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

Plaintiff filed suit against her former law firm alleging that decisions made by the firms' directors who administered the retirement plan breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. The court concluded that ERISA's adoption of the common law's standard of fiduciary care in section 1104(a)(1)(B) permitted prudent fiduciaries making important decisions to rely on the advice of counsel in appropriate circumstances. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the directors rightfully relied upon the advice of the plan's lawyer. View "Clark v. Feder Semo and Bard, P.C., et al." on Justia Law

This case arose after the IRS Office of Chief Counsel and the National Treasury Employees Union renegotiated their collective bargaining agreement. At issue on appeal was the Authority's interpretation of section 7106 of the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. When an agency asserts that a contract provision falls outside section 7106(b)(3)'s exception to section 7106(a), whether the question concerns the agency's duty to bargain, or the provision's consistency with law, the underlying issue is precisely the same: does the provision represent a appropriate arrangement. In applying two different standards in these contexts, the court concluded that the Authority set forth two inconsistent interpretations of the very same statutory term. Therefore, the Authority acted arbitrarily and capriciously and, therefore, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "U.S. Dept. of the Treasury v. FLRA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, concluding that plaintiff's whistleblower complaint did not qualify as a "mixed case" complaint capable of triggering the savings clause under 5 U.S.C. 7702(f). Plaintiff argued that even though he presented his Title VII claim in the wrong forum (the MSPB), because he did so along with a timely filed IRA as part of a "mixed case," his formal EEO complaint should be deemed timely with the correct forum (the DOL) under section 7702(f)'s savings clause. The court affirmed the judgment because plaintiff's formal Title VII claim - filed well after the expiration of the EEO route's 15-day deadline - was untimely where the savings clause excused errors only in the place, not time, of filing. View "Schlottman v. Perez" on Justia Law

EFF appealed the district court's denial of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., request for disclosure of a legal opinion prepared for the FBI by the OLC. The court held that the opinion, which was requested by the FBI in response to the OIG's investigation into its information-gathering techniques, was protected by the deliberative process privilege; the FBI did not adopt the opinion and thereby waive the deliberative process privilege; and because the entire opinion was exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege, the court need not decide whether particular sections were properly withheld as classified or whether some material was reasonably segregable from the material properly withheld. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Electronic Frontier Found. v. Dept. of Justice" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions stemming from a narcotics distribution scheme in Washington D.C. Defendants and six others were indicted, and the district court conducted two trials. The court held that defendants' evidentiary challenges and their contention regarding the submission of unplayed and unredacted phone calls failed to demonstrate that reversal of their convictions was warranted; such errors as occurred were harmless for lack of substantial prejudice; the district court's responses to jury notes impermissibly interfered with the jury's independent role as the finder of fact and the court vacated the convictions on the tainted counts; the government conceded that the district court erred in imposing Defendant Thomas' sentences of life imprisonment in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey and the court vacated his life sentences for narcotics conspiracy and RICO conspiracy; and the court remanded the case for resentencing and otherwise affirmed the judgments of conviction. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendants, convicted of various narcotics-related offenses, alleged that numerous errors affected their second trial. Defendants were involved in an extensive drug ring and the government indicted twenty-one defendants in total, subsequently separating defendants for trial in two groups. The court rejected most of defendants' arguments; vacated Defendant Miller's insufficiently supported conviction for his participation in a continuing criminal enterprise and remanded for resentencing; and vacated the fine imposed on Defendant Eiland by the district court and remanded for reconsideration of that portion of Eiland's sentence. View "United States v. Eiland" on Justia Law

Chaplains in the Navy who identified themselves as non-liturgical Christians and two chaplain-endorsing agencies filed suit claiming, inter alia, that several of the Navy's policies for promoting chaplains prefer Catholics and liturgical Protestants at the expense of various non-liturgical denominations. At issue on review was the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the Navy's use of the challenged practices. Given facially neutral policies and no showing of intent to discriminate, the chaplains' equal protection attack on the Navy's specific policies could succeed only with an argument that there was an intent to discriminate or that the policies lacked a rational basis. Because the chaplains attempted no such arguments, the court agreed with the district court that they have not shown the requisite likelihood for success. As to the Establishment Clause, the chaplains have not shown a likelihood of success under any test that they have asked the court to apply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "In re: Navy Chaplaincy, et al. v. United States Navy, et al." on Justia Law

Appellants appealed the tax court's decision, holding that the period to assess taxes for tax year 1999 against Jack Gaughf and his wife remained open as of March 30, 2007, when the IRS issued a Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) to Gaughf Properties, L.P. The court affirmed the tax court's holding that (1) the Gaughfs' tax liability came within the unidentified partner exception to the general three-year statute of limitations under I.R.C. section 6229(e) because the Gaughfs were not identified as indirect partners to Gaughf Properties, L.P. in its 1999 return and (2) information identifying them as indirect partners was not otherwise timely furnished to the Secretary of the Treasury so as to trigger the one-year limitation period in I.R.C. section 6229(e). View "Gaughf Properties, L.P. v. Commissioner, IRS" on Justia Law

ATRA petitioned for review, challenging revisions made by OSHA to the wording of a paragraph (a)(2) of OSHA's hazard communication (HazCom) standard, 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200. HazCom establishes labeling requirements for chemicals used in the workplace. The changes reflect the agency's view that HazCom preempts state legislative and regulatory requirements, but not state tort claims. The court rejected ATRA's arguments under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 651-678, concluding that OSHA has no authority to speak with the force of law on preemption and the agency never meant for the disputed paragraph to have the effect of a legislative rule. Because Paragraph (a)(2) is merely interpretive, it is not subject to notice and comment rulemaking and was not subject to judicial review. Accordingly, ATRA's challenge was unripe for review. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "American Tort Reform Assoc. v. OSHA, et al." on Justia Law

In 2007, the FCC promulgated a rule requiring "hybrid" cable companies to "downconvert" from digital to analog broadcast signals from must-carry stations for subscribers with analog television sets. In 2012, the FCC allowed the downconversion requirement to expire and promulgated a new rule that allowed cable operators to provide conversion equipment to analog customers, either for free or at an affordable cost (Sunset Order). Petitioners, a group of must-carry broadcasters, sought review of the Sunset Order, arguing that the FCC's new rule could not be squared with Congress's mandate that must-carry broadcast signals "shall be viewable via cable on all television receivers of a subscriber which are connected to a cable system" pursuant to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the Cable Act), 47 U.S.C. 534(b)(7). The court concluded that petitioners' claims lack merit. The FCC's 2007 rule was not mandated by the statute. Rather, the rule was promulgated by the Commission as a stopgap measure. Since 2007, the telecommunications market has changed dramatically. Petitioners' argument effectively freezes time in the face of shifting technology and finds no support in the law. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Agape Church, Inc, et al. v. FCC, et al." on Justia Law