Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, a group of prisoners, filed suit against the FDA for allowing state correctional departments to import sodium thiopental (thiopental), a misbranded and misapproved new drug used in lethal injection protocols, in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 381(a), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The court concluded that, because there were clear statutory guidelines for the agency to follow in exercising its enforcement powers, the FDA's compliance with section 381(a) was subject to judicial review under the standards of the APA. The court also concluded that the FDA's policy of admitting foreign manufactured thiopental destined for state correctional facilities were not in accordance with law because section 381(a) required the agency to sample and examine for violations of any drug offered for import that had been prepared in an unregistered facility. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred by failing to seek the joinder of the state governments whose possession and use of the thiopental at issue the court declared illegal. Accordingly, the order of the district court pertaining to the thiopental already in the possession of the states was vacated, but the underlying judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Cook, et al. v. FDA, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the revocation of his pilot and medical certificates based upon the false statement that he made about having never been arrested for drunk driving. The court denied the petition, concluding that the Board's conclusion that petitioner's behavior, by his own description, constituted a violation of 14 C.F.R. 67.403(a)(1) was a straightforward and correct application of the regulation under the interpretation the court affirmed in Cooper v. NTSB. The court also concluded that petitioner was accorded due process of law where, among other things, he was given notice and an opportunity to respond before the FAA's revocation order went into effect. View "Taylor v. Huerta, et al." on Justia Law

CRLA appealed from an enforcement order of a subpoena duces tecum and the OIG cross-appealed the protective order governing disclosure of material discovered by the subpoena and also establishing a notice requirement. The district court concluded that only federal and not California state privileges and protections governed the scope of disclosure compelled under the subpoena. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily enforcing the investigative subpoena issued by the OIG. The court vacated, however, the order insofar as it added a five-day notice requirement to the confidentiality terms otherwise applicable. View "United States, et al. v. California Rural Legal Assist." on Justia Law

After defendant was charged with drug-related offenses, the Government committed a series of disclosure violations leading to, and then extending beyond, the district court's declaration of a mistrial based upon such violations. Before retrial, the prosecutor belatedly disclosed more information that defendant had subpoenaed before the first trial. Defendant argued that he would have seen the first trial through to a verdict but for the Government's latest disclosure violation. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment under the Double Jeopardy Clause but the district court denied the motion. The court affirmed, concluding that retrial was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the prosecutor's several violations were unintentional. View "United States v. McCallum" on Justia Law

In two unconsolidated cases, UBCJA and SWRCC (collectively, Carpenters) appealed the district court's confirmation of two arbitration awards in favor of Plasterers. The court concluded that these cases were not moot because future arbitrable jurisdictional disputes raising the same legal issue seem reasonably likely to occur; in Case No. 11-7161, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying briefing and argument on the timing issue; in Case No. 11-7155, the district court correctly declined to give Jordan Interiors I estoppel effect in Frye; and, on the merits, the court rejected Carpenters' challenges to the arbitrators' authority to enter their respective awards. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grants of summary judgment to the Plasterers, thereby confirming the arbitrators' awards in their favor. View "United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' Int'l Ass'n" on Justia Law

Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, 49 U.S.C. 24101, empowers Amtrak and the FRA to jointly develop performance measures to enhance enforcement of the statutory priority Amtrak's passenger rail service has over trains. AAR challenged the statutory scheme as unconstitutional. The court concluded that section 207 impermissibly delegated regulatory authority to Amtrak. The court need not reach AAR's separate argument that Amtrak's involvement in developing the metrics and standards deprived its members of due process. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Assoc. of American Railroads v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., et al." on Justia Law

In 2006, DOL issued an opinion letter concluding that mortgage loan officers with archetypal job duties fell within the administrative exemption. In 2010, DOL issued an "Administrator's Interpretation" declaring that "employees who perform the typical job duties" of the hypothetical mortgage loan officer "do not qualify as bona fide administrative employees." Petitioner challenged DOL's decision to change their "definitive interpretation" without first undergoing notice-and-comment rulemaking as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. Having conceded the existence of two definitive - and conflicting - agency interpretations, the government acknowledged that petitioner prevailed if the only reason courts look to reliance was to find out if there was a definitive interpretation. The court held that there was no discrete reliance element and that reliance was just one part of the definitiveness calculus. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order denying petitioner's motion for summary judgment and remanded with instructions to vacate DOL's 2010 Administrative Interpretation. View "Mortgage Bankers Assoc. v. Solis, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a police officer with the Parks Service, filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., alleging workplace discrimination. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment against him on his claim that workplace supervisors unlawfully denied him time-off awards in retaliation for his pursuit of a protected activity. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate the entitlement to an award and, as such, he could not demonstrate that the failure of his employer to nominate him for time-off awards materially affected the terms of his employment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bridgeforth v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, the Chief Administrative Officer (OCAO), of the United States House of Representatives, for alleged racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. 1301-1438. The court concluded that the Speech or Debate Clause did not require the dismissal of this action; plaintiff could proceed with all of her claims under the CAA, subject to the applicable strictures of the Speech or Debate Clause; and, accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Howard v. Chief Admin. Officer of the U.S." on Justia Law

Appellee sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of provisions of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), 15 U.S.C. 375, that required him to pay state and local taxes and banned him from sending his products through the U.S. mail. The district court enjoined the enforcement of the tax provision on due process grounds, but otherwise dismissed appellee's claims. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a preliminary injunction where appellee was likely to succeed on the merits on his due process challenge; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining where the public interest lies; and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that appellee was likely to suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of the equities tipped in his favor. Further, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellee's remaining claims. View "Gordon v. Holder, Jr., et al." on Justia Law