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

Plaintiff, a trade group representing federal contractors, filed suit challenging the Department's revision of regulations requiring contractors to extend an invitation to job applicants to advise the contractor whether they believed they were covered by Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 793(a), as well as to analyze the resulting data. The revised regulations also adopted a utilization goal to serve as a target for the employment of individuals with disabilities. The OFCCP explained that these requirements are important means by which the Government can contribute to reducing the employment disparity between those with and without disabilities. Applying Chevron deference, the court concluded that the Department did not exceed its statutory authority, and the agency's exercise of rulemaking authority is a product of reasoned rulemaking and was not arbitrary nor capricious. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Assoc. Builders and Contractors v. Shiu" on Justia Law

LaPSC sought review of FERC's order denying refunds to certain Louisiana-based utility companies for payments they made pursuant to a cost classification later found to be unjust and unreasonable. In denying LaPSC's refund request, the Commission relied on precedent it characterized as a policy to deny refunds in cost allocation cases, yet the precedent on which it relied is based largely on considerations the Commission did not find applicable. The Commission otherwise relied on the holding company's inability to revisit past decisions, a universally true circumstance. Because the line of precedent on which the Commission relied involved rationales that it concluded were not present in LaPSC's case, and because the existence of the identified equitable factor is unclear and its relevance inadequately explained, the court granted the petition and remanded for the Commission to consider the relevant factors and weigh them against one another. View "Louisiana Public Service Comm'n v. FERC" on Justia Law

After petitioner settled a suit in which the Commission filed a civil complaint against him for committing various securities law violations, petitioner agreed in a consent judgment that he would not contest the allegations of the civil complaint in any related administrative proceeding before the Commission. The Commission then commenced a follow-on proceeding against petitioner to determine whether a remedial sanction was in the public interest and ordered that petitioner be permanently barred from the securities industry and from participating in any offering of penny stock. Petitioner sought vacatur of the Commission's order pursuant to Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. SEC. In Blinder, the court emphasized that, in a follow-on sanctions proceeding, the Commission must abide by a "clear distinction" between the district court's determination of a petitioner's liability under the securities laws and evidence about the circumstances surrounding his misconduct. The court concluded that the Commission considered the relevant record, including petitioner's evidence of the circumstances surrounding his misconduct that did not, in effect, seek to challenge the allegations of the complaint. Accordingly, the court deferred to the Commission's choice of sanction and denied the petition for review. View "Siris v. SEC" on Justia Law

Relator filed suit against defendants under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729, alleging that defendants imported pencils that they knew were made in China, avoided paying substantial antidumping duties imposed on Chinese-made pencils, and falsely declared to U.S. Customs officials that they were made elsewhere in Asia. On appeal, relator challenged the district court's conclusions that his FCA claim is based on publicly disclosed information and that he failed to demonstrate original-source status. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because relator's claim is jurisdictionally barred and the court had no reason to determine whether the complaint failed to state a viable FCA claim. View "United States ex rel. John Doe v. Staples, Inc." on Justia Law

The County filed suit against the Department, challenging the Secretary's approval of a gaming compact between the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians and the State of California. The Tribe sought to intervene after six years of litigation for the purpose of dismissing the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely where the district court set forth the proper test, analyzed the relevant factors, and concluded that the Tribe's motion did not satisfy Rule 24(a)'s timeliness requirement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Amador County, CA v. Dept. of the Interior" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for four counts related to his role in a conspiracy to distribute narcotics. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence of drugs arising out of the October 21 car stop where an officer's belief that a seatbelt was unbuckled was reasonable, whether or not it was erroneous, and the officer had probable cause to conduct the stop; the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the drug evidence that the police recovered during the February 1 search of defendant's blue sedan outside the police station where the district court did not commit plain error by failing to rule that the manipulation of the key fob constituted an unlawful search, and where the search was permitted under the automobile exception; defendant did not suffer prejudice from the prosecutor's improper statements and there was no plain error; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a downward variance based on 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of an order issued by FERC directing Midland, an Iowa electric utility, to reconnect to a wind generator within its territory. Because FERC never purported to adopt a general rule on disconnections by utilities whose customers refused to pay their bills, and because prior decisions addressing jurisdiction to review FERC's orders under section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act , 16 U.S.C. 824a-3, have repeatedly emphasized Congress's decision to leave section 210's enforcement to the district court, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the orders. View "Midland Power Cooperative v. FERC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Fund, asserting claims for assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Fund's motion to dismiss was converted into a discovery dispute when the district court granted plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery over the Fund's objections. The court concluded that, because plaintiff's assertions amount to mere conjecture and surmise, they cannot provide sufficient support to justify jurisdictional discovery. Further, the Fund's subsequent voluntary disclosure of the contract at issue conclusively resolved any question of waiver. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's orders permitting jurisdictional discovery and remanded for further proceedings. View "Nyambal v. International Monetary Fund" on Justia Law

At issue in these consolidated cases is whether a regulatory accommodation for religious nonprofit organizations that permit them to opt out of the contraceptive coverage requirement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(4), itself imposes an unjustified substantial burden on plaintiffs' religious exercise in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb. The court concluded that the challenged regulations do not impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs' religious exercise under RFRA. All plaintiffs must do to opt out is express what they believe and seek what they want via a letter or two-page form. Religious nonprofits that opt out are excused from playing any role in the provision of contraceptive services, and they remain free to condemn contraception in the clearest terms. The ACA shifts to health insurers and administrators the obligation to pay for and provide contraceptive coverage for insured persons who would otherwise lose it as a result of the religious accommodation. Because the regulatory opt-out mechanism is the least restrictive means to serve compelling governmental interests, it is fully consistent with plaintiffs' rights under RFRA. The court also found no merit in plaintiffs' additional claims. The court rejected all of plaintiffs' challenges to the regulations and affirmed the district court's opinion in Priests for Life in its entirety. As for the RCAW decision, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for Thomas Aquinas and its holding as to the unconstitutionality of the non-interference provision and affirmed the remainder of the decision. View "Priests For Life v. HHS" on Justia Law

USAID entered a contract with a private consulting firm, DAI, to provide humanitarian support to groups within Cuba pursuant to the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996, 22 U.S.C. 6021 et seq. DAI contracted with Alan Gross to train the Jewish community in Cuba to use and maintain information and communication technologies. Gross was subsequently convicted in Cuba of participating in a subversive project of the U.S. government and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. Gross and his wife subsequently field suit against DAI and the United States, alleging, among other things, negligence, gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium in connection with Gross's work in Cuba. Gross settled with DAI and the district court granted the United States's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The court concluded that the foreign country exception deprived the district court of jurisdiction to address Gross's Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), claims, all of which are based on or derivative of injuries suffered in Cuba. Further, the court rejected Gross's Equal Protection Clause argument under rational basis review. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of dismissal. View "Gross v. United States" on Justia Law