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

Sutter East Bay Hospitals sought review of a National Labor Relations Board (Board) order concluding that Sutter East Bay violated the National Labor Relations Act. The Board cross-applied for enforcement of that order. Sutter East Bay conceded that it engaged in illegal surveillance of its employees' union activities, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Board's application for enforcement of that determination. The Court also granted the Board's application for enforcement of the finding that Sutter East Bay unlawfully changed its solicitation policy to stifle support for a new labor union. The Court agreed with Sutter East Bay, however, that the ALJ failed to properly apply the appropriate legal standard in determining that the employer unlawfully disciplined its employee and granted Sutter East Bay's petition for review with regard to those disciplinary actions. Remanded to the Board for rehearing. View "Sutter E. Bay Hosps. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Pursuant to its authority to regulate "unfair and deceptive" practices in the airline industry, the Department of Transportation issued a final rule entitled "Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections." Spirit Airlines and others challenged three of the rule's provisions. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petitions for review, holding (1) the requirement that the most prominent figure displayed on print advertisements and websites be the total price, inclusive of taxes, was not arbitrary and capricious or a violation of the First Amendment; (2) the requirement that airlines allow consumers who purchase their tickets more than a week in advance the option of canceling their reservations without penalty for twenty-four hours following purchase was not arbitrary and capricious; and (3) the prohibition against increasing the price of air transportation and baggage fees after consumers purchase their tickets was not procedurally unlawful or otherwise arbitrary and capricious. View "Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp. " on Justia Law

Bassem Youssef, an Egyptian-born American citizen, claimed that his employer, the FBI, (1) discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by not placing him in a substantive position dealing with counterterrorism and instead transferring him to a job for which he was dramatically overqualified; and (2) retaliated against him when he filed a complaint and spoke to his superiors about his predicament. The district court granted summary judgment against Youseef's discrimination claim but allowed his retaliation claim to be tried by a jury. The jury returned a verdict against Youssef, and the district court denied Youssef's motion for a new trial. The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the district court's refusal to grant a new trial but reversed its judgment against Youssef's discrimination claim, holding that because the district court did not reach the fact-intensive issue of a possible discriminatory motive for the transfer, and the parties did not fully brief it to the Court, the case was remanded for further examination of the FBI's reason for the transfer. View "Youssef v. FBI" on Justia Law

Several states and state regulatory agencies, together with corporations and industrial associations, petitioned for review of the EPA's rule entitled "Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide" and of the subsequent denial of petitions for reconsideration of the standard. Petitioners contended (1) the EPA failed to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, and (2) the agency arbitrarily set the maximum sulfur dioxide concentration at a level lower than statutorily authorized. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal dismissed the petitions in part and denied them in part, holding (1) the challenge to the rulemaking procedure was not within the Court's jurisdiction and must be dismissed; and (2) the EPA did not act arbitrarily in setting the level of sulfur dioxide emissions and therefore, the Court denied that portion of the petitions for review. View "Nat'l Envtl. Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA" on Justia Law

In an earlier decision in this case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that Movants, a group of Native American tribes and tribal associations who intervened on behalf of petitioners in the underlying Clean Air Act litigation, were entitled to fees and costs under section 307(f) of the Act. When the parties were unable to agree on the amount of fees, Movants filed an updated motion seeking $369,027, including compensation for 1,181 hours of work and for costs. The EPA held that the fee request was excessive. The D.C. Circuit agreed and awarded Movants $108,609 in compensation for attorney time and $3,186 in costs, holding that Movants reasonably expended 356 hours on the litigation. View "New Jersey v. EPA" on Justia Law

The National Chicken Council, National Meat Association, and National Turkey Federation petitioned for review of EPA's interpretation of a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The EPA interpreted the provision to mean that certain ethanol plants fired with natural gas and/or biomass were deemed to be in compliance with a reduction requirement indefinitely rather than for a certain period. Petitioners argued that by permitting qualifying ethanol plants to generate Renewable Identification Numberss indefinitely without having to ensure their ethanol met the emissions-reduction requirement, the ethanol plants would produce more ethanol, which would lead to an increase in the demand for corn, which would lead to an increase in the price of corn. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review for lack of standing, as Petitioners failed to show that a favorable ruling would redress their claimed injuries. View "Nat'l Chicken Council v. EPA " on Justia Law

In 1993, Plaintiff was convicted of the crimes of threatening to injure a person and manslaughter. In 1997, Congress brought the D.C. parole system under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Parole Commission (USPC). In 2000, the USPC adopted its own regulations regarding suitability for parole. At Plaintiff's parole hearings in 2001 and 2005, the USPC applied the 2000 regulations and denied Plaintiff parole. In 2005, Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that application of the 2000 Regulations, rather than the 1987 Regulations, at his hearings violated his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's damages suit on the ground of qualified immunity, concluding that application of those regulations did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable official would have known at the time of the hearings. View "Taylor v. Reilly" on Justia Law

The Air Force invoked Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which covers information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute to deny Newport Aeronautical Sales' request for certain technical information concerning military equipment. The nondisclosure statute the Air Force invoked was 10 U.S.C. 130. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) section 130(a) is an Exemption 3 statute, and it covers the FOIA requests that Newport made to the Air Force; and (2) even assuming that the Air Force was violating the Defense Department's Directive 5230.25 by restricting the disclosure of technical information that does not depict "critical technology," the information fell within the relevant nondisclosure statute and was therefore exempt from disclosure under the Act. View "Newport Aeronautical Sales v. Dep't of Air Force" on Justia Law

Appellant claimed that the Metropolitan police were negligent in the way they responded to her fears that she was sexually assaulted. The district court granted summary judgment against her claims on the ground that the police owed her no duty of care. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's claim failed because she could not show the police cause the harm alleged; and (2) Appellant's argument that the police acted as if they had the authority to stop the hospitals from conducting their own exams failed because nothing the police said or did could reasonably be construed to be a command that the hospitals could not use their own equipment to conduct a forensic exam on Appellant. View "McGaughey v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

In 2010, the EPA promulgated a final rule adopting a new, one-hour primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The American Petroleum Institute, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (collectively the API) petitioned for review of that rule, claiming the EPA, in adopting the NAAQS, was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Clean Air Act. The API also challenged a statement in the preamble to the final rule regarding the EPA's intended implementation of the NAAQS. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (1) denied the petitions insofar as they challenged the EPA's adoption of the NAAQS, holding that the EPA's adoption of the NAAQS for NO2 was neither arbitrary or capricious nor in violation of the Clean Air Act; and (2) dismissed the portions of the petitions challenging the EPA's non-final statement regarding permitting in the preamble to the Final Rule, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to consider those portions of the petitions. View "Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA" on Justia Law