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

In 2011, SecurityPoint filed suit against TSA for infringement of a patent covering some equipment and methods used in the Bin Advertising Program. In 2012, TSA modified the Program, amending the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) template to require participating airports to indemnify TSA from all liability for intellectual property claims related to the checkpoint equipment. TSA also changed the template to provide that, on cancellation of an agreement between an airport and a private company, TSA would retain the right to use the checkpoint equipment as well as a license to all intellectual property necessary for such use. SecurityPoint opposed the changes and wrote a cease and desist letter to TSA's Chief Counsel. SecurityPoint then petitioned for review of TSA's changes. The court held that TSA's chief counsel's letter rejecting SecurityPoint's request is a reviewable order and the court has jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. 46110(a); on the merits, the court concluded that the letter failed to provide any basis upon which the court could conclude that it was the product of reasoned decisionmaking; nor is there anything in the record beyond counsel's letter that would support TSA's decision; and because TSA failed to consider an important aspect of the problem before it, its decision must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Security Point Holdings, Inc. v. TSA" on Justia Law

Petitioners seek vacatur of OSHA's Final Rule revising its Hazard Communication Standard requiring employers across industries to develop a program for classifying the dangers of workplace chemicals and conveying those dangers to their employees. Petitioners, businesses that handle and process grain and other agricultural products, and others, seek vacatur of the Final Rule as it applies to combustible dust. The court concluded that petitioners had express notice that combustible dust, however labeled, would be subject to the relevant requirements of the Final Rule; there was substantial evidence and an adequate explanation to support OSHA's decision to incorporate an interim definition of "combustible dust" and guidance until a more precise definitions is implemented in another rulemaking; petitioners' facial vagueness challenge is ripe for review; and on the merits, however, the vagueness claim fails because the Final Rule satisfies due process where the term "combustible dust" is clear enough to provide fair warning of enforcement, and OSHA has provided additional guidance on how the revised Hazard Communication Standard will be enforced. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Nat'l Oilseed Processors Assoc. v. OSHA" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from Fogo de Chao's efforts to bring authentic Brazilian churrasqueiro chefs into its restaurants in the United States by using L-1B visas. L-1B visas permit multinational businesses to temporarily transfer foreign employees possessing "specialized knowledge" into the United States. At issue on appeal is the denial of Fogo de Chao's application for an L-1B visa for Rones Gasparetto, a Brazilian churrasqueiro. The court concluded that, because the relevant provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., does not commit the decision whether to grant an L-1B petition to the independent discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, and because Congress legislated statutory criteria to be applied in deciding such petitions, the district court had jurisdiction to hear Fogo de Chao's challenge and this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal; the Appeals Office erred in adopting a categorical prohibition on any and all culturally acquired knowledge supporting a "specialized knowledge" determination; the Appeals Office's conclusion that Fogo de Chao had failed to establish that Gasparetto completed the company's training program is unsupported by substantial evidence; it is not clear that the Appeals Office would have resolved other challenged aspects of its decision in the same fashion or would have found the other bases for the decision sufficient alone to warrant denial of Fogo de Chao's petition; and, therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to vacate the Appeals Office's order and remand for further proceedings. View "Fogo de Chao (Holdings) Inc. v. Dept. of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for attempting to persuade a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). At issue was whether section 2422(b) requires direct communications with a minor. In this case, defendant's conviction was based on Internet and phone conversations with an undercover detective. The court held that a defendant can be convicted under section 2422(b) for communicating with an adult intermediary, if the defendant's communications with the intermediary are aimed at persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing the minor. Here, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial nevertheless because the district court erred in instructing the jury and excluding expert testimony crucial to the defense. View "United States v. Hite" on Justia Law

Shieldalloy, manufacturer of metal alloys in New Jersey, petitioned for review of the NRC's order reinstating the transfer of regulatory authority to the State of New Jersey under the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2021. The order at issue addressed concerns raised by this Court in Shieldalloy II. The court concluded that the NRC's transfer of regulatory authority to New Jersey under section 2021 was not arbitrary or capricious because New Jersey's regulations are compatible with the NRC's regulations and its reading of 10 C.F.R. 20.1403(a). The NRC has rationally addressed concerns when it provided a textual analysis of section 20.1403 and explained how New Jersey's regulatory regime is adequate and compatible with the NRC's regulatory program. The order does not conflict with the NRC's prior interpretations or amount to a convenient, post hoc litigation position. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. v. NRC" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiring to import cocaine into the United States. Defendant was part of the regional leadership of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), a left-wing guerilla group. The court concluded that there was overwhelming evidence to support defendant's conviction; the court rejected defendant's Brady argument, concluding that he failed to show that admitting the Reinsertado reports was likely to have changed the trial's outcome; admission of a training video and printouts did not substantially affect the jury's verdict and, therefore, any error in admitting them was harmless; and the court rejected defendant's challenge to the length of his sentence because, while the trial judge did not instruct the jury to make a finding as to the quantity of drugs involved in the conspiracy that was reasonably foreseeable to defendant, the evidence was overwhelming that defendant was personally involved in the manufacture and import of more than 7,000 kilograms. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence.View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The States of West Virginia and Kentucky, along with coal mining companies and trade associations, challenged EPA and Corps' Enhanced Coordination Process memorandum, which applied to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit applications that were stalled because of litigation, and the EPA's Final Guidance. The court concluded that EPA and the Corps acted within their statutory authority when they adopted the Enhanced Coordination Process. Under the court's precedents, the Final Guidance is not a final action reviewable by the courts at this time. If and when an applicant is denied a permit, the applicant at that time may challenge the denial of the permit as unlawful. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs and remanded with directs to grant judgment for the Government on the Enhanced Coordination Process claim and to dismiss plaintiffs' challenge to the Final Guidance.View "National Mining Assoc., et al. v. Jackson, et al." on Justia Law

Appellants, a group of long-term care hospitals, challenged the Secretary's determination that, because the organizations operate out of buildings previously owned by hospital entities, they are not "new hospitals." The court concluded that the Secretary's conclusion was arbitrary and capricious because the court could not tell how the Secretary arrived at this conclusion. Accordingly, the reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees and remanded with instructions.View "Select Specialty Hospital - Bloomington, Inc., et al. v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Petitioners unsuccessfully opposed the closures of three post offices by the Postal Service, unsuccessfully appealed the Postal Service's determinations to the Commission, and now seek to review the Commission's decisions. The court concluded that, because the petitioners in the Spring Dale case have received all the relief they sought, their petition is moot and must be dismissed. As to the remaining two petitions regarding the Pimmit Branch and the Venice Post Office, the court denied the petitions because neither the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., review nor non-statutory review of the Commission's decision is available.View "Mittleman v. Postal Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of FERC's orders affecting the administration of the Independent System Operator-New England (ISO-NE) and specifically directed to curtailment of the exercise of market power in the New England energy market. The court held that FERC has jurisdiction to regulate the parameters comprising the Forward Capacity Market, and that applying offer-floor mitigation fits within the Commission's statutory rate-making power. The court concluded that none of the petitioners established that FERC has committed reversible error and the court denied the petition for review. View "New England Power Gen. Assoc. v. FERC" on Justia Law