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

API petitioned for review of a 2008 EPA regulation deregulating many "hazardous secondary materials" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k. After the parties completed briefing, the EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that, if made final, would significantly amend the EPA's 2008 decision. As a result, the court deemed this controversy unripe as a prudential matter and ordered the case held in abeyance, subject to regular reports on the status of the proposed rulemaking. View "American Petroleum Institute v. EPA" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted for their roles in a PCP-distribution enterprise. Defendants challenged their convictions on various grounds. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant Price's motion to sever; in denying defendant Suggs' motion to suppress evidence seized from his house; in denying the recordings obtained from the wiretap of Suggs' cell phone; by allowing an agent to testify as a lay witness; by dismissing a juror because she knew defendant Glover's wife; and by responding to a jury's question. The court also rejected Glover's and Price's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgments of conviction. View "United States v. Glover" on Justia Law

In 1995, two non-profit hospitals consolidated to form Pinnacle. Pinnacle subsequently submitted a Medicare reimbursement claim for the losses the hospitals had incurred through the sale of their depreciable assets in the consolidation. The Administrator denied Pinnacle's claim, and that order became the final decision of the Secretary. On Pinnacle's Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., challenge, the district court upheld the Secretary's decision in full. Because the Secretary's interpretation of the relevant Medicare regulations was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation, the court concluded that the Secretary reasonably applied the bona fide sale requirement to a reimbursement request from a participant in a "statutory merger." The court also held that the Secretary's finding that the bona fide sale requirement applied to consolidations involving non-profit Medicare providers, like Pinnacle, was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Finally, substantial evidence supported the Secretary's finding that Pinnacle did not satisfy the bona fide sale requirement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Pinnacle Health Hospitals v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action seeking over $12 million from the Royal Family Al-Saud and sixteen of its members (collectively, defendants) for failing to pay him for artwork he alleged they commissioned. Plaintiff had designed 29 sculptures for the Royal Family in 2006 and 2007. Defendants kept the sculptures but never paid plaintiff for any of them. Plaintiff attempted to serve process on defendants by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, where plaintiff ordinarily communicated with defendants in past instances, but the Embassy refused to accept the first class mailing. The district court dismissed the pro se complaint for failure to prosecute under Local Civil Rule 83.23 because plaintiff failed to serve process on defendants pursuant to FRCP 4(f). The court held that, viewing all of the circumstances - the reasonable probability that plaintiff could obtain service on at least one of the defendants, plaintiff's dogged attempts to effect service of process and the district court's failure to provide "a form of notice sufficiently understandable to one in [plaintiff's] circumstances fairly to apprise him of what is required" to serve process, and to provide notice of the consequences of failing to serve process - the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View " Angellino v. Royal Family Al-Saud, et al." on Justia Law

The Association filed suit, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706, and the Constitution, challenging the State Authorization, Compensation, and Misrepresentation Regulations the Department of Education initiated under the Higher Education Act (HEA), Pub. L. No. 89-329, 79 Stat. 1219, 1232-54. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that the Compensation Regulations did not exceed the HEA's limits; the court mostly rejected the Association's claim that these regulations were not based on reasoned decisionmaking; the court remanded two aspects of the Compensation Regulations, however, that were lacking for want of adequate explanations. The court also held that the Misrepresentation Regulations exceeded the HEA's limits in three respects: by allowing the Secretary to take enforcement actions against schools sans procedural protections; by proscribing misrepresentations with respect to subjects that were not covered by the HEA, and by proscribing statements that were merely confusing. The court rejected the Association's other challenges to the Misrepresentation Regulations. Finally, with respect to the State Authorization Regulations, the court concluded that the Association had standing to challenge the school authorization regulation, but held that the regulation was valid. However, the court upheld the Association's challenge in the distance education regulation, because that regulation was not a logical outgrowth of the Department's proposed rules. View "Assoc. of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan, et al." on Justia Law

After the Air Force announced it would conduct a reduction-in-force (RIF) at Luke Air Force Base, the Union made several proposals about how the RIF should be conducted and asked the Air Force to enter into negotiations. The Air Force claimed it had no duty to negotiate over three of the Union's proposals, prompting the Union to appeal the FLRA. The FLRA determined that the Air Force had an obligation to negotiate over two of the three disputed proposals and the Air Force subsequently petitioned for review of the unfavorable rulings. Because the Air Force's objections to the FLRA's rulings were either waived or unavailing, the petition for review was denied. View "U.S. Dept. of the Air Force v. FLRA" on Justia Law

Suppliers appealed the district court's dismissal of their action against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Suppliers challenged a regulation addressing the "applicable financial standards" that a durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS) supplier must meet to be eligible for a Medicare contract under the competitive process established in 42 U.S.C. 1395w-3 (DMEPOS Statute). The court affirmed the district court's dismissal on the ground that section 1395w-3(11) precluded judicial review of the Secretary's financial standards regulation and that the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. View "Texas Alliance For Home Care, et al. v. Sebelius, et al." on Justia Law

On July 16, 2010, the court remanded this case to the Secretary of the State Department, concluding that the Secretary had violated the due process rights of PMOI by maintaining its designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 8 U.S.C. 1189. It has been nearly two years since the court's remand and the Secretary has yet to issue a reviewable ruling on PMOI's petition. PMOI now seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the delisting of PMOI or, alternatively, requiring the Secretary to make a decision on PMOI's petition or the court setting aside her FTO designation. Consequently, the court ordered the Secretary to act on PMOI's petition no later than four months from the issuance of this opinion; failing that, the petition for writ of mandamus setting aside the FTO designation will be granted. View "In re: People's Mojahedin Organization" on Justia Law

Petitioners, nuclear power plant owners and operators, sought review of a November 2010 determination by the Secretary of Energy finding that there was no basis for suspending, or otherwise adjusting, annual fees collected from them totaling some $750 million a year. The court concluded that the Secretary had failed to perform a valid evaluation, as he was obliged to do under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq., but the court did not think it appropriate to order the suspension of the fee at this time. Instead, the court remanded to the Secretary with directions to comply with the statute within six months. View "Nat'l Assoc. of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Dept. of Energy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former employee of the Library of Congress, brought this action against, inter alia, his former supervisor (defendant), alleging that his termination for publication of articles critical of high-level public officials violated the First and Fifth Amendments and entitled him to damages relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that a Bivens action was not available under the circumstances of the case and that he was entitled to qualified immunity. Because the court concluded that the courts should not imply a new form of Bivens action on the facts of this case, the court reversed the order of the district court denying defendant's motion to dismiss. View "Davis v. Billington, et al." on Justia Law