Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A commuter airline that had provided federally subsidized air service to a small community in West Virginia for several years sought to continue serving that community under the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. In 2024, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicited bids for a new three-year EAS contract. Four airlines, including the incumbent, submitted proposals. The DOT evaluated the applications based on five statutory factors: reliability, agreements with larger carriers, community preferences, marketing plans, and total compensation requested. After reviewing the proposals and soliciting input from the local community, which favored a different airline, the DOT selected a new carrier that offered larger aircraft, a codeshare agreement with a major airline, and a subsidy request within the competitive range.The incumbent airline challenged the DOT’s selection in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and exceeded its statutory authority. The petitioner contended that the DOT failed to meaningfully analyze the statutory factors and improperly chose a more expensive proposal.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the DOT’s order under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). On the merits, the court found that the DOT’s findings regarding each statutory factor were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency’s reasoning was adequately explained. The court concluded that the DOT’s selection process was reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious, and that the agency did not exceed its statutory authority. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and upheld the DOT’s selection of the new EAS carrier. View "Southern Airways Express, LLC v. DOT" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge to amended energy efficiency standards issued by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for consumer furnaces (specifically, residential non-weatherized gas furnaces and mobile home gas furnaces) and certain commercial water heaters under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Petitioners, including trade associations, manufacturers, and energy providers, argued that the new standards would effectively eliminate non-condensing appliances from the market, claiming these products offer unique features and performance characteristics not available in condensing models. They also contended that DOE failed to provide adequate economic justification for the new standards and did not comply with procedural requirements during rulemaking.Previously, DOE had issued a series of proposed rules and interpretive rules regarding whether non-condensing technology constituted a protected performance characteristic under EPCA. After public comment and a period of shifting interpretations, DOE ultimately concluded in its 2021 Interpretive Rule that non-condensing technology does not provide a unique performance-related feature compared to condensing appliances. DOE then promulgated final rules in 2023 amending the efficiency standards for both consumer furnaces and commercial water heaters. Petitioners sought review of these actions in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that DOE’s interpretation—that non-condensing appliances do not offer performance characteristics or features substantially different from condensing appliances—was reasonable and supported by the record. The court also found that DOE’s economic justification for the amended standards was robust and supported by substantial evidence (and, for commercial water heaters, by clear and convincing evidence). Additionally, the court determined that DOE provided an adequate opportunity for public comment. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review, upholding DOE’s rules. View "American Gas Association v. DOE" on Justia Law

A non-profit watchdog organization sought disclosure of formal written opinions issued by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) within the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). After initial litigation, the dispute narrowed to three categories of OLC opinions: those resolving interagency disputes, those concerning the adjudication or determination of private rights, and those interpreting non-discretionary legal duties. OLC opinions are considered authoritative within the Executive Branch, but are rarely published.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the claims seeking disclosure of OLC opinions concerning private rights and non-discretionary legal duties, finding these were not subject to FOIA’s reading-room provision because they did not constitute “working law” unless adopted by the agency. However, the district court held that OLC opinions resolving interagency disputes were disclosable, reasoning that OLC’s process for resolving such disputes was adjudicative in nature and that agencies effectively adopted these opinions by agreeing in advance to abide by them. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on this category, and both parties appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that none of the OLC opinions sought by the plaintiff were subject to mandatory disclosure under FOIA’s reading-room provision. The court found that OLC’s opinions do not constitute “final opinions made in the adjudication of cases” nor “statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency” unless the agency takes further action to adopt the advice as its own working law. The court reversed the district court’s judgment requiring disclosure of opinions resolving interagency disputes and affirmed the dismissal of claims regarding private rights and non-discretionary duties. View "Campaign for Accountability v. DOJ" on Justia Law

A German telecommunications company invested nearly $100 million in an Indian company through a Singaporean subsidiary, acquiring a significant minority stake. The Indian government, through its wholly owned space company, later terminated a contract with the Indian company, prompting the German investor to initiate arbitration in Switzerland under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between Germany and India. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the German company, awarding it over $93 million, and courts in Switzerland, Germany, and Singapore confirmed the award.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia was then asked to confirm the arbitral award. India moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), forum non conveniens, and that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the BIT’s arbitration clause. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the FSIA’s arbitration exception applied, that forum non conveniens was unavailable in such proceedings, and that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators, thus precluding judicial review of those issues. The court also found that India had forfeited other merits defenses by not raising them earlier.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the denial of dismissal on immunity and forum non conveniens grounds, but held that the district court erred in refusing to consider India’s substantive defenses to enforcement of the award. The appellate court found that the BIT did not clearly and unmistakably delegate exclusive authority over arbitrability to the arbitrators, so the district court must consider India’s merits defenses under the New York Convention. The judgment confirming the award was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Deutsche Telekom, A.G. v. Republic of India" on Justia Law

In 2010, the Venezuelan government expropriated assets belonging to a Venezuelan subsidiary of a U.S.-based energy company. The subsidiary had provided drilling services to a state-owned Venezuelan energy company, but after a breakdown in their business relationship and significant unpaid invoices, Venezuelan authorities blockaded the subsidiary’s operations, issued public statements about nationalization, and ultimately transferred the subsidiary’s assets to the state-owned company, which began operating them. The U.S. parent company claimed that this expropriation rendered its ownership interest in the subsidiary worthless and deprived it of its rights to control the subsidiary’s assets.The U.S. parent company and its Venezuelan subsidiary filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Venezuela and its state-owned energy company, alleging unlawful expropriation. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit initially affirmed. However, the Supreme Court vacated that decision, clarifying the standard for the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) expropriation exception. On remand, the D.C. Circuit found that only the U.S. parent company had a valid claim under international law, as the domestic-takings rule barred the subsidiary’s claim. The district court later dismissed Venezuela as a defendant, leaving the state-owned company as the sole defendant.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the state-owned company’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the FSIA’s expropriation exception applied because Venezuela indirectly expropriated the U.S. company’s property, the state-owned company owns and operates the expropriated assets, and it engages in commercial activity in the United States. The court also held that personal jurisdiction was proper and that the act-of-state doctrine, as limited by the Second Hickenlooper Amendment, did not bar the claim. View "Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Petroleos De Venezuela, S.A." on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization requested that the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) investigate an alleged policy by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that, according to the organization, improperly limited searches for emails in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The organization believed that DOJ’s refusal to search employee emails without their consent was arbitrary and violated FOIA. After DOJ began producing some records in response to the FOIA request, the organization separately asked OSC to investigate DOJ’s policy under a statutory provision that directs OSC to investigate arbitrary or capricious withholdings of information prohibited by FOIA.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially found that OSC had misinterpreted its authority by refusing to investigate solely because certain statutory prerequisites were not met. However, the district court ultimately dismissed the case, concluding that the decision to investigate under the relevant statute was committed to OSC’s discretion and remanded the matter to OSC for further consideration. After OSC again declined to investigate, the district court dismissed the organization’s remaining claims, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo and determined that the organization lacked Article III standing to pursue its claims. The court held that the organization had not suffered a concrete and particularized injury traceable to OSC’s actions, nor was it likely that a favorable court decision would redress any alleged injury. The court found both of the organization’s standing theories—relating to the denial of FOIA records and to the lack of information from an OSC investigation—insufficient. As a result, the court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "America First Legal Foundation v. Greer" on Justia Law

A woman who immigrated from China to the United States and later became a U.S. citizen founded an educational institution that participated in a Department of Defense tuition program. In 2010, the FBI began investigating her for statements made on immigration forms, conducting interviews, searches, and seizing personal and business materials. Although the U.S. Attorney’s Office ultimately declined to file charges, Fox News later published reports about her, including confidential materials from the FBI investigation. These reports cited anonymous sources and included documents and photographs seized during the FBI’s search. Following the reports, the Department of Defense terminated her institution’s participation in the tuition program, resulting in significant financial losses.She filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the FBI and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Privacy Act due to the unauthorized disclosure of her records. During discovery, she was unable to identify the source of the leak despite extensive efforts. She then subpoenaed a Fox News journalist, who authored the reports, to reveal her confidential source. The journalist invoked a qualified First Amendment reporter’s privilege. The district court found that the plaintiff had met the requirements to overcome this privilege—demonstrating both the centrality of the information to her case and exhaustion of alternative sources—and ordered the journalist to testify. When the journalist refused, the court held her in civil contempt.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders. The appellate court held that, under its precedents, a qualified First Amendment reporter’s privilege may be overcome in civil cases if the information sought is crucial to the case and all reasonable alternative sources have been exhausted. The court also declined to recognize a broader federal common law reporter’s privilege. View "Chen v. FBI" on Justia Law

An independent natural gas producer contracted with a pipeline operator to secure firm transportation capacity through an expansion project, which involved adding new compressor stations to an existing pipeline segment. The producer agreed to pay for the construction of these facilities and the applicable fuel and power charges. The pipeline operator recoups fuel costs through rates based on the amount of gas shipped, with costs increasing exponentially as more gas is transported. After the expansion, the pipeline operator implemented a two-tier fuel rate system: the producer was always charged the highest marginal fuel rate, as if its gas was the last and most expensive to move through the pipeline, while all other shippers paid an average rate.Initially, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the pipeline operator’s tariff, including the two-tier rate structure, and later reaffirmed this approach when the producer protested after experiencing significantly higher fuel rates compared to other shippers. The producer argued that the rate structure was unduly discriminatory and not “just and reasonable” under the Natural Gas Act. An administrative law judge upheld the rates, and FERC affirmed, reasoning that the producer, as the “but for” cause of the expansion, should bear the highest marginal costs to prevent subsidization by other shippers.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and held that FERC’s approval of the two-tier fuel rate was arbitrary and capricious. The court found that perpetually assigning the producer the highest marginal fuel rate was disconnected from the actual costs imposed by its use of the pipeline and violated the principle of cost causation. The court granted the producer’s petition for review, vacated FERC’s order, and remanded for further proceedings to establish a just and reasonable rate consistent with cost-causation principles. View "Antero Resources Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

The case concerns the approval of a 32-mile natural gas pipeline intended to supply fuel to a new natural-gas turbine that will replace one of two coal-fired units at the Cumberland Fossil Plant in Tennessee. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federal agency, decided to retire the coal units and replace one with a gas turbine, which is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the pipeline after preparing a detailed environmental impact statement. The Sierra Club and Appalachian Voices challenged this approval, arguing that FERC’s decision violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Natural Gas Act.Previously, FERC issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the pipeline, finding that market need was established by TVA’s long-term agreement to purchase all pipeline capacity and that the project’s benefits outweighed its harms. FERC also credited the pipeline with enabling a net reduction in emissions due to the coal-to-gas transition. After the Sierra Club requested rehearing, FERC clarified that only one coal unit would be replaced but maintained its approval. The Sierra Club then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the petitions. The court held that FERC’s approval complied with NEPA and the Natural Gas Act. It found that FERC reasonably analyzed downstream emissions, properly considered the no-action alternative, and was not required to analyze the pipeline and power plant as connected actions because FERC lacked regulatory authority over power generation. The court also held that FERC’s reliance on TVA’s precedent agreement established market need and that FERC’s public interest balancing was reasonable. The court emphasized that, following recent Supreme Court precedent, judicial review of NEPA compliance is highly deferential. View "Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

An individual who had lived in the United States since 1993 became the subject of removal proceedings after overstaying his visa. During these proceedings, he sought various forms of relief, while the government opposed his applications by presenting evidence and testimony linking him to high-level terrorists. The individual subsequently submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for his file. The FBI located a substantial volume of potentially responsive records but withheld most of them, citing law enforcement concerns. The requester then filed suit to compel disclosure.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially denied the FBI’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice, requiring updated information on whether enforcement proceedings were still pending or reasonably anticipated, and more detail regarding the segregability of non-exempt information. After the FBI submitted updated public and ex parte declarations confirming that investigations remained ongoing and providing further explanation about segregability, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the FBI. The court found that the records were compiled for law enforcement purposes, that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with ongoing or anticipated enforcement proceedings, and that no meaningful non-exempt information was reasonably segregable.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court held that the FBI met its burden under FOIA Exemption 7(A) by showing the records were compiled for law enforcement purposes and that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with pending or reasonably anticipated enforcement proceedings. The court also affirmed the district court’s finding that no reasonably segregable non-exempt information existed. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Farahi v. Federal Bureau of Investigation" on Justia Law