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

Plaintiffs opposed the use of vaccines that contain thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, and believed that vaccines containing mercury harm young children and pregnant women. Plaintiffs filed an action alleging that the FDA, by allowing thimerosal-preserved vaccines, violated its statutory duty to ensure the safety of vaccines. Plaintiffs asked for a court order requiring the FDA to prohibit the administration of vaccines containing more than a trace level of thimerosal to young children and pregnant women and sought to force the FDA to remove thimerosal-preserved vaccines from the market. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. The court concluded that plaintiffs were not required to receive thimerosal-preserved vaccines; they could readily obtain thimerosal-free vaccines; they did not have standing to challenge the FDA's decision to allow other people to receive the vaccines; and plaintiffs could advocate that the Legislative and Executive Branches ban the vaccines. But because plaintiffs were suffering no cognizable injury as a result of the FDA's decision to allow the vaccine, their lawsuit was not a proper subject for the Judiciary. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs, et al. v. Sebelius, et al." on Justia Law

Registered nurses working for Veritas voted to make the United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals (Union) their bargaining representative. Veritas would not bargain with the Union because Veritas claimed that pro-Union conduct by supervising charge nurses had coerced the registered nurses' votes and tainted the election. Rejecting Veritas' claims, the NLRB certified the Union and found that Veritas had committed an unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain. Veritas petitioned for review. The court concluded that precedent and substantial evidence supported the NLRB's conclusions. Therefore, the court denied Veritas' petition and granted the NLRB's cross-application of enforcement of its order. View "Veritas Health Services, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiffs filed a class action complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the District was violating the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. Since 1993, a consent decree has governed how the District provides "early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services" under the Act. The District has now asked the district court to vacate that decree on two grounds: that an intervening Supreme Court decision has made clear that plaintiffs lack a private right of action to enforce the Medicaid Act, and that in any event, the District has come into compliance with the requirements of the Act. Because the court concluded that the district court's rejection of one of the District's two arguments did not constitute an order "refusing to dissolve [an] injunction[]" within the meaning 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1), the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Salazar, et al. v. DC, et al." on Justia Law

McKesson, a United States company, claimed that after the Islamic Revolution, the government of Iran expropriated McKesson's interest in an Iranian dairy (Pak Dairy) and withheld its dividend payments. McKesson filed its complaint in 1982, the case reached the court on five prior occasions, and was remanded by the court for numerous trials by the district court. At issue was whether the court had jurisdiction over McKesson's claim and whether any recognized body of law provided McKesson with a private right of action against Iran. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the act of state doctrine did not apply in this case. While the court reversed the district court's holding that McKesson could base its claim on customary international law, the court affirmed the district court's alternative holding that the Treaty of Amity, construed as Iranian law, provided McKesson with a private right of action, and the court further affirmed the district court's finding that Iran was liable for the expropriation of McKesson's equity interest in Pak Dairy and the withholding of McKesson's dividend payments. Finally, the court reversed the district court's award of compound interest and remanded for calculation of an award consisting of the value of McKesson's expropriated property and withheld dividends plus simple interest. View "McKesson Corp., et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of transportation of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged the duration and conditions of his supervised release. As a threshold matter, the court rejected the government's contention that defendant waived any appeal of the length and conditions of his supervised sentence or "invit[ed]" the alleged error. The court disagreed with defendant's contention that his offenses did not fall within U.S.S.G. 5D1.2 because they were not "perpetrated against a minor." The court found that the district court's reasons for imposing a 40-year sentence to be apparent from the record and rejected defendant's claim that the district court failed to adequately explain his sentence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3553(c). In light of the particular factual circumstances of the case and the caselaw approving similar sentences, the court found that the district court did not substantively err in ordering a 40-year term of supervised release. The court further held that the district court did not plainly err in imposing any of the challenged conditions, though the court subjected the prohibition on patronizing any place where pornography was available to a limiting construction to prevent it from being impermissibly vague. Finally, the district court held that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel where counsel made strategic choices in representing defendant. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Accardi" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and his sentence after he entered a conditional plea to possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence where, upon arresting defendant with probable cause to believe he was driving in possession of an open container of alcohol, the police had a reasonable basis to search the car for evidence of that offense. Given the district court's consideration of the statutory facts and of defendant's arguments in aid of sentencing, and the district court's reasoned explanation of its sentencing determination, there was neither procedural error nor substantive abuse of discretion by the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought partial vacation of a final rule designating certain areas of nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter standard. Petitioners challenged the inclusion of parts of Tooele and Box Elder Counties within the Salt Lake City nonattainment area. The EPA concluded that emissions from eastern portions of both Box Elder County and Tooele County contributed to nearby violations of the 24-hour fine particulate matter. Because EPA's nine-factor test was intended to be applied on a case-by-case basis to account for diverse considerations, including the varying effects of local topography and meteorology on the 24-hour fine particulate matter dispersion, and EPA reasonably explained its designations, the court denied the petition for review. View "ATK Launch Systems, Inc. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Several company operators filed a complaint against petitioner with the FCC, which ruled that petitioner's increased pole attachment rates violated the Pole Attachment Act, 47 U.S.C. 224(d), and the FCC's implementing regulations. Petitioner now sought review of that order, arguing that the Act failed to provide for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment and that the FCC's decision was arbitrary and capricious, or was otherwise not supported by substantial evidence. The court found the doctrine of collateral estoppel a fatal bar to petitioner's assertion of the constitutional issue, and its remaining arguments unavailing. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Gulf Power Co. v. FCC, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant sued to recover $373.00 in expenses he incurred from the alleged unlawful levy of his social security benefits under 26 U.S.C. 7433. The district court concluded that appellant's suit was untimely because he did not bring suit within two years of when he had a "reasonable opportunity to discover all essential elements of a possible cause of action." The court agreed and affirmed, holding that the two-year statute of limitations on appellant's cause of action began to run no later than June 2005 after he received notice of the levy on his benefits. Because appellant did not sue until December 2008, more than three years after he received notice of the levy, his claim was time-barred. View "Keohane v. United States" on Justia Law

Appellants, as representatives of the estates of their deceased sons, brought this action against federal officials and employees in district court seeking money damages relating to the alleged mistreatment and eventual death of those sons while they were detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. The district court granted the motion of the United States to be substituted as defendant and the motion of the United States for dismissal of the claims. Because the court was satisfied that neither the district court nor this court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action due to the jurisdictional bar created by section 7(a) of the Military Commissions Act (MCA), 28 U.S.C. 2241(e), the court affirmed the judgment of dismissal, although on different grounds than those relied upon by the district court. The court held that the Supreme Court did not declare section 2241(e)(2) unconstitutional under Boumediene v. Bush and that provision retained vitality to bar those claims. Therefore, the decision of the district court dismissing the claims should be affirmed, although for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) rather than for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Al-Zahrani v. Rodriquez" on Justia Law