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

Lieutenant Ernest Mitchell, a U.S. Navy officer, was serving as the Command Duty Officer aboard the USS Howard when he left the ship without authorization to move his car prior to the ship’s relocation. He failed to inform his commanding officer or transfer his duties to another qualified person during his absence. This incident, along with prior documented deficiencies in communication and adherence to standards, led to a series of disciplinary actions. These included his detachment from the ship for cause, findings by a Board of Inquiry of violations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, delay and eventual removal from a promotion list, and denial of his efforts to remove adverse records and secure his promotion.After exhausting administrative remedies, Mitchell filed suit against the Secretary of the Navy in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Navy’s actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary, determining that the Navy’s actions were reasonable and supported by a satisfactory explanation.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo, applying a highly deferential standard to the military’s factfinding. The appellate court rejected Mitchell’s argument that he was entitled to promotion by operation of law under 10 U.S.C. § 624(d), holding that the statute does not mandate automatic appointment if the Executive decides against it. The court also found that the Board for Correction of Naval Records did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in concluding Mitchell demonstrated substandard performance over an extended period. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Navy. View "Mitchell v. Phelan" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge brought by two renewable fuel industry groups to a 2020 rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program. The challenged rule established the percentage of renewable fuel that refiners and importers must include in their annual fuel output. The groups objected to EPA’s refusal to adjust the 2020 standard to account for renewable fuel shortfalls resulting from past retroactive small refinery exemptions. While the case was pending, EPA issued a new rule in 2022 that recalculated the 2020 standards and reaffirmed its approach of not making up for past exemptions. In addition, Congress altered the statutory framework, granting EPA broader discretion in setting future renewable fuel volumes.Following the issuance of the 2022 rule, most petitioners dismissed their challenges, and the two remaining groups shifted their focus, no longer seeking to set aside the 2020 rule but instead seeking a ruling that would require EPA to change its policy in future rulemakings. They did not challenge the 2022 rule, nor did they request its invalidation.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the case was moot. The court reasoned that the 2022 rule superseded the 2020 rule, eliminating any live controversy over that agency action. The court further explained that the legal landscape had changed due to statutory amendments, so the original dispute no longer presented the same question. Because petitioners were not seeking to overturn any concrete, current agency action, their challenge amounted to a request for an impermissible advisory opinion. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petitions as moot. View "Clean Fuels Alliance America v. EPA" on Justia Law

Three Medicaid beneficiaries in Indiana challenged the federal agency’s approval of a ten-year extension to Indiana’s Medicaid program, known as HIP 2.0, asserting that the program did not comply with the requirements of the federal Medicaid Act. The plaintiffs argued that the agency’s 2020 approval, as well as a 2023 letter maintaining the program despite concerns about coverage reductions, were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Indiana, seeking to defend HIP 2.0, intervened in the case.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the beneficiaries, holding that the agency’s approval was not based on reasoned decision-making and failed to consider all relevant factors, particularly whether the program would help furnish medical assistance. The court vacated the 2020 approval and remanded the matter to the agency for further proceedings but stayed the vacatur order, allowing most of HIP 2.0 to remain in effect except for specific premium requirements. Indiana appealed, seeking review of the district court’s remand order, while the beneficiaries and the federal agency argued that the order was not a final, appealable decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed whether it had jurisdiction over Indiana’s appeal. The court held that the district court’s remand order was not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it did not end the litigation on the merits and substantive proceedings before the agency remained. The appellate court also found that none of the exceptions to the final judgment rule applied, including the collateral-order doctrine or Rule 54(b) certification. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit dismissed Indiana’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Rose v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

A pilot employed by a cargo airline was on a personal trip abroad when his employer, Amerijet International, selected him for a random drug test and requested that he appear for testing in Seattle on the same day. The pilot was unable to comply due to his location and a medical issue. The airline determined that he had refused the test, reported this to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and subsequently terminated his employment. The FAA corresponded with the pilot, initially investigating the matter and ultimately informing him that, while it was not taking enforcement action against his certificates, he would be subject to return-to-duty requirements because of the refusal determination, and the test refusal would be reported to the Pilot Records Database.The pilot challenged these consequences, arguing that the FAA had not independently reviewed the employer’s determination that he refused the test. The FAA responded that test-refusal determinations were made solely by the employer, not by the agency, and that the FAA did not review such determinations. The case came before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the pilot’s petition for review of the FAA’s actions.The Court of Appeals held that the FAA’s internal guidance, specifically its Drug and Alcohol Compliance and Enforcement Surveillance Handbook, plausibly requires the FAA to independently review an employer’s test-refusal determination. The court interpreted the Handbook to require such review, partly to avoid serious constitutional concerns that would arise if the FAA entirely delegated this authority to private employers without oversight. Because the FAA conceded that it did not conduct any review, the court found the agency’s actions to be arbitrary and capricious for departing from its own procedures. The court granted the petition in part, remanding the case to the FAA for further review consistent with its opinion. View "Paul v. FAA" on Justia Law

A group of organizations challenged the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) policy permitting the sharing of taxpayer address information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration enforcement. The plaintiffs initiated suit after reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was seeking addresses from the IRS to locate undocumented immigrants. The IRS and DHS subsequently formalized an agreement (Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU) specifying procedures for ICE to request taxpayer addresses from the IRS for use in nontax criminal investigations, provided statutory requirements were met.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. After denying a temporary restraining order, the District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The District Court found that at least one plaintiff had standing and concluded the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claims. Specifically, the court found that 26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(2) unambiguously allowed the IRS to disclose address information in response to valid requests, and that the IRS’s prior internal guidelines to the contrary did not have the force of law. The court also determined that the MOU was a nonbinding policy statement, not a final agency action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs likely had standing, but were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court ruled that § 6103(i)(2) clearly authorizes the IRS to disclose taxpayer address information, and that the MOU was not a reviewable agency action. It further held that any challenge to the agency’s change of interpretation was not viable because the court’s interpretation of the statute controls. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "Centro de Trabajadores Unidos v. Bessent" on Justia Law

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued four ten-year plans authorizing the gathering and removal of wild horses from public lands in specific areas to achieve and maintain population levels within approved management ranges. Friends of Animals challenged these plans, arguing that they allowed indefinite removals without specific findings of overpopulation, failed to rely on current information, and did not include proper consultation, contrary to requirements under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. The BLM responded that the Act permitted multiple removal operations over a period of years within a single plan.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the case. The court held that the ten-year plans were unlawful to the extent they permitted additional gathers after achieving the approved management levels, and vacated those portions of the plans. The court also held that future removal operations must be based on current information and proper consultation, and must be conducted promptly, as required by the Act. The court remanded the matter to BLM to revise the plans and clarify which future gathers would require further process before proceeding. Notably, the court did not resolve the parties’ principal disputes, leaving them to be addressed on remand.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the appeal brought by Friends of Animals. The appellate court determined that the District Court’s remand order was not a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it left the core dispute unresolved for further proceedings. As a result, the appellate court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the case and dismissed the appeal. The disposition was a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Friends of Animals v. United States Bureau of Land Management" on Justia Law

In 2014, Russia invaded and subsequently asserted control over Crimea, an area internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Ukrainian businesses operating in Crimea—including an electricity distributor and a group of petrol station owners—had their assets seized and operations transferred to Russian-controlled entities without compensation. These businesses, having made investments under Ukrainian law and while the 1998 Agreement Between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the Encouragement and Mutual Protection of Investments (“Investment Treaty”) was in effect, pursued arbitration against Russia for expropriation and treaty violations.The Ukrainian companies initiated separate arbitrations under the Investment Treaty’s arbitration clause. The arbitral tribunals found Russia liable for breaches and awarded significant damages to the companies. Russia challenged the arbitral jurisdiction and the awards in foreign courts, but those efforts were unsuccessful. The companies then filed petitions in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce the awards under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act. Russia moved to dismiss, arguing the courts lacked subject-matter and personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The District Court rejected Russia’s arguments, finding jurisdiction appropriate under the FSIA’s arbitration exception and personal jurisdiction proper upon valid service.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed whether the District Court correctly exercised jurisdiction. The appellate court held that the FSIA’s arbitration exception applied because the companies established the existence of an arbitration agreement, a qualifying arbitral award, and a treaty potentially governing enforcement. The court further held that foreign states are not entitled to the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections against personal jurisdiction. The judgments of the District Court were affirmed. View "Stabil LLC v. Russian Federation" on Justia Law

A Jordanian business entity entered into an agreement with the Republic of Iraq in 1995 to settle Iraq’s unpaid debt for delivered goods by providing specified quantities of sulfur and urea, valued at $53 million. The agreement contemplated delivery at the Iraq-Jordan border, and although the supplier anticipated reselling these materials in the United States, this downstream transaction was not included in the written agreement. Iraq did not fulfill its obligations under the agreement, leading the supplier to pursue payment through interactions with Iraqi officials, who orally acknowledged the debt and suggested legal action might facilitate payment.After Iraq failed to deliver the goods, the supplier obtained a judgment in its favor from a Jordanian court in 2015 for the full amount. The Jordanian Court of Cassation affirmed the judgment. However, when the supplier sought to enforce the judgment in Jordan, the Jordanian Court of Appeal held that Iraq had not waived its sovereign immunity in the enforcement proceeding, preventing collection. Iraq has not satisfied any part of the judgment.The supplier then initiated an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking recognition of the Jordanian judgment. Iraq moved to dismiss, invoking sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The district court found that no FSIA exception applied and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, holding that Iraq had not made an explicit waiver of immunity and that Iraq’s conduct did not cause a direct effect in the United States as required by the FSIA’s commercial activity exception. Thus, the supplier’s claim is barred by Iraq’s sovereign immunity. View "Mohammad Hilmi Nassif & Partners v. Republic of Iraq" on Justia Law

Immigrant investors who seek permanent residency in the United States may do so by investing in regional centers that promote economic growth and job creation. In 2022, Congress reformed this program, establishing new oversight measures including an annual fee for all regional centers to fund monitoring and fraud prevention. EB5 Holdings, which owns two regional centers designated before 2022, challenged the application of this fee to “pre-RIA” (pre-2022 Reform and Integrity Act) regional centers. EB5 argued that only centers designated after the 2022 reforms should be subject to the annual fee, claiming the statute did not authorize the fee’s collection from centers designated under previous law.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed EB5’s Administrative Procedure Act challenge after the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that all regional centers must pay the new fee to maintain their status. The district court denied EB5’s motion for summary judgment and granted the government’s motion to dismiss, finding that the fee provision unambiguously applies to both pre- and post-RIA regional centers.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the statutory text requires all currently designated regional centers—regardless of when they were initially designated—to pay the annual Integrity Fund fee. The court reasoned that the phrase “designated under subparagraph (E)” refers to the current status of being designated to operate as a regional center under the reformed program, not the timing of original designation. The court further rejected the argument that applying the fee to pre-RIA centers was impermissibly retroactive, as the fee only applies prospectively to centers wishing to maintain their designation. Thus, the district court’s dismissal was affirmed. View "EB5 Holdings Inc. v. Edlow" on Justia Law

A provider of energy efficient resources (EERs), which are projects that reduce electrical consumption, challenged a decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approving a change to PJM Interconnection LLC’s tariff. PJM manages the electrical grid in parts of thirteen states and the District of Columbia, and it operates capacity auctions to ensure reliable electricity supply. Historically, EERs were allowed to bid in these auctions for up to four consecutive years to compensate for a lag in PJM’s statistical model (load forecast), which previously did not account for new EERs’ impact on energy consumption. In 2016, PJM updated its model to capture these effects in real time, removing the need for EERs to participate in the auctions.In 2024, PJM proposed a tariff amendment to exclude EERs from future capacity auctions, citing the improved accuracy of its load forecast and the unnecessary costs imposed on consumers by double-counting EERs’ effects. FERC approved this amendment, finding it would lower costs for consumers without compromising grid reliability. Affirmed Energy LLC, an EER aggregator, protested, arguing that the amendment was unlawfully retroactive and arbitrary and capricious, as it would disrupt settled expectations and reliance interests, particularly for projects that had already cleared prior auctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. It held that FERC’s orders were not retroactive because they only applied to future auctions and did not strip EER providers of entitlements to past payments or auction results. The court also found that FERC had reasonably evaluated PJM’s updated forecast, weighed the reliance interests at stake, and explained why the amendment was justified. The petition for review was denied. View "Affirmed Energy, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law