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

Underlying this appeal was the case of Center for Biological Diversity v. Interior, in which the Court vacated a five-year program for expanding leases for oil and gas development in the coast of Alaska. The U.S. Department of Interior, which approved the program, then issued a new five-year program. Here, the Native Village of Point Hope, Alaska, petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs it incurred in this matter. The D.C. Circuit allowed reimbursement in the amount of $192,293 in fees and $8,493 in costs, for a total reimbursement of $200,786. View "Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. DOI" on Justia Law

Laura Elkins and her husband, John Robbins, brought suit against the District of Columbia and some of its officials, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments for the search of Elkins' home and the seizure of Elkins' notebook, which related to a home renovation. Plaintiffs also alleged that Defendants' outrageous conduct trampled Elkins' due process rights. The district court concluded that the seizure of the notebook was illegal and entered judgment against two District officials but assessed nominal damages of one dollar each. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's orders in all respect except that the entries of summary judgment against the two District officials were vacated and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment in their favor because the District and its officials were entitled to summary judgment on all Plaintiffs' claims. View "Elkins v. Dist. of Columbia" on Justia Law

After the State Department terminated the employment of Appellant on his sixty-fifth birthday, Appellant brought suit alleging that his forced retirement violated the federal employment provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The district court dismissed Appellant's complaint on the ground that the statute under which Appellant was hired, section 2(c) of the Basic Authorities Act, permitted the Department to exempt Appellant from the protections of the ADEA. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding nothing in the Basic Authorities Act that abrogates the ADEA's broad proscription against personnel actions that discriminate on the basis of age. View "Miller v. Clinton" on Justia Law

Karen Feld sued her brother, Kenneth Feld, after Kenneth had her forcibly removed from the building in which he owned a condominium she was visiting. Karen sued Kenneth for assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Kenneth counterclaimed that Karen had trespassed on his property. The jury found against Karen on her claims and against Kenneth on his. On appeal, Karen challenged the district court's determination that Kenneth could use force to remove Karen from the common areas of the building. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under D.C. law, the right to exclude another from one's property includes the right to use reasonable force, and given the findings of the district court, there was no reason to carve out an exception to this rule for condominium owners who seek to exclude persons from common areas. View "Feld v. Feld" on Justia Law

Thirteen years ago, the Government sued several cigarette manufacturers (Defendants) and related industry organizations for civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The suit asserted that Defendants had conspired to deceive consumers about the health effects and addictiveness of smoking, seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of $280 billion in profits. In this latest round of the lawsuit, Defendants challenged the district court's refusal to vacate injunctions imposed in 2009. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly err when it found Defendants were reasonably likely to commit future RICO violations despite the passage of the Tobacco Control Act; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it refused to vacate its injunctions under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

Thirteen years ago, the Government sued several tobacco companies for civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The suit asserted that Defendants had conspired to deceive consumers about the health effects and addictiveness of smoking, seeking, among other things, injunctive relief. The district court granted injunctive relief against the tobacco companies to prevent future RICO violations. The injunction included provisions requiring Appellants to make disclosure to the Government of various marketing data. The parties were unable to agree on the parameters of the disclosure requirement. The district court determined (1) the companies were required to furnish the full range of disaggregated marketing data sought by the Government under its understanding of the injunction; and (2) the Government could disclose the data to other governmental entities subject to the confidentiality provisions in the final order. The tobacco companies sought an interlocutory appeal, claiming that the clarification of the injunction actually effected a modification of the requirements. The D.C. Circuit Court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the district court did not modify the injunction. View "United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants were executives at the Purdue Frederick Company when it misbranded the painkiller OxyContin a schedule II controlled substance. The Company was convicted of fraudulent misbranding, and the executives were convicted under the "responsible corporate officer" doctrine of the misdemeanor of misbranding a drug. Based upon their convictions, the Secretary of Health and Human Services later excluded the individuals from participation in federal health care programs for twelve years under 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(b). Appellants sought review, arguing that the statute did not authorize their exclusion and the Secretary's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the statute authorized the Secretary's exclusion of Appellants, but (2) the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious for want of a reasoned explanation for the length of the exclusions. View "Friedman v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

UtahAmerican Energy brought this action against the Department of Labor under FOIA, seeking documents related to government investigations of a collapse at one of its mines. The district court ruled in favor of UtahAmerican on the disputed exemptions and ordered it to produce documents covered by those exemptions. The court also ordered the Department to produce documents that were the subject of an earlier-filed FOIA suit that was pending before another district court. The Department appealed. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (1) dismissed as moot those portions of the appeal that related to Exemption 7(A) because the Department's basis for asserting that exemption has disappeared, thus requiring it to produce many of the contested documents that were protected by 7(A) alone; (2) reversed the district court insofar as it directed the Department to certain documents that were protected by Exemption 7(C); and (3) reversed the district court's judgment with respect to the documents subject to the earlier FOIA suit, holding that the court should have left disposition of the balance of the remaining documents to the court hearing the earlier-filed suit. Remanded. View "UtahAmerican Energy, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

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