Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus compelling the Secretary to act within Congress's prescribed specific time frames, 42 U.S.C. 1395ff, for the Secretary to reach decisions on various stages of administrative appeals of Medicare reimbursement claim denials. The district court concluded that mandamus relief was unwarranted. The court concluded that the statute imposes a clear duty on the Secretary to comply with the statutory deadlines, that the statute gives the Association a corresponding right to demand that compliance, and that escalation—the only proposed alternative remedy—is inadequate in the circumstances of this case. Because the Association has demonstrated that the threshold requirements for mandamus jurisdiction are met, and because the Secretary’s other jurisdictional arguments fail, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. On remand, the district court should determine whether “compelling equitable grounds” now exist to issue a writ of mandamus. View "American Hospital Ass'n v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Jefferson Morely, a journalist and news editor appealed for a second time from the district court’s denial of his request for attorney’s fees and costs under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E)(i), as a prevailing party. Morely submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for all records related to a CIA officer. Morely believed that the information on the officer could shed new light on President Kennedy's assassination. The district court concluded that the public-benefit factor weighed strongly against a fee award because the actual documents produced by the CIA provided little if any public benefit. The court concluded, however, that the district court improperly analyzed the public-benefit factor by assessing the public value of the information received rather than the potential public value of the information sought. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded again. View "Morley v. CIA" on Justia Law

After Congress directed the FDA to establish a twelve-member Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee to, among other things, report on the safety of menthol cigarettes, plaintiffs filed suit claiming that the FDA appointed to the Committee three members with pecuniary interests hostile to their products, in violation of relevant conflict-of-interests statutes and regulations, and that these appointments injured plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim that the FDA’s appointments of these Committee members caused them three injuries: (1) an increased risk that the FDA will regulate menthol tobacco products adversely to plaintiffs’ interests; (2) access by the challenged Committee members to plaintiffs’ confidential information, with a probability of their using the information to plaintiffs’ detriment; and (3) the shaping of the menthol report to support the challenged members’ consulting and expert witness businesses, with injuries flowing both from the report itself and from its use as support for their expert testimony and consulting. The court concluded that plaintiffs' alleged injuries are too remote and uncertain. Because the alleged injuries are insufficiently imminent to confer standing, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved the district court's injunction barring the use of the menthol report and ordering the reconstitution of the Committee. View "R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA" on Justia Law

The district court held that NSC, a small nonprofit corporation registered in Virginia, is ineligible for attorney's fees under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 5524(a)(4)(E)(i). In keeping with Kay v. Ehrler, Baker & Hostetler LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, and the decisions of its sister circuits, the court held that a corporation with a legal identity distinct from the attorney who represents it in litigation is eligible to recover attorney’s fees under FOIA. Because NSC is such a corporation, it is not barred by the pro se litigant exception. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "National Security Counselors v. CIA" on Justia Law

Silverado Stages, a California charter bus service, petitioned for review of the FMCSA's determination denying Silverado's petition for administrative review after the FMCSA publicly reported that Silverado violated a number of federal and state safety regulations. The court concluded that Silverado's contention that the FMCSA's dismissal of Silverado's petition was arbitrary and capricious lacks merit because the FMCSA was not required to provide Silverado with any more process than it received. The court also concluded that Silverado's contention that the violations issued against it are invalid because they were not promulgated pursuant to notice-and-comment procedures and because they constitute impermissible sanctions are foreclosed by the court's decision in Weaver v. FMCSA. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Silverado Stages, Inc. v. FMCSA" on Justia Law

Mach Mining petitioned for review of the Commission's final order concluding that two of Mach's regulatory violations under the Mine Safety and Health Act (MSHA), 30 U.S.C. 801, were the result of “high negligence” and one violation was also “significant and substantial.” Mach operates a longwall coal mine that releases more than 1 million cubic feet of methane daily. An inspector issued a citation to Mach based on coal that had accumulated around two conveyor belts and the inspector concluded that the accumulations violation was the result of high negligence and was "significant and substantial." Mach also received a violation for locating battery charging stations in primary escapeways. The inspector investigating the charging station concluded that the violation was a result of Mach's high negligence. The court rejected Mach's arguments based on mitigating circumstances and denied the petition for review, concluding that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings for the "high negligence" and the "significant and substantial" determinations. View "Mach Mining, LLC v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two membership organizations, filed suit alleging that federal agencies unlawfully neglected to manage stocks of river herring and shad in the Atlantic Ocean from New York to North Carolina. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was no basis for judicial review of the Fishery Council’s decision. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiffs' claims are not subject to judicial review under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801(b)(3), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Anglers Conservation Network v. Pritzker" on Justia Law

Petty Officer Walter Jackson filed suit claiming that the Board's denial of his request to correct his navy record violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq.; the Due Process Clause; and equitable principles. A recommendation against re-enlistment stemmed from Jackson’s unauthorized absence from his naval base, a subsequent disciplinary infraction, and two adverse performance evaluations. The court applied a deferential standard of review and concluded that, given Jackson’s infractions in the Navy, the Board reasonably denied Jackson’s requests for record correction. The court rejected Jackson's remaining contentions and affirmed the judgment. View "Jackson, Jr. v. Mabus, Jr." on Justia Law

After DHS did not grant asylum to appellant, he appealed, and his case is now before the immigration court. While his case was pending in the immigration court, appellant filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., request for the Department's “Assessment to Refer” regarding his asylum application. DHS concluded that its Assessment to Refer regarding appellant was exempt from FOIA under the deliberative process privilege encompassed within FOIA Exemption 5. The court agreed, finding that the Assessment to Refer was both predecisional and deliberative. The court rejected appellant's objections to that straightforward analysis and affirmed the judgment. View "Abtew v. DHS" on Justia Law

Flytenow developed a web-based service through which private pilots can offer their planned itineraries to passengers willing to share the pilots’ expenses. The FAA issued a Letter of Interpretation, concluding that pilots offering flight-sharing services on Flytenow’s website would be operating as “common carriers,” which would require them to have commercial pilot licenses. Flytenow’s members, licensed only as private pilots, thus would violate FAA regulations if they offered their services via Flytenow.com. The court concluded that the FAA's Interpretation is consistent with the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions and does not violate Flytenow’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause, and is not unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Flytenow, Inc. v. FAA" on Justia Law