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

Anthony Glover appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained through a search of DaKnea Brewer’s apartment, which he argues was conducted unlawfully. On September 16, 2020, Metropolitan Police Department officers went to Brewer’s home looking for her brothers under an arrest warrant. Officer Eldrick Creamer asked Brewer if he could come in to discuss something important about her brothers. Brewer allowed him in, and after some conversation, Officer Creamer mentioned he had “warrants” and needed to visually check the apartment. Brewer consented, and during the search, officers found Glover and a firearm, leading to his arrest.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held a suppression hearing where Officer Creamer testified. The court found that Brewer’s consent to the search was voluntary, noting the officers’ polite and non-threatening demeanor. The court concluded that Brewer understood the warrants to be arrest warrants and not search warrants, and thus denied Glover’s motion to suppress the evidence. Glover then pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court did not adequately consider whether Officer Creamer’s statements about having “warrants” and needing to search the apartment rendered Brewer’s consent mere acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority. The appellate court held that the district court misapplied the legal standard from Bumper v. North Carolina, which requires careful consideration of whether consent was voluntary or coerced by a claim of lawful authority. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the district court’s order and Glover’s conviction, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Glover" on Justia Law

Eight citizens of Mali alleged that, as children, they were trafficked to Côte d’Ivoire and forced to work without pay on small, remote cocoa farms. After eventually returning to Mali, they brought a putative class action in the United States against seven major cocoa importers, claiming the companies violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) by knowingly benefiting from a supply chain that relied on forced child labor. The plaintiffs asserted that the importers orchestrated and controlled a cocoa supply chain “venture” and delayed meaningful action against child labor through their leadership of the World Cocoa Foundation.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to connect the defendants to any specific cocoa plantations, including those where the plaintiffs had worked. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ general, industry-wide allegations lacked the specificity required to establish causation under Article III of the Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending resolution of a similar case, Doe 1 v. Apple Inc.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they did not plausibly allege facts showing a causal connection between their forced labor and the importers’ conduct. Specifically, the complaint failed to allege that the importers sourced cocoa, directly or through intermediaries, from the specific farms where the plaintiffs worked. The court distinguished this case from Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., where plaintiffs had plausibly traced their injuries to the defendants’ suppliers. The dismissal was affirmed. View "Coubaly v. Cargill Incorporated" on Justia Law

The case involves the Stored Communications Act, which allows the government to subpoena electronic communication service providers for user records and seek court orders to prohibit disclosure of such subpoenas. The government requested and obtained a court order allowing it to prohibit disclosure of any subpoena related to a particular investigation for one year, provided the government determined that disclosure would risk one of the harms specified in the Act. The government then served a subpoena on X Corp. with the nondisclosure order attached. X Corp. moved to vacate the nondisclosure order, arguing it did not comply with the Act. The district court denied X Corp.'s motion.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued the nondisclosure order and denied X Corp.'s motion to vacate it. X Corp. appealed the decision, arguing that the order did not comply with the Stored Communications Act and violated the First Amendment. The district court relied on ex parte evidence in its decision, which X Corp. also challenged.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the nondisclosure order did not conform to the Stored Communications Act because the court did not find "reason to believe" that disclosure of the subpoena would risk a statutory harm. The court emphasized that the statute requires the court, not the government, to make this determination. The appellate court did not address X Corp.'s First Amendment argument or the issue of the district court's reliance on ex parte evidence, as the statutory ruling was sufficient to resolve the case. View "In re Sealed Case" on Justia Law

Adam Steele and Krystal Comer, tax return preparers, challenged the IRS's requirement to obtain or renew a Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) by completing Form W-12, which involves paying a fee and disclosing personal information. They initially joined a class action in 2014 contesting the IRS's authority to impose these fees and the amount of information required by Form W-12. However, class counsel later withdrew these claims. Steele and Comer then attempted to revive these claims in a separate lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed their complaint, citing the rule against claim-splitting, which prevents duplicative litigation between the same parties asserting the same claims, even without a final judgment in the first case. The district court found that Steele and Comer had already raised and then withdrawn these claims in the ongoing class action and were denied leave to amend the complaint to reassert them.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) does not bar judicial review of the IRS's authority to demand information through Form W-12, but the rule against claim-splitting still precludes the plaintiffs' suit. The court emphasized that claim-splitting bars duplicative litigation filed before final judgment and that Steele and Comer had a fair opportunity to litigate their claims in the earlier class action. The court concluded that the district court's dismissal was proper to prevent strategic end runs around procedural rulings and to preserve the integrity of the adjudicative process. View "Steele v. United States" on Justia Law

Crowley Government Services, Inc. ("Crowley") entered into a contract with the Department of Defense United States Transportation Command ("USTRANSCOM") in 2016 to provide transportation coordination services, which involved hiring motor carriers to transport freight. The General Services Administration ("GSA"), not a party to the contract, began auditing Crowley's bills under a provision of the Transportation Act of 1940, claiming Crowley overbilled USTRANSCOM by millions of dollars. GSA sought to recover these overcharges by garnishing future payments to Crowley.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Crowley's Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") claims, holding that the claims were essentially contractual and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. The D.C. Circuit reversed, finding that Crowley's suit was not a contract claim and remanded the case. On remand, the District Court held that GSA could audit both carriers and non-carriers but agreed with Crowley that the USTRANSCOM Contracting Officer's interpretations governed any GSA audits. The court enjoined GSA from issuing Notices of Overcharge ("NOCs") contrary to the Contracting Officer's determinations.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and held that 31 U.S.C. § 3726(b) allows GSA to audit only bills presented by carriers and freight forwarders. The court found that Crowley is not a carrier because it does not physically transport freight nor is it contractually bound to help perform the movement of goods. Consequently, the court reversed the District Court's decision on the scope of § 3726(b) and remanded for further proceedings, permanently enjoining GSA from conducting postpayment audits of Crowley's bills. View "Crowley Government Services, Inc. v. General Services Administration" on Justia Law

The Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability, Inc. filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with six intelligence agencies seeking documents related to the upstreaming and unmasking of forty-eight named current and former members of congressional intelligence committees from January 1, 2008, to January 15, 2020. All six agencies issued Glomar responses, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of such records, citing multiple FOIA exemptions, including Exemption 1 for classified national security materials. The Project challenged these responses in court.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the agencies, concluding that the Glomar responses were proper under FOIA’s first exemption. The court found that the agencies were not required to search for responsive documents before issuing their Glomar responses and that the agencies' affidavits sufficiently supported their responses.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the agencies' Glomar responses were justified under Exemption 1, which allows withholding information that is classified under criteria established by an Executive order. The court found that the agencies' affidavits provided specific, logical, and plausible justifications for the Glomar responses, explaining that disclosing the existence or nonexistence of the requested records could harm national security by revealing intelligence sources, methods, and priorities. The court also rejected the Project's argument that the agencies were required to search for records before issuing Glomar responses, citing precedent that an agency need not search its records before invoking Glomar. View "Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability, Inc. v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Two Mauritian mining companies, Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. and Amari Nickel Holdings Zimbabwe Ltd., filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC), and Zimbabwe’s Chief Mining Commissioner. The plaintiffs sought to recognize and enforce a judgment from the High Court of Zambia, which confirmed an arbitral award issued in Zambia. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants waived their immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) through the arbitration exception and the implied waiver exception.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on the scope of the FSIA exceptions. The court determined that the arbitration exception did not apply because it covers actions to confirm arbitral awards, not actions to recognize and enforce foreign court judgments. However, the district court held that the implied waiver exception applied, reasoning that by signing the New York Convention and agreeing to arbitrate in Zambia, the defendants waived their immunity from the action to recognize a foreign court judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court that the arbitration exception did not apply, as the exception covers only actions to confirm arbitral awards, not actions to recognize foreign court judgments. The court also concluded that the implied waiver exception did not apply, as signing the New York Convention and agreeing to arbitrate in a signatory state did not demonstrate an intent to waive immunity from judgment recognition actions. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's determination of subject matter jurisdiction, vacated the remaining orders, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp." on Justia Law

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approved over 4,000 permits for oil and gas wells on public land in New Mexico and Wyoming from January 2021 to August 2022. Environmental organizations challenged these permits, alleging that BLM failed to adequately consider the climate and environmental justice impacts of the wells. The district court dismissed the claims, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing.The plaintiffs appealed, asserting standing based on affidavits from their members who live, work, and recreate near the drilling sites, claiming injuries to their health, safety, and recreational and aesthetic interests. They also claimed standing based on the wells' overall contribution to global climate change and an organizational injury from the government's failure to publicize information about climate change.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently link their alleged harms to the specific agency actions they sought to reverse. The court emphasized that plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each challenged permit by showing a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling. The court found that the plaintiffs' generalized claims about the harms of oil and gas development were insufficient to establish standing for the specific permits at issue.The court also rejected the plaintiffs' claims of organizational standing, finding that the alleged injuries were limited to issue advocacy and did not demonstrate a concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization's activities. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment of dismissal. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of the Interior" on Justia Law

Tobias Jones, a self-described citizen journalist, was filming a Secret Service building in Washington, D.C. when two officers ordered him to stop. When he refused, they detained, handcuffed, and searched him. A third officer later informed Jones that he had the right to film, and he was released. Jones sued the officers for damages, claiming violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights, and sought prospective relief against the Secret Service.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Jones' case. The court held that Jones did not have a valid cause of action for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Jones' Fourth Amendment claims presented a new context under Bivens, as the Secret Service officers were performing protective duties, which differ from the law enforcement activities in Bivens. The court found that extending Bivens to this new context was inappropriate due to the potential for judicial intrusion into executive functions and the availability of alternative remedies through the Department of Homeland Security. The court also declined to extend Bivens to Jones' First Amendment claim, noting that the Supreme Court has never done so and has foreclosed Bivens remedies for First Amendment retaliation claims.Regarding prospective relief, the court held that Jones lacked standing because he did not plausibly allege a substantial risk of future harm. The court noted that Jones' allegations of potential future encounters with Secret Service officers were speculative and insufficient to establish standing.The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Jones' case. View "Jones v. Secret Service" on Justia Law

Gary Sebastian Brown, III filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the FBI for witness accounts related to the 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. Brown argued that the FBI's search was inadequate and that it improperly withheld information. The FBI initially provided 19 pages of previously released documents and, after Brown's dissatisfaction, conducted a new search, locating 411 pages. The FBI withheld some records under FOIA Exemption 7(A) due to a pending investigation. After the investigation concluded, the FBI released 406 pages, redacting some information under various FOIA exemptions.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the FBI, finding that the FBI's search was adequate and that its redactions were consistent with FOIA. Brown appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the FBI's search was reasonable and that it properly construed Brown's request for "witness accounts, narratives, or statements" as seeking formal witness interviews. The court also found that the FBI's invocation of FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(D) to withhold personal information and information provided by confidential sources was justified. The court noted that the FBI adequately explained the foreseeable harms from disclosure and that the redactions were not overbroad.The court also upheld the district court's decision to deny in camera review of the redactions, finding no evidence of bad faith or contradictions in the FBI's declaration. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the FBI's actions complied with FOIA requirements. View "Brown v. FBI" on Justia Law