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

Petitioners petitioned for review of a decision and order of the Board, and the Board cross-applied for enforcement. The Board found, among other things, that petitioners violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., by implementing new terms and conditions of employment before reaching a lawful impasse in collective bargaining negotiations. The court held that because substantial evidence supported the Board's findings, the petition for review was denied and the Board's cross-application for enforcement was granted. View "Wayneview Care Center, et al. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellants were arrested for speeding in excess of 30 mph above the posted speed limit and subsequently filed a class action on behalf of all individuals who have been arrested and subjected to criminal penalties for such speeding in the last three years. Appellants alleged that the district's traffic enforcement policies denied them the equal protection of law and thus violated the Fifth Amendment. Specifically appellants objected to the district's policy of subjecting motorists who speed in excess of 30 mph over the speed limit to different penalties, depending on how they were caught. The district court granted the district's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court affirmed the district court's judgment, but on different grounds. The court held that appellants' claim lacked merit because their challenge could not survive rational basis review where the district's traffic policy neither burdened a fundamental right nor targeted a suspect class. View "Dixon, et al. v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

This case arose when the Board found petitioner had acted unlawfully by unilaterally reducing the hours of its full-time respiratory department employees. The Board ordered petitioner to rescind the hours reduction, bargain with the labor union representing the affected employees, and make whole any employee for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered (2004 Order). An ALJ subsequently determined that petitioner owed 13 current and former employees roughly $105,000 in backpay to compensate them for the unlawful hour reduction and the Board adopted the ALJ's findings without elaboration, ordering petitioner to pay (2011 Order). Petitioner appealed the 2011 Order and the Board cross-applied for enforcement. The court granted in part the Board's cross-application for enforcement with respect to all issues except the matter relating to interim earnings. The Board did not err in applying a backpay remedy to those employees hired into the bargaining unit after petitioner unlawfully reduced the employees' hours; and the Board correctly held the Union's failure to communicate with petitioner did not toll the employer's liability, because petitioner had not rescinded the unlawful unilateral reduction in hours when it sought to negotiate with the Union. However, the Board did not adequately explain its failure to consider interim earnings when calculating the backpay award. Therefore, the court vacated the Board's backpay computation and remanded so the Board could amplify its position on interim earnings. View "Deming Hospital Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellant, which sought review under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., claimed that the Secretary's delegee failed to disapprove appellant's reimbursement request within 60 working days, as required by the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395rr(b)(7), because the delegee did not notify appellant of its asserted disapproval within the 60-day time period. Appellant appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Secretary. The court concluded that the notification of appellant within 60 days was not necessary for the disapproval to be effective and therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Gundersen Lutheran Med. Center v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

This case involved a motion for fees and costs under section 307(f) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(f), which authorized courts to award costs of litigation whenever they determined that such award was appropriate. In the underlying litigation, movants intervened on behalf of petitioners who were challenging EPA rules regulating mercury emissions from power plants. The court vacated the mercury rules and agreed with petitioners that the rules violated the Act. Movants subsequently sought the court to order the EPA to pay their fees and costs. The court concluded that movants merited a fee award because they contributed to the proper implementation and administration of the Act or otherwise served the public interest. The court declined, however, to weigh in on the appropriate amount. Instead, the court directed the parties to its Appellate Mediation Program. View "State of New Jersey, et al. v. EPA" on Justia Law

This case arose under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, where appellant challenged the CIA's Glomar response to his request for "all information or records relevant to... Sveinn B. Valfells." The court held that appellant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that the CIA had officially acknowledged any record responsive to his FOIA request. Although the CIA confirmed that some unspecified "CIA-originated information" was redacted from an FBI report, appellant could not isolate any specific CIA record that had been officially acknowledged by the CIA. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the CIA was affirmed. View "Moore, III v. CIA" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of serious drug offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contended that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he declined the prosecution's plea deal proposal and instead went to trial. The court concluded that defendant could not show a reasonable probability that he would have pled guilty if he had been fully informed of the sentencing permutations and therefore could not show the required reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Accordingly, the court found no basis in the record to disturb the district court's credibility finding and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Franklin" on Justia Law

This case was before the court on a petition to review the opinion and order of the Commission permanently denying petitioner, an attorney admitted to practice in New York state, the privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission, pursuant to rule 102(3)(1)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, and Section 4C of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Act), 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. On appeal, petitioner contended that the procedure employed by the Commission was unconstitutional. The court held that the Commission acted within its authority in sanctioning him; petitioner was on notice of his duty to comply with the New York Bar disciplinary rules and the standard of conduct proscribed by Rule 102(3)(1)(ii) and Section 4C of the Act; there was substantial evidence for the Commission's finding that petitioner engaged in intentional improper professional conduct; and the Commission did not abuse its discretion in its choice of sanctioning petitioner. Accordingly, the petition for review was denied. View "Altman v. SEC" on Justia Law

This case involved the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 152, which provided that "the majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class." For 75 years, the Board had counted non-voters as voting against union representation, thereby requiring a majority of eligible voters to affirmatively vote for representation before a union could be certified. In 2010, the Board issued a new rule that elections would be decided by a majority of votes cast, and those not voting would be understood as acquiescing to the outcome of the election. Appellants challenged the new rule, claiming that it violated the statute and was arbitrary and capricious. The district court rejected these arguments and granted summary judgment to the Board. Upon review, the court agreed with the district court and affirmed the judgment. View "Air Transport Assoc. of America v. Nat'l Mediation Bd." on Justia Law

The Corps issued a generic nationwide permit (NWP 46), pursuant to its authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1344(e), allowing persons to secure approval for qualifying discharges into "waters of the United States" without going through the more laborious process of securing an individual permit. NAHB appealed from the district court's dismissal of its challenge to the Corps' authority to issue the permit. The district court held that the NAHB had standing to pursue its claim but ultimately granted summary judgment for the Corps on the merits. The court held that because NAHB lacked standing to bring suit, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. View "Natl Assoc. of Home Builders v. US Army Corps of Engineers, et al." on Justia Law