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

Judge Pauline Newman, a sitting judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, was investigated by a Special Committee of her circuit under the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. The investigation was initiated after the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit raised concerns about Judge Newman’s ability to manage her workload due to alleged health and age-related impairments. The Special Committee requested that Judge Newman undergo medical examinations and provide medical records, which she refused, arguing the requests and investigation were unlawful. As a result, the Federal Circuit’s Judicial Council suspended Judge Newman from receiving new case assignments for one year, with the suspension subsequently renewed.Judge Newman filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging her suspension on statutory and constitutional grounds. She argued that the Judicial Council exceeded its statutory authority, violated her due process rights by not transferring the matter to another circuit, and that the Act’s case-suspension provision was unconstitutional both facially and as applied. The district court dismissed her statutory and as-applied constitutional claims for lack of jurisdiction, relying on circuit precedent, and rejected her facial constitutional challenge on the merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that, under binding precedent from McBryde v. Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct & Disability Orders of the Judicial Conference of the United States, it lacked jurisdiction to review Judge Newman’s statutory and as-applied constitutional claims. The court further held that Judge Newman’s facial constitutional challenge to the Act’s case-suspension provision failed because the provision has many constitutional applications. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Newman v. Moore" on Justia Law

The case centers on the southwestern willow flycatcher, a bird listed as an endangered subspecies by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service since 1995. The New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association petitioned the Service to remove the bird from the endangered species list, arguing that it is not a valid subspecies and thus does not qualify for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Their petition relied heavily on a 2015 scientific article by Robert Zink, which critiqued previous studies supporting the subspecies classification. The Service conducted a thorough review, including public comment and expert consultation, and ultimately reaffirmed the subspecies designation, finding that the best available scientific evidence supported its continued listing.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the Service’s decision after the Cattle Growers filed suit, claiming the agency’s determination was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Service and its intervenors, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Maricopa Audubon Society, finding that the Service had reasonably explained its reliance on scientific studies and its application of the non-clinal geographic variation standard to determine subspecies validity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. The appellate court held that the Service’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, as it was based on a reasonable and well-explained evaluation of scientific evidence. The court rejected the Cattle Growers’ arguments regarding the indeterminacy of the non-clinal geographic variation standard and found no merit in claims of constitutional or procedural deficiencies. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association v. FWS" on Justia Law

A group of hospitals challenged the calculation of their Medicare fractions for fiscal year 2007, which is a key component in determining eligibility and payment amounts under the Medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH) adjustment. The DSH adjustment provides increased reimbursement to hospitals serving a high number of low-income patients. The hospitals disputed the inclusion of Medicare Part C beneficiaries in the Medicare fraction, arguing that this reduced their payments. After the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published the Medicare fractions, the hospitals appealed to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board, seeking review of the calculation before the final DSH adjustment was determined.The Provider Reimbursement Review Board dismissed the hospitals’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that a challenge could only be brought after the final determination of the DSH adjustment was made and reflected in the Notice of Program Reimbursement (NPR). The Board concluded that publication of the Medicare fraction alone did not constitute a “final determination” as required by statute. The hospitals then sought review in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which disagreed with the Board and held that the hospitals’ challenge could proceed, interpreting precedent to allow appeals at the stage of Medicare fraction publication.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the hospitals’ challenge prior to the issuance of the NPR, because only the NPR constitutes the Secretary’s “final determination as to the amount of the payment” under the relevant statutory provision. The court clarified that while some prospective payment system components may be appealed before the NPR, retrospective adjustments like the DSH adjustment require final settlement before an appeal is ripe. View "Battle Creek Health System v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

In 2020, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposed a rule to address insider threats in airports, specifically targeting the risk that aviation workers with unescorted access to secured areas could facilitate the introduction of weapons or dangerous items onto aircraft. Instead of following the usual public notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), TSA provided notice and an opportunity to comment only to airport operators. The finalized rule, known as the National Amendment, required major airports to physically screen aviation workers entering certain secured areas and to acquire explosives-detection equipment. Noncompliance could result in civil enforcement actions by TSA.After TSA finalized the National Amendment in April 2023, various municipalities operating airports and a trade organization, Airport Council International-North America (ACI-NA), submitted timely requests for reconsideration, arguing that TSA lacked statutory authority, that the APA required public notice and comment, and that the rule unlawfully compelled local officials to implement a federal scheme. TSA denied all reconsideration requests, maintaining that its own regulations permitted it to amend airport security programs by providing notice and comment only to affected operators. The petitioners then sought review of TSA’s denial in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the National Amendment is a legislative rule subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements, which TSA failed to follow. The court vacated the National Amendment but withheld its mandate, allowing TSA time to promulgate a procedurally proper rule or inform the court if no rule is needed. The court required TSA to submit periodic status reports until a final resolution. View "City of Billings v. TSA" on Justia Law

Eugene Hudson, a long-time member and leader within the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), was twice removed from his position as National Secretary-Treasurer after he criticized the union’s leadership and use of resources while campaigning for union president. Hudson’s communications, including a letter and an email sent to union officers using union resources, led to internal disciplinary proceedings. The AFGE’s National Executive Council found that Hudson’s actions violated the union’s constitution, resulting in his removal in August 2017. After a preliminary injunction reinstated him, a second investigation led to his removal again in February 2018. Hudson amended his lawsuit to challenge both removals, alleging they were acts of retaliation for his protected speech under section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).The United States District Court for the District of Columbia presided over a jury trial, where the jury found that AFGE unlawfully retaliated against Hudson in the first removal but not the second, awarding no damages. Hudson moved for a new trial, arguing that the jury instructions misstated the causation standard and the burden of proof. The district court denied the motion, holding that Hudson had not properly preserved his objections and that the instructions were not plainly erroneous.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that a retaliation claim under LMRDA section 101(a)(2) requires proof of but-for causation, not merely that protected speech was a motivating factor. The court also found that Hudson could not challenge the burden of proof instruction because he had proposed the language used. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, denying Hudson’s request for a new trial. View "Hudson v. American Federation of Government Employees" on Justia Law

Members of the Crow Tribe who own trust allotments on the Crow Reservation challenged the loss of their historic water rights following the ratification of the Crow Tribe-Montana Compact and the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act. The Settlement Act, passed by Congress in 2010, codified a negotiated agreement among the Crow Tribe, the state of Montana, and the United States, which defined tribal water rights and provided substantial federal funding for water infrastructure. In exchange, the Tribe and allottees agreed to waive all other water rights claims. The Act required the Secretary of the Interior to publish a Statement of Findings certifying that certain conditions were met, which would trigger the waiver of prior water rights.After the Secretary published the Statement of Findings in June 2016—following a deadline extension agreed to by the Tribal Chairman and the Secretary—several allottees filed suit nearly six years later. They argued that the extension was invalid because, under the Crow Constitution, only the Tribal General Council or Legislature could authorize such an agreement. They also alleged that the Secretary’s action exceeded statutory authority, breached trust obligations, and violated their Fifth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the Secretary’s publication of the Statement of Findings constituted final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, but found the Secretary reasonably relied on the Tribal Chairman’s authority to extend the deadline. The court further held that the Settlement Act created specific trust duties, but the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege any breach. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claims for takings, due process, and equal protection failed as a matter of law. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Hill v. DOI" on Justia Law

A Liechtenstein-based satellite company was developing a network of low-Earth-orbit satellites and had obtained radio-frequency usage rights through a contract with another company, TRION AG. In 2021, a competitor, Rivada Networks, Inc., took over TRION and TRION’s board terminated the contract with the satellite company, transferring the frequency rights to Rivada. The legality of this transfer is being contested in European litigation. Shortly after the contract termination, Rivada’s CEO made public statements on an industry podcast, asserting that the satellite company no longer had usage rights and suggesting it planned to move its operations to China. These statements were broadcast during a major satellite industry conference, after which manufacturers expressed doubts about the satellite company’s viability and some refused to partner with it.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the satellite company’s defamation lawsuit against Rivada. The court assumed, without deciding, that the statements were false and defamatory, but found they were not defamatory per se and that the complaint failed to adequately allege special damages, specifically a causal link between the statements and any harm suffered.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the statements were not defamatory per se, as they did not inherently impute professional misconduct or dishonesty. However, the appellate court found that the complaint plausibly alleged special damages, specifically that the statements caused the loss of business relationships with satellite manufacturers, leading to identifiable economic harm. The court held that the complaint’s factual allegations were sufficient to support a plausible inference of causation at the pleading stage.The appellate court affirmed the dismissal in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the special damages theory. View "KLEO AG v. Rivada Networks, Inc." on Justia Law

A high school student in the District of Columbia was sexually assaulted by a classmate in a school bathroom. The student’s mother reported the incident to school officials, prompting an investigation by the District. The District ultimately found the assault claim credible and took steps to support the student, including offering counseling and a school transfer. However, the school principal, before any investigation, expressed disbelief in the student’s claim, made derogatory remarks about her, and attempted to undermine the investigation, even after video evidence corroborated the student’s account. The principal’s conduct included misleading superiors and withholding information. The student and her mother later learned of these actions, which caused them significant distress.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the student’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) for failure to state a claim, finding that the school-student relationship alone did not create a special duty under D.C. law. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and Title IX claims, holding that the District’s response was not deliberately indifferent and that the principal’s conduct did not meet the standard for IIED because the remarks were made outside the student’s presence.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the NIED claim and the grant of summary judgment to the District on the Title IX claims, finding the District’s overall response was not clearly unreasonable and that the principal’s actions could not be attributed to the District for Title IX retaliation. However, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the IIED claim against the principal, holding that a reasonable jury could find her conduct was extreme and outrageous, intended or recklessly caused severe emotional distress, and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. View "Doe v. DC" on Justia Law

The case concerns a series of actions taken by the leadership of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in early 2025, following a change in presidential administration. The new Acting Directors, first Scott Bessent and then Russell Vought, implemented measures to significantly downsize the agency. These included pausing most agency activities, terminating employees (including the Student Loan Ombudsman), canceling contracts, declining additional funding, moving to smaller headquarters, and requiring advance approval for agency work. Some statutorily required services were neglected during this period, though agency leadership later clarified that legally mandated work should continue.Several plaintiffs, including organizations representing CFPB employees and groups that use CFPB services, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They alleged that the agency’s actions amounted to an unlawful attempt to “shut down” the CFPB, violating both statutory mandates and the separation of powers. The district court found that agency leadership had indeed decided to shut down the Bureau and issued a preliminary injunction. This injunction required the government to reinstate terminated employees, refrain from further firings except for cause, maintain certain services, and rescind contract terminations, among other measures.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over claims related to loss of employment, as such claims must proceed through the Civil Service Reform Act’s specialized review scheme. For the remaining plaintiffs, the court found that their claims did not challenge a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), nor did they present a constitutional claim reviewable in equity. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ attempt to challenge an inferred, overarching decision to shut down the CFPB was not viable under the APA or in equity. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case. View "National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought" on Justia Law

After two Category 5 hurricanes struck the U.S. Virgin Islands in 2017, the Virgin Islands Housing Finance Authority undertook extensive restoration projects and sought reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for over $594 million in costs. FEMA denied approximately $85 million of the claimed costs, and after an internal appeal, the Authority recovered an additional $8.5 million. To pursue the remaining disputed amount, the Authority opted for arbitration before the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The arbitration panel, originally composed of three members, issued its decision with only two members after one took extended leave, denying the Authority full reimbursement.Following the arbitration, the Authority requested the Board to vacate the award, arguing that the decision was invalid due to the lack of a quorum. The Board denied this request. The Authority then filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to vacate the award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and also sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The District Court denied the motion, finding that the Authority had missed the FAA’s three-month deadline for serving notice and that the APA claim was precluded by the availability of review under the FAA.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Court held that the FAA’s three-month deadline for serving notice of a motion to vacate an arbitration award applies even when the challenge is based on the arbitrators allegedly exceeding their authority or lacking a quorum. The Court also held that the FAA provides an adequate and exclusive remedy for challenging arbitration awards, thereby precluding review under the APA in this context. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed. View "Virgin Islands Housing Finance Authority v. FEMA" on Justia Law