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

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) prescribe safety standards for pipelines on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation. Two oil and gas associations, GPA Midstream and the American Petroleum Institute, petitioned for review of a safety standard requiring their members to install remote-controlled or automatic shut-off valves in some types of new or replaced gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. Petitioners challenged the standard as it applies to “gathering” pipelines used to collect raw gas or crude oil from a well. They argued the PHMSA unlawfully failed to disclose the economic basis for regulating gathering pipelines when it proposed the standard and also failed to make a reasoned determination that regulating these pipelines was appropriate.   The DC Circuit granted the petition. The court explained that the PHMSA said nothing about the practicability or the costs and benefits of the standard for gathering pipelines until promulgating the final rule, even though the law required it to address those subjects when publishing the proposed rule for public comment and peer review. The PHMSA also ultimately failed to make a reasoned determination that the benefits of regulating gathering pipelines would exceed the costs and that doing so would be practicable, as required by law. View "GPA Midstream Association v. DOT" on Justia Law

A grand jury charged Appellee with wire fraud and obstructing an official proceeding. Appellee moved to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense. The district court granted the motion, and the Government appealed to contest the dismissal of the section 1343 (wire fraud) count. Before the District Court, Appellee moved to suppress certain evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant issued in this case and requested a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).  The Government does not appeal the dismissal of the section 1512(c)(2) (obstructing an official proceeding) count.   The DC Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the indictment. The court dismissed Appellee’s cross-appeal of the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and request for a Franks hearing. The court explained that regardless of whether Appellee lied to “obtain” future salary or “maintain” his existing salary, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal because the indictment fails to allege that the State Department was deprived of something more than Appellee’s honesty. The court wrote that the wire fraud statute, as interpreted through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, does not support an indictment on the facts proffered by the Government in this case. Moreover, the court explained that Appellee is the prevailing party in this case. As such, he has no right to seek review of the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and request for a Franks hearing. View "USA v. Paul Guertin" on Justia Law

The Government removed Appellant from the United States. Back in his home country, Appellant filed a habeas petition, arguing that his removal was unlawful. The district court dismissed Appellant’s petition. It concluded that habeas proceedings are available only to those in government custody. Because Appellant did not file his petition until he was back home and out of custody, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case. Appellant appealed to the DC Circuit.   The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that an alien may seek judicial review of an expedited removal order in “habeas corpus proceedings.” And habeas corpus proceedings are available only to those in custody. Here, Appellant was not in custody. So the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his habeas petition. Further, the court noted that it cannot adopt an extreme-circumstances exception because it has no statutory basis. The court wrote that creating exceptions to jurisdictional rules is a job for Congress, not the courts. View "I.M. v. United States Customs and Border Protection" on Justia Law

The United States seized oil cargo it claims belongs to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Appellants attached the oil in order to satisfy money judgments they hold against Iran. The district court upheld the United States' claim of sovereign immunity and quashed the attachments.
The DC Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held (1) federal sovereign immunity prevents the attachment and garnishment of oil proceeds in a bank account of the United States and (2) the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) does not waive that immunity. The court explained that the TRIA does not expressly mention the United States, its sovereign immunity, or its susceptibility to suit under the statute. Because the TRIA has nothing express to say about federal sovereign immunity, the notwithstanding clause cannot aid Appellants. Because sovereign immunity prevents Appellants from taking further steps to seize the proceeds from the United States’ sale of the contested oil, the court wrote it has no occasion to reach the alternative grounds for affirmance raised by the Government. View "Steven Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued its “final determination to regulate perchlorate in drinking water” under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Drinking Water: Regulatory Determination on Perchlorate. That determination started a clock under the Safe Drinking Water Act requiring EPA to propose regulations within twenty-four months and promulgate regulations within eighteen months of the proposal. But EPA never promulgated perchlorate regulations. Instead, nine years later, the agency purported to withdraw its regulatory determination. Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) petitioned for review of this action, arguing that EPA lacks the authority to withdraw a regulatory determination under the Act and that, even if EPA possesses such authority, it acted arbitrarily and capriciously by doing so. EPA, joined by Intervenor American Water Works Association, defends its action.   The DC Circuit granted NRDC’s petition, vacated EPA’s withdrawal of its regulatory determination, and remand to the agency for further proceedings. The court held the Safe Drinking Water Act does not permit EPA to withdraw a regulatory determination. The court explained that first, and most fundamentally, EPA’s interpretation of what Congress intended in the statute cannot overcome the statute’s directive that the agency “shall” regulate. And second, the history EPA cites is not inconsistent with the court’s interpretation. The 1996 amendments undoubtedly gave the agency more discretion in determining which contaminants to consider for regulation and whether to regulate them in the first instance. But they also balanced that discretion with a mandatory scheme requiring EPA to regulate after it determines to do so. View "NRDC v. Michael Regan" on Justia Law

Petitioner is a former Guantanamo Bay detainee. He asked the DC Circuit to vacate his convictions for war crimes—including providing material support to terrorism and murder of a United States soldier in violation of the law of war—based on the alleged constitutional and statutory infirmities of those convictions.   The DC Circuit dismissed the petition because Petitioner waived his right to appellate review by the DC Circuit. The court explained that a defendant cannot challenge a plea based on an alleged error of law that was raised, rejected and then waived pursuant to the plea. Here, Petitioner, aware that the military judge had rejected his theories, nonetheless chose to plead guilty and expressly waive his right to appeal those erroneous (in his view) rulings. He cannot now have the merits of his waived claims reviewed on appeal by arguing his waiver was invalid because those claims were wrongly decided. Indeed, the basic principle behind an appeal waiver is that the defendant gives up his right to have an appellate court review the merits of his arguments in exchange for valuable consideration. View "Omar Khadr v. United States" on Justia Law

Appellants are victims of terrorist attacks allegedly perpetrated by the Islamic Resistance Movement, colloquially known as “Hamas.” Appellants assert that Hamas and affiliated groups are responsible for launching incendiary devices from the Gaza Strip into areas of Israel where appellants live and own property, causing substantial damage and emotional harm. They sued an American nonprofit corporation — Education for a Just Peace in the Middle East, doing business as the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights (“USCPR”) — under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”), alleging that USCPR aided and abetted and provided material support to Hamas. The district court dismissed the Complaint, holding that Appellants failed to allege sufficient links between Hamas and USCPR to hold USCPR liable for any acts of terrorism.   The DC Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed Appellants’ direct liability and aiding-and-abetting claims under the ATA. The Complaint does not adequately plead that USCPR provided funds to Hamas or otherwise aided or abetted Hamas. The court explained that Appellants’ attempt to establish aiding-and-abetting liability fails at every turn. First, although appellants claim that USCPR aided and abetted Hamas, appellants do not adequately allege that Hamas “perform[ed] a wrongful act that caused an injury.” Second, there are no facts from which we can infer that USCPR was “generally aware” that its role of providing funds to the Boycott National Committee was “part of an overall illegal or tortious activity.” Finally, the court discerned no non-conclusory factual allegations that USCPR “knowingly and substantially assisted” any incendiary launches. View "Keren Kayemeth Leisrael - Jewish National Fund v. Education for a Just Peace in the Middle East" on Justia Law

The Internal Revenue Service assessed penalties pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 6700 against Appellant in connection with his promotion of a tax shelter scheme. Appellant filed a motion to recuse and disqualify all Tax Court judges on separation of powers grounds. The Tax Court denied the motion and granted summary judgment for the IRS, rejecting Appellant’s statute of limitations defenses. On appeal, Appellant contends that the presidential power to remove Tax Court judges violates the separation of powers and that assessment of Section 6700 penalties was time-barred by 26 U.S.C. Section 6501(a) or by 28 U.S.C. Section 2462.   The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that here Congress sought only to “ensure that there is no appearance of institutional bias” when the Tax Court adjudicates disputes between the IRS and taxpayers. Appellant has not demonstrated that congressional action has undermined the separation of powers analysis adopted in Kuretski. The court further held that Section 6501(a) is inapplicable to the assessment of Section 6700 penalties. Section 6700 penalties are assessed against individuals who represent, with reason to know such representation is false, that there will be a tax benefit for participating in or purchasing an interest in an arrangement the individual assisted in organizing. The conduct penalizable “does not pertain to any particular tax return or tax year.” Accordingly, the court held that Appellant’s separation of powers claim is barred under the analysis in Kuretski. View "John Crim v. Cmsnr. IRS" on Justia Law

Meta Platforms, Inc. owns and operates the social media network Facebook. Forty-six states, the District of Columbia, and the Territory of Guam joined in a civil complaint charging Facebook with violating the antitrust laws (“the States.”) The States alleged that Facebook committed these violations as a result of its acquisitions of several actual or potential competitors and its restrictions on developers of applications that linked to Facebook. The States sought equitable relief. The district court dismissed their Complaint.   The DC Circuit affirmed. The court agreed with the district court that the States unduly delayed in bringing suit. The court further wrote that the district court properly considered the actual text of Facebook’s 2011 policy as quoted in the FTC’s complaint and properly disregarded the States’ allegations where those allegations were contrary to the policy’s text. In light of the complete text of Facebook’s competitor integration policy, the court rejected the States’ challenge to that policy. Further, the court held that the States’ exclusive dealing theory fails as a matter of law. View "State of New York v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of the State of North Dakota’s supplemental motion to intervene in the lawsuit against the Department of the Interior brought by the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, recognized as the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (“Tribes”). The Tribes, joined by the Interior Department, filed oppositions to the State’s continuing as a party. In response, the State moved again to intervene with respect to the remaining Counts. This time the district court denied the State’s intervention motion. The district court explained that “there [was] no longer a live controversy before the Court on that issue.” The court explained: “At various points, the State argues that ‘an M-Opinion does not establish legal title’ and that, as a result, a dispute remains.   The DC Circuit reversed. The court explained that the Interior lacks “authority to adjudicate legal title to real property.” The Interior Department conceded as much. The action of the Bureau of Indian Affairs recording title in its records office, therefore, could not “establish legal title,” as the district court supposed. As the Interior stated in its brief, “there has been no final determination of title to the Missouri riverbed.” The action of the Bureau of Indian Affairs recording title in its records office, therefore, could not “establish legal title,” as the district court supposed. Accordingly, the court wrote that there is no doubt that the State satisfied the Rule’s requirement that the intervention motion must be timely. View "Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation v. DOI" on Justia Law