petition for review, its NEPA claims are unripe; two other challenges were forfeited and remaining challenges failed on their merits. View "Ctr. for Sustainable Econ. v. Jewell" on Justia Law

Investigating narcotics activity at Potomac Gardens, a D.C. housing project, agents obtained a wiretap on a telephone owned by Joseph, a former resident, and learned that Joseph coordinated a distribution network for heroin, suboxone pills, and crack cocaine. An acquaintance described Sanders to Joseph as a potential heroin supplier. The three met at a shopping center, where Joseph purchased 200 grams of heroin for $15,000. Joseph purchased heroin from Sanders five more times. Officers obtained a wiretap on Sanders’ phone and searched Sanders’ house. Sanders and eight others were indicted. Sanders was named only in Count One, which charged all nine with conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, and 100 grams or more of heroin. Eight codefendants pled guilty; Joseph testified as a cooperating witness at Sanders’ trial. Sanders represented himself, with standby counsel. He did not testify or present defense evidence. The jury convicted Sanders with respect to heroin; it acquitted him as to cocaine and crack cocaine. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court erred by foreclosing a request for hybrid legal representation, by denying a request for a multiple conspiracies jury instruction, and by failing to give an adequate response to a note from the jury. View "United States v. Sanders" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against PBGC, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., and seeking to correct PBGC's benefit determinations. The court concluded that PBGC properly interpreted the provisions of ERISA and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in declining to provide shutdown benefits to plaintiff; PBGC properly interpreted ERISA and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in failing to insure plaintiff's individual account; and, assuming arguendo that PBGC in fact amended the pension plan, plaintiff cannot identify a statutory provision that bars PBGC from doing so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to PBGC. View "Deppenbrook v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, Capitol Police, alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2615, when Capitol Police interfered with her exercise of FMLA rights and retaliated against her for that exercise. Plaintiff sought leave from a system allowing an employee to obtain a pre-approval of a "bank" leave. After the grant of her leave, police superiors ordered plaintiff to submit to a "fitness for duty examination," and told her that the facts supporting her FMLA requests were the basis for the order. Plaintiff's "police powers" were revoked and she was assigned to administrative duties while she waited to take the examination. In regards to the retaliation claim, the court concluded that the district court erred in granting Capitol Police's motion to dismiss where plaintiff's allegations amply supported the inference of retaliatory purpose and are enough to defeat the motion. In regard to the interference claim, the court held that an employer action with a reasonable tendency to "interfere with, restrain, or deny" the "exercise of or attempt to exercise" an FMLA right may give rise to a valid interference claim under section 2615(a)(1) even where the action fails to actually prevent such exercise or attempt. Plaintiff's claim satisfies this element as well as the second element of prejudice. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the interference claim. View "Gordon v. United States Capitol Police" on Justia Law

In these consolidated petitions, Carriers challenged FERC's authority to approve a cost pooling agreement among the Carriers that allocates most fixed costs on the basis of each Carrier's share of combined interstate and intrastate utilization of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). The court found that the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U.S.C. App. 13(6)(b), permits incidental regulation of intrastate commerce pursuant to approval of a pooling agreement under section 5(1); that any regulation of intrastate commerce challenged here was incident to the Pooling Agreement that FERC found just and reasonable for interstate commerce; and that the Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in approving the Pooling Agreement or make findings unsupported by the evidence. Therefore, FERC did not have statutory authority to approve the settlement; did not improperly regulate intrastate commerce; and did comply with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., requirements in reaching the order challenged in this case. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions. View "Tesoro Alaska Co. v. FERC" on Justia Law

The FTC initiated an enforcement proceeding against Boehringer after the pharmaceutical company failed to comply with an administrative subpoena seeking various documents related to a settlement agreement between the company and Barr, a generic drug manufacturer. Boeringer subsequently certified compliance with the subpoena but withheld hundreds of responsive documents under the work product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege. Te court rejected the FTC's assertion that the district court erred as a matter of law when it concluded that settlement documents pertaining to a co-promotion agreement between Boehringer and Barr were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The court held that a settlement term may have independent economic value and still be considered part of a settlement for purposes of work product protection. The court also found that the district court reasonably concluded that the bulk of the contested co-promotion materials were prepared in anticipation of the Boehringer-Barr litigation, with a single exception pertaining to post-settlement documents. Therefore, the court generally affirmed the district court's finding on this issue but remanded for further consideration with respect to post-settlement documents. The court agreed with the FTC that the district court misapprehended the proper distinction between fact and opinion work product and reversed and remanded on this issue. View "FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm." on Justia Law