Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Appellee brought a lawsuit challenging 11 C.F.R. 104.20(c)(9), a regulation promulgated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), that purported to implement section 201(f)(2)(F) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), 2 U.S.C. 434. The court held that appellee easily satisfied the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 702 and demonstrated his Article III standing by showing that he would be unable to obtain disclosure of information under the BCRA because of the allegedly unlawful restrictions imposed by section 104.20(c)(9). On the merits, the court held that the district court erred in holding that Congress spoke plainly when it enacted 2 U.S.C. 434(f), thus foreclosing any regulatory construction of the statute by the FEC. Moreover, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, the court did not find that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue in this case. Indeed, it was doubtful that, in enacting 2 U.S.C 434(f), Congress even anticipated the circumstances that the FEC faced when it promulgated section 104.20(c)(9). The court reversed and vacated summary judgment in favor of appellee, remanding to the district court. Upon remand, the district court shall first refer the matter to the FEC for further consideration. View "Van Hollen, Jr. v. FEC, et al" on Justia Law

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776, directed the Secretary to issue regulations requiring all cigarette packages manufactured or sold in the United States to bear one of nine new textual warnings, as well as "color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking." Companies challenged the FDA's rule through which it selected nine images that would accompany the statutorily-prescribed warnings. The court held that the FDA failed to present any data showing that enacting their proposed graphic warnings would accomplish the agency's stated objective of reducing smoking rates. Therefore, the court vacated the graphic warning requirements and remanded to the FDA. The court also vacated the permanent injunction issued by the district court.

Petitioners, trade associations whose members were part of the petroleum and food industries, filed petitions for review of two Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions approving the introduction of E15 - a blend of gasoline and fifteen percent ethanol - for use in select motor vehicles and engines. Petitioners were members of several industry groups, which the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals divided into an engine-products group, a petroleum group, and a food group. Petitioners contended, among other things, that EPA lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to grant partial waivers approving the use of E15. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed all petitions for lack of jurisdiction, holding that none of the petitioners had established standing to bring this action.

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for conspiracy to distribute narcotics. At issue on appeal was whether the government proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant knowingly entered into the conspiracy with the specific intent to further the unlawful objective of drug distribution. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) there was no affirmative evidence that Defendant knowingly joined the narcotics conspiracy or had the specific intent to further its aims; and (2) given the scope of the government's investigation and the role its witnesses played in the conspiracy, any reasonable jury should have wondered why the government could not find such evidence.

Laura Elkins and her husband, John Robbins, brought suit against the District of Columbia and some of its officials, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments for the search of Elkins' home and the seizure of Elkins' notebook, which related to a home renovation. Plaintiffs also alleged that Defendants' outrageous conduct trampled Elkins' due process rights. The district court concluded that the seizure of the notebook was illegal and entered judgment against two District officials but assessed nominal damages of one dollar each. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's orders in all respect except that the entries of summary judgment against the two District officials were vacated and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment in their favor because the District and its officials were entitled to summary judgment on all Plaintiffs' claims.

After the State Department terminated the employment of Appellant on his sixty-fifth birthday, Appellant brought suit alleging that his forced retirement violated the federal employment provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The district court dismissed Appellant's complaint on the ground that the statute under which Appellant was hired, section 2(c) of the Basic Authorities Act, permitted the Department to exempt Appellant from the protections of the ADEA. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding nothing in the Basic Authorities Act that abrogates the ADEA's broad proscription against personnel actions that discriminate on the basis of age.

UtahAmerican Energy brought this action against the Department of Labor under FOIA, seeking documents related to government investigations of a collapse at one of its mines. The district court ruled in favor of UtahAmerican on the disputed exemptions and ordered it to produce documents covered by those exemptions. The court also ordered the Department to produce documents that were the subject of an earlier-filed FOIA suit that was pending before another district court. The Department appealed. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (1) dismissed as moot those portions of the appeal that related to Exemption 7(A) because the Department's basis for asserting that exemption has disappeared, thus requiring it to produce many of the contested documents that were protected by 7(A) alone; (2) reversed the district court insofar as it directed the Department to certain documents that were protected by Exemption 7(C); and (3) reversed the district court's judgment with respect to the documents subject to the earlier FOIA suit, holding that the court should have left disposition of the balance of the remaining documents to the court hearing the earlier-filed suit. Remanded.

Bassem Youssef, an Egyptian-born American citizen, claimed that his employer, the FBI, (1) discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by not placing him in a substantive position dealing with counterterrorism and instead transferring him to a job for which he was dramatically overqualified; and (2) retaliated against him when he filed a complaint and spoke to his superiors about his predicament. The district court granted summary judgment against Youseef's discrimination claim but allowed his retaliation claim to be tried by a jury. The jury returned a verdict against Youssef, and the district court denied Youssef's motion for a new trial. The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the district court's refusal to grant a new trial but reversed its judgment against Youssef's discrimination claim, holding that because the district court did not reach the fact-intensive issue of a possible discriminatory motive for the transfer, and the parties did not fully brief it to the Court, the case was remanded for further examination of the FBI's reason for the transfer.

The National Chicken Council, National Meat Association, and National Turkey Federation petitioned for review of EPA's interpretation of a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The EPA interpreted the provision to mean that certain ethanol plants fired with natural gas and/or biomass were deemed to be in compliance with a reduction requirement indefinitely rather than for a certain period. Petitioners argued that by permitting qualifying ethanol plants to generate Renewable Identification Numberss indefinitely without having to ensure their ethanol met the emissions-reduction requirement, the ethanol plants would produce more ethanol, which would lead to an increase in the demand for corn, which would lead to an increase in the price of corn. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review for lack of standing, as Petitioners failed to show that a favorable ruling would redress their claimed injuries.

In 1993, Plaintiff was convicted of the crimes of threatening to injure a person and manslaughter. In 1997, Congress brought the D.C. parole system under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Parole Commission (USPC). In 2000, the USPC adopted its own regulations regarding suitability for parole. At Plaintiff's parole hearings in 2001 and 2005, the USPC applied the 2000 regulations and denied Plaintiff parole. In 2005, Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that application of the 2000 Regulations, rather than the 1987 Regulations, at his hearings violated his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's damages suit on the ground of qualified immunity, concluding that application of those regulations did not violate any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable official would have known at the time of the hearings.