Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A dispute arose regarding the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) rule on when one entity is considered a joint employer of another entity’s employees. The NLRB determined that Google was a joint employer of Cognizant employees working on Google’s YouTube Music platform and ordered both companies to bargain with the employees’ union, the Alphabet Workers Union-Communication Workers of America, Local 9009 (AWU). Google and Cognizant refused to bargain, leading the NLRB to conclude that this refusal violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The employers petitioned for review, arguing they were not joint employers, but the contract under which the employees provided services to Google expired, rendering the petitions and the Board’s cross-applications for enforcement moot. The Union also petitioned for review, contending that the NLRB’s remedies were insufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the expiry of the Google-Cognizant contract meant there was no longer any relationship to support the joint-employer finding, making the case moot. The court dismissed Google’s and Cognizant’s petitions and the Board’s cross-applications as moot and vacated the order below. The court also dismissed as jurisdictionally barred the part of AWU’s petition seeking review of the NLRB’s decision to sever the issue of a make-whole remedy for employees and dismissed as moot those parts of AWU’s petition seeking prospective remedies.The court denied the remainder of AWU’s petition, concluding that the NLRB did not abuse its discretion by ordering only the customary remedies. The court emphasized that the Board’s choice of remedies is primarily within its province and subject to very limited judicial review. View "Alphabet Workers Union-Communication Workers v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Fahmi Ahmed Moharam, a dual United States-Yemeni citizen, frequently travels between the two countries. In 2017, he was denied boarding a flight from Saudi Arabia to the U.S. and learned through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) redress process that he was on the No Fly List. The government provided minimal information, citing national security concerns, and stated that his designation was based on his activities in Yemen from 2011 to 2017. After petitioning for review, the government informed him that he was no longer on the No Fly List and would not be relisted based on the currently available information.The TSA is mandated by statute to identify individuals who may pose a threat to civil aviation or national security and prevent them from boarding aircraft. The TSA also manages the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP), which allows individuals to appeal their inclusion on the No Fly List. Moharam appealed through TRIP and was initially informed that he was on the list due to concerns about his activities in Yemen. Despite his requests for more information and administrative review, the TSA maintained his status on the list until the government later removed him.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Moharam's removal from the No Fly List rendered his petitions for review moot, as the court could no longer provide effective relief. The court noted that the government’s assurance that Moharam would not be relisted based on the same information addressed the issue of potential recurrence. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction, as the relief sought was no longer redressable. View "Moharam v. TSA" on Justia Law

California collects a fee from in-state hospitals and uses the revenue, along with federal Medicaid funds, to provide subsidies to California hospitals serving Medicaid beneficiaries. Out-of-state hospitals near the California border, which sometimes serve California Medicaid beneficiaries but do not pay the fee, sought access to these subsidies. They argued that their exclusion violated the dormant Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and federal Medicaid regulations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the out-of-state hospitals' arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The hospitals appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the QAF program does not discriminate against interstate commerce because it does not tax out-of-state hospitals, and the supplemental payments are based on in-state provision of medical care. The court also found that the program does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as California could rationally decide to target subsidies to in-state hospitals serving a disproportionate share of Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Lastly, the court concluded that the QAF program does not violate federal Medicaid regulations, as the regulation in question pertains to base payments for specific services rendered to beneficiaries, not supplemental subsidies like the QAF payments. View "Asante v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

The case involves a False Claims Act (FCA) suit alleging that U.S. Cellular and other entities committed fraud in Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wireless spectrum auctions. The alleged fraud involved using sham small businesses to obtain and retain bidding discounts worth millions of dollars. The district court dismissed the qui tam action because a previous lawsuit had raised substantially the same allegations, triggering the FCA’s public disclosure bar, and the relators bringing the action were not original sources of the information.Previously, the law firm Lampert, O’Connor & Johnston, P.C., filed a qui tam action in 2008 alleging that the same defendants conspired to register sham designated entities to obtain and hold discounted spectrum licenses for U.S. Cellular’s use. The government investigated but declined to intervene, and the law firm voluntarily dismissed the action. In 2015, Sara Leibman and Mark O’Connor filed a new complaint in federal court in Oklahoma, asserting FCA claims against the same defendants. The case was transferred to the District of Columbia, where the district court found the complaint asserted substantially the same allegations as the 2008 action, triggering the public disclosure bar, and dismissed the action.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the relators’ allegations were substantially the same as those in the 2008 qui tam action, thus triggering the FCA’s public disclosure bar. The court also found that the relators did not qualify as original sources of the information because their contributions did not materially add to the publicly disclosed allegations. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the qui tam action. View "USA v. USCC Wireless Investment, Inc." on Justia Law

The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), a non-profit organization, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the United States Park Police for information about legal actions against the agency. After the Park Police failed to respond within the statutory period, HRDC filed a FOIA lawsuit. The Park Police eventually produced documents but withheld the names of officers involved in three tort settlements, citing FOIA Exemption 6, which protects against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. Additionally, the Park Police inadvertently disclosed names in some documents and sought to prevent HRDC from using or disseminating this information.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Park Police correctly withheld the officer names under Exemption 6 and issued a clawback order for the inadvertently disclosed names, invoking its inherent authority to manage judicial proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Park Police failed to meet its burden under Exemption 6 to show that releasing the officer names would constitute a substantial invasion of privacy. The court found the agency's justifications to be generic and conclusory, lacking specific details. Consequently, the court did not need to balance the privacy interest against the public interest in disclosure.The court also determined that the district court's clawback order was not a valid exercise of inherent judicial authority, as it aimed to fill a perceived gap in the FOIA statute rather than protect core judicial functions. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Park Police, vacated the clawback order, and remanded the case for the release of the non-exempt officer names. View "Human Rights Defense Center v. United States Park Police" on Justia Law

America First Legal Foundation (AFL) submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to fourteen federal agencies for strategic plans related to promoting voter registration and participation, as mandated by Executive Order 14019 issued by President Biden. The agencies did not respond favorably, leading AFL to file a lawsuit to compel disclosure of the documents. The agencies argued that the plans were protected by FOIA Exemption 5, which incorporates the presidential communications privilege.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the agencies, holding that the strategic plans were protected by the presidential communications privilege and thus exempt from FOIA disclosure. AFL appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court agreed with the district court, finding that the strategic plans were indeed protected by the presidential communications privilege. The court noted that the plans were solicited by the President, submitted to his close advisors, and used to inform presidential decision-making and deliberations. The court found no evidence in the record to contradict the government’s declarations that the plans were used in this manner. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the exemption of the strategic plans from FOIA disclosure under the presidential communications privilege. View "America First Legal Foundation v. USDA" on Justia Law

The case involves the Cigar Association of America and other plaintiffs challenging a regulation by the FDA that applied to premium cigars. The FDA had issued a rule under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which brought all tobacco products, including premium cigars, under its regulatory authority. The plaintiffs argued that the regulation was arbitrary and capricious as applied to premium cigars, citing studies that suggested premium cigars posed fewer health risks due to less frequent use.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, presided over by Judge Mehta, found in favor of the plaintiffs. The court determined that the FDA had failed to consider relevant evidence, specifically the Corey study and Monograph No. 9, which indicated that premium cigars were used less frequently and posed fewer health risks. The district court vacated the FDA's rule as it applied to premium cigars, finding the agency's action arbitrary and capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court's finding that the FDA's rule was arbitrary and capricious because the agency ignored relevant data and falsely claimed that no such evidence existed. The appellate court upheld the vacatur of the rule as applied to premium cigars but remanded the case to the district court to invite further briefing on the appropriate definition of "premium cigars." The court emphasized that the vacatur should not allow for revisiting past user fee payments. The decision affirmed the district court's ruling in full, except for the need to refine the definition of premium cigars. View "Cigar Association of America v. FDA" on Justia Law

Hecate Energy, LLC, a developer and operator of renewable power facilities, petitioned for review of two orders by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). These orders approved reforms proposed by PJM Interconnection, LLC, a regional transmission grid operator, to the criteria used for processing requests to connect new electricity sources to the grid. Hecate challenged the approval of a specific aspect of these reforms: the expedited processing of interconnection requests projected to incur upgrade costs of $5 million or less. Hecate argued that this cap was arbitrary and unduly discriminatory.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved PJM's proposed reforms, including the $5 million cap, and denied Hecate's request for rehearing. FERC justified the cap by stating that projects with upgrade costs of $5 million or less were simpler and quicker to process. Hecate then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review, arguing that the cap was not supported by substantial evidence and that FERC failed to consider alternative eligibility rules.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed Hecate's petitions for lack of standing. The court held that Hecate's injury was not redressable because vacating FERC's approval of the $5 million cap would not likely lead to the expediting of Hecate's project. The court reasoned that PJM had multiple options to address the alleged defect without necessarily including Hecate's project in the expedited process. Therefore, Hecate failed to demonstrate that its injury would be alleviated by the court's intervention. View "Hecate Energy LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to a rule promulgated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) in 2020, which authorized the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail in newly designed tank cars without requiring a permit. LNG is a hazardous material that poses significant risks if released, including explosions, fires, and the formation of ultra-cold gas clouds. The rule did not limit the number of LNG tank cars per train or set a mandatory speed limit, raising safety concerns among various stakeholders.The rule was challenged by a coalition of environmental nonprofits, several states, and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. They argued that PHMSA did not adequately consider the safety risks and that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The petitioners contended that the decision not to prepare an EIS was arbitrary and capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that PHMSA's decision not to prepare an EIS was indeed arbitrary and capricious. The court noted that transporting LNG by rail poses a low-probability but high-consequence risk of derailment, which could result in catastrophic environmental impacts. The court emphasized that PHMSA failed to adequately consider the probability and potential consequences of such accidents and did not impose sufficient safety measures, such as a mandatory speed limit or a cap on the number of LNG tank cars per train.The court held that PHMSA's failure to prepare an EIS violated NEPA and vacated the LNG Rule, remanding the case to PHMSA for further proceedings. The court's decision underscores the importance of thoroughly assessing environmental risks and adhering to NEPA's requirements in rulemaking processes. View "Sierra Club v. DOT" on Justia Law

Aclara Meters LLC owned the license for the Somersworth Hydroelectric Project on the Salmon Falls River between New Hampshire and Maine from 2016 to 2023. In 2019, Aclara sought to surrender its license to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). After conducting an environmental assessment, FERC authorized the surrender in 2023. American Whitewater, a conservation organization, requested a rehearing, arguing that two dams from the Project should be removed as a condition of surrender. FERC denied the request, leading Whitewater to petition the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for relief, claiming that FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).The Commission's environmental assessment concluded that approving the surrender as proposed would not significantly affect the environment, thus an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was unnecessary. FERC found that removing the dams was unfeasible due to the local municipalities' reliance on the reservoir for water supply and other needs. The Commission also determined that the benefits of keeping the dams outweighed the environmental and recreational benefits of their removal. FERC's decision was based on the public interest, considering the water supply, firefighting needs, and potential impacts on local infrastructure.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and denied Whitewater's petition for review. The court held that FERC's analysis was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The Commission reasonably determined that dam removal was unfeasible and appropriately assessed the public interest. The court found that FERC's decision to approve the license surrender without dam removal was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with its policies and precedents. View "American Whitewater v. FERC" on Justia Law