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

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

PIABA filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., request seeking records related to the SEC's audits, inspections, and reviews of FINRA's arbitration program. The Commission argued that Exemption 8 of FOIA allows it to withhold documents it collected while examining FINRA's program for arbitrating disputes between securities brokers and their customers. The district court granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the requested records related to the agency's examinations of FINRA and that Exemption 8 therefore protects them from disclosure. The court concluded that the contested records implicated a relevant Commission "examination" and they are related to a particular "report." Because the Commission satisfied both of Exemption 8's requirements and properly withheld the responsive documents, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Public Investors Arbitration v. SEC" on Justia Law

Alaska filed suit challenging the Forest Service's Roadless Rule in 2011. In 2001, the Forest Service adopted the Rule, which prohibited road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting on millions of acres of national forest lands, including national forest land in Alaska. In 2005, the Forest Service repealed the Rule, but, in 2006, the District Court for the Northern District of California ordered reinstatement of the Rule. The court concluded that when the Rule was reinstated in 2006 after its repeal in 2005, a new right of action accrued. Under 28 U.S.C. 2401(a), Alaska had six years from the time of the Rule's reinstatement in 2006 to file a lawsuit challenging the rule. Therefore, Alaska's suit is timely because it filed in 2011. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of Alaska's complaint and remanded for further consideration. View "State of Alaska v. Department of Agriculture" on Justia Law

Mathew filed suit challenging the Board's order in this case, raising a Recess Appointments Clause challenge. A panel of three Board members decided Mathew's case and Mathew argues that one of those three members, Craig Becker, was appointed by the President without either Senate consent or compliance with the Clause. President Obama appointed Member Becker by recess appointment during an intra-session Senate recess of 17 days. Based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the court concluded that the President's appointment of Member Becker was constitutionally valid. The court lifted a prior order withholding issuance of the mandate rejecting Mathew's other challenges and ordered issuance of the mandate. View "Mathew Enterprise, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This case concerns Congress's requirement that the FCC establish rules prescribing a Uniform System of Accounts for use by telephone companies. The Commission adopted a new accounting system in 1986 (Part 32) to respond to the introduction of competition and new services. Section 10(a), 47 U.S.C. 160, provided the FCC with the authority to forbear from enforcing provisions of the Communication Act as well as its own regulations. Petitioners, Verizon and AT&T, appealed the FCC's denial of their petition to forbear from applying the requirement that incumbent price cap carriers maintain a Uniform System of Accounts. Petitioners argued that the switch to price cap regulation has rendered Part 32 useless, and section 10 therefore requires the FCC to forebear from applying it to incumbent price cap carriers. The court concluded that the FCC reasonably concluded that it continued to need Part 32 data to ensure that access rates were not discriminatory. Accordingly, the court concluded that the FCC's interpretation and application of section 10 are permissible and denied the petition for review. View "Verizon v. FCC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to four counts of hostage-taking where he kidnapped 16 civilians in the Philippines. The court rejected defendant's claim that the district court should have applied a part of the Sentencing Guidelines that came into effect after the offense, and that the district court should have not applied the terrorism enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3A1.4(a); the district court did not err in applying the enhancement where defendant conceded that he conditioned the hostage release on government policy commitments and such a bargaining stance falls squarely within the statutory language; and the district court did not err in departing downward from the Guidelines based on defendant's incarceration before his extradition to the United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Haipe" on Justia Law