Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Secretary issued regulations setting out reasonable cost limits (RCLs) for specified medical services and establishing certain exceptions to those limits. Canonsburg claimed that the Secretary has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., because her method of calculation is inconsistent with governing regulations and was promulgated without notice and comment. In light of Canonsburg I, the district court granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that issue preclusion barred Canonsburg’s suit. The court concluded that the Secretary did not waive her issue preclusion affirmative defense by not raising it at the administrative stage. Moreover, the Secretary asserted it, expressly and properly, in district court and the court is free to affirm the district court's application of the doctrine to Canonsburg's complaint. In light of the Supreme Court's plain language in SEC v. Chenery Corp. (Chenery I and II), the court's own construction of the Chenery doctrine and no persuasive case law to the contrary, the court concluded that the Chenery doctrine does not prohibit raising issue preclusion as an affirmative defense in district court even if the party raising the defense was not a party to the administrative proceeding or was otherwise unable to assert the defense at the administrative stage. Finally, the court rejected Canonsburg's claims of equitable considerations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Canonsburg General Hosp. v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Appellant seeks information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, relating principally to his detention in Yemen from four federal agencies. After filing suit to compel disclosure, the district court granted summary judgment to the agencies and denied appellant's motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that it has jurisdiction to consider appellant’s challenges to the district court’s grants of summary judgment in the FBI and the CIA cases. On the merits, the court concluded that the FBI had performed an adequate search in response to the FOIA request; the FBI and CIA did not waive their application of FOIA Exemption I; and the FBI properly classified certain responsive records after it received his FOIA request. The court rejected appellant's challenges under the Privacy Act where the FBI's declarations satisfied the requirements of Doe v. FBI and the documents withheld by the CIA were not housed in a “system of records” and therefore are beyond the reach of the Privacy Act. Finally, the court found unpersuasive appellant's contention that the district court abused its discretion when it twice declined to review in camera an FBI document, which he claims was improperly classified. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mobley v. CIA" on Justia Law