Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners, three non-profit environmental and wildlife organizations, filed suit challenging EPA's decisions concerning both the primary and secondary standards for carbon monoxide. The primary standards for carbon monoxide have remained the same since 1971 and there has not been a secondary standard for carbon monoxide since EPA revoked a secondary standard in 1985. In 2011, EPA decided to keep things as they were: to retain the same primary standards and to continue without a secondary standard. The court concluded that EPA acted reasonably in retaining the same primary standards for carbon monoxide, and that petitioners lacked Article III standing to challenge EPA's decision not to set a secondary standard for carbon monoxide. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review of the primary standards and dismissed the petition for review of the secondary standard for lack of standing. View "Communities for a Better Environment, et al. v. EPA" on Justia Law

AMI filed suit challenging the 2013 rule adopted by AMS, a branch of the Department of Agriculture, that modified its prior rule implementing Congress's requirements of country-of-origin labeling (COOL), 7 U.S.C. 1638a. The 2013 rule requires retailers of "muscle cuts" of meat to list the countries of origin and production steps occurring in each country. AMS's previous rule only required a list of the countries of origin preceded by the phrase "Product of." The 2013 rule also eliminated the prior rule's allowance of commingling. AMI argued that compulsion to make the disclosures required by the 2013 rule exceeded the authority granted by the COOL statute and violated its First Amendment rights. The court concluded that AMI was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims and that any error in the district court's balancing of the other factors governing the issuance of a preliminary injunction could not on these facts outweigh the likely outcome on the merits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying AMI's motion for a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the 2013 rule. View "American Meat Institute, et al. v. AGRI, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) raising constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Pub. L. No 111-148, 124 Stat. 119; raising statutory challenges to actions of HHS and the Commissioner relating to the implementation of the ACA and prior Medical legislation; and attacking the failure of defendants to render an "accounting" that would alter the American people to the insolvency towards which Medicare and Social Security programs were heading. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's dismissal of their claims. The court rejected plaintiffs' claims that 26 U.S.C. 5000A, which was sustained as a valid exercise of the taxing power, violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of the taking of private property without just compensation and violated the origination clause. The court concluded that plaintiffs' substantive attack on the Social Security Program Operations Manual System (POMS) provisions was clearly foreclosed by its decision in Hall v. Sebelius, holding that the statutory text establishing Medicare Part A precludes any option not to be entitled to benefits. The court rejected plaintiffs' second statutory claim attacking an interim final rule. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiffs failed to provide a legal argument for their claims against the Commissioner and Secretary, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claim to an "accounting." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Assoc. Amer. Physicians, et al. v. Sebelius, et al." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from an employment discrimination suit filed by appellant against the Navy. The Navy subsequently offered a stipulation of Settlement (the "Agreement"). After concluding that specific performance of the Agreement was no longer practicable, appellant sought nearly a million dollars in damages and attorney's fees. The court held that a settlement agreement embodied in a consent decree was a contract under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), and transferred the case to the Court of Federal Claims. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order dismissing the motion to enforce and remanded with instructions to transfer to the Court of Federal Claims. View "Franklin-Mason v. Mabus, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging the refusal of the Board of Correction of Naval Records to amend certain of her fitness reports. The court concluded that the decision of the Board was neither arbitrary nor capricious nor unsupported by substantial evidence, in contravention of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A); even if the court were to assume that plaintiff asked for and was denied counseling, such deprivation would not violate her due process rights; because plaintiff failed to demonstrate discriminatory intent, her equal protection claim also failed. Accordingly, the court held that the Board's denial of plaintiff's petition to correct her military records was neither arbitrary nor capricious and that her constitutional challenges were without merit. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Roberts v. United States, et al." on Justia Law

Appellants, federally registered lobbyists, wishing appointment to one type of advisory committee, the Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs), challenged the constitutionality of the presidential ban on federally registered lobbyists from serving on advisory committees. Appellants alleged that the government has conditioned their eligibility for the valuable benefit of ITAC membership on their willingness to limit their First Amendment right to petition government. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court concluded, however, that appellants have pled a viable First Amendment unconstitutional conditions claim. The court remanded for the district court to develop the factual record and to undertake the Pickering v. Board of Education analysis in the first instance. The district court must determine whether the government's interest in excluding federally registered lobbyists from ITACs outweighed any impingement on appellants' constitutional rights. View "Autor, et al. v. Pritzker, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant was detained at Guantanamo Bay for seven years as an enemy combatant. After the Supreme Court decided that Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to challenge the basis of their detentions in Boumediene v. Bush, the district court granted appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The United States released appellant and he filed a complaint a year later, seeking to recover injuries sustained during his detention. At issue was whether the district court has jurisdiction over appellant's claims. The court held that 28 U.S.C. 2241(e)(2) barred claims brought on behalf of aliens determined by Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) to have been properly detained. The court also concluded that the application of section 2241(e)(2) to appellant was constitutional. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of appellant's claims because Congress has denied the district court jurisdiction to entertain his claims under section 2241(e)(2). View "Janko v. Gates, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, concluding that plaintiff's whistleblower complaint did not qualify as a "mixed case" complaint capable of triggering the savings clause under 5 U.S.C. 7702(f). Plaintiff argued that even though he presented his Title VII claim in the wrong forum (the MSPB), because he did so along with a timely filed IRA as part of a "mixed case," his formal EEO complaint should be deemed timely with the correct forum (the DOL) under section 7702(f)'s savings clause. The court affirmed the judgment because plaintiff's formal Title VII claim - filed well after the expiration of the EEO route's 15-day deadline - was untimely where the savings clause excused errors only in the place, not time, of filing. View "Schlottman v. Perez" on Justia Law

EFF appealed the district court's denial of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., request for disclosure of a legal opinion prepared for the FBI by the OLC. The court held that the opinion, which was requested by the FBI in response to the OIG's investigation into its information-gathering techniques, was protected by the deliberative process privilege; the FBI did not adopt the opinion and thereby waive the deliberative process privilege; and because the entire opinion was exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege, the court need not decide whether particular sections were properly withheld as classified or whether some material was reasonably segregable from the material properly withheld. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Electronic Frontier Found. v. Dept. of Justice" on Justia Law

Chaplains in the Navy who identified themselves as non-liturgical Christians and two chaplain-endorsing agencies filed suit claiming, inter alia, that several of the Navy's policies for promoting chaplains prefer Catholics and liturgical Protestants at the expense of various non-liturgical denominations. At issue on review was the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the Navy's use of the challenged practices. Given facially neutral policies and no showing of intent to discriminate, the chaplains' equal protection attack on the Navy's specific policies could succeed only with an argument that there was an intent to discriminate or that the policies lacked a rational basis. Because the chaplains attempted no such arguments, the court agreed with the district court that they have not shown the requisite likelihood for success. As to the Establishment Clause, the chaplains have not shown a likelihood of success under any test that they have asked the court to apply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "In re: Navy Chaplaincy, et al. v. United States Navy, et al." on Justia Law