Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, individuals who breed and sell animals, filed the underlying action in district court, challenging a 2012 rule in which the Fish and Wildlife Service designated as injurious four species of snakes. At issue on appeal was the shipment clause in the Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C. 42(a)(1), which bars "any shipment" of certain injurious species of animals "between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States." Plaintiffs argued that the Service lacks authority under the Lacey Act to prohibit transportation of the listed species between the 49 continental States. The court agreed with the district court that the shipment clause has no bearing on shipments of animals from one of the 49 continental States to another. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs. View "U.S. Assoc. of Reptile Keepers v. Zinke" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a major producer of solar power, challenged the Commission's order denying its effort to obtain financial instruments known as Congestion Revenue Rights. The court concluded that FERC erroneously determined that the relevant contract and tariff provisions unambiguously foreclose petitioner's request. In this case, the court held that FERC overlooked an ambiguity in the Interconnection Agreement. Therefore, the court remanded to the Commission so that it may consider the question in light of the ambiguity. View "NextEra Desert Center Blythe v. FERC" on Justia Law

Prisology filed suit alleging that the BOP failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2). The district court dismissed the suit based on lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that Prisology failed to allege a particularized injury and therefore lacked Article III standing. The court explained that a court's refusal to grant relief cannot confer Article III standing that otherwise does not exist. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Prisology, Inc. v. BOP" on Justia Law

This appeal and cross-appeal relate to the district court's orders releasing video recordings made at Guantanamo Bay, depicting military personnel removing a detainee, Abu Wa'el (Jihad) Dhiab, from his cell, transporting him to a medical unit, and force-feeding him to keep him alive while he was on a hunger strike. The government classified these recordings as "SECRET" because disclosing them could damage the national security, but the district court determined that the public had a constitutional right to view the recordings because the detainee's attorney filed some of them under seal, at which point the recordings became part of the court's record. The government appealed, arguing that the public has no such constitutional right. The Intervenors cross-appealed, arguing that several categories of redactions the court approved prior to public release were too extensive. The court concluded that Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court did not apply to this case and neither the intervenors nor the public at large have a right under the First Amendment to receive properly classified national security information filed in court during the pendency of Dhiab's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court further explained that, even if the intervenors had a qualified First Amendment right of access to the Dhiab recordings, the court would still reverse the district court's decision, because the government identified multiple ways in which unsealing these recordings would likely impair national security. Because the recordings will remain sealed, the intervenors' cross-appeal about the extent of the redactions was dismissed as moot View "Dhiab v. Trump" on Justia Law

The Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. 227(b) bans most unsolicited fax advertisements, but allows unsolicited fax advertisements in certain commercial circumstances. The FCC issued a rule in 2006 that requires businesses to include opt-out notices not just on unsolicited fax advertisements, but also on solicited fax advertisements. Petitioners, businesses that send solicited fax advertisements, contend that the FCC's new rule exceeds the FCC's authority under the Act. The court held that the Act's requirement that businesses include an opt-out notice on unsolicited fax advertisements does not authorize the FCC to require businesses to include an opt-out notice on solicited fax advertisements. Therefore, the court held that the FCC's 2006 Solicited Fax Rule is unlawful to the extent that it requires opt-out notices on solicited faxes. The court vacated the order in this case because it interpreted and applied that 2006 Rule, remanding for further proceedings. View "Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC" on Justia Law

In 2011, EPA issued policy letters that explained and arguably changed two EPA policies with respect to publicly owned water treatment facilities. A group representing interests of municipalities prevailed in the Eighth Circuit on their challenge to the new EPA policy letters. In 2013, EPA made statements indicating that it would not acquiesce in or follow the Eighth Circuit's decision outside of that circuit. Petitioner filed suit raising multiple challenges to EPA's non-acquiescence statement's legality. The court explained that the non-acquiescence letter merely articulates how EPA will interpret the Eighth Circuit's decision. To the extent petitioner seeks to directly challenge EPA's non-acquiescence statement, it must first sue in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 702-704. To the extent petitioner seeks to directly challenge the 2011 policy letters, petitioner was well outside the 120-day window to directly challenge the letters in this court. To the extent petitioner believed EPA was violating the Eighth Circuit's mandate, the proper course of action was to seek mandamus or other appropriate relief in the Eighth Circuit. Accordingly, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to directly review EPA's non-acquiescence statement and dismissed the petition. View "Center for Regulatory Reasonableness v. EPA" on Justia Law

Under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) became the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2012, FHFA and Treasury adopted the Third Amendment to their stock purchase agreement, which replaced the fixed 10% dividend with a formula by which Fannie and Freddie just paid to Treasury an amount (roughly) equal to their quarterly net worth. Plaintiffs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders, filed suit alleging that FHFA's and Treasury's alteration of the dividend formula through the Third Amendment exceeded their statutory authority under the Recovery Act, and constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The court held that plaintiffs' statutory claims are barred by the Recovery Act's strict limitation on judicial review; the court rejected most of plaintiffs' common law claims; insofar as the court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' common-law claims against Treasury, and Congress has waived the agency's immunity from suit, those claims are also barred by the Recovery Act's limitation on judicial review; in regard to claims against FHFA and the Companies, some are barred because FHFA succeeded to all rights, powers, and privileges of the stockholders under the Recovery Act, and others failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; and, as to the remaining claims, which are contract-based claims regarding liquidation preferences and dividend rights, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Perry Capital LLC v. Mnuchin" on Justia Law

Two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., requesters challenged the fees assessed against them by the DOJ for processing their requests for records. The district court awarded summary judgment to the DOJ. The court concluded that there remains a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the direct costs of producing a CD exceed $15. Therefore, the court vacated as to this claim. The court affirmed as to the district court's grant of summary judgment in regard to the request for a public-interest fee waiver. View "National Security Counselors v. DOJ" on Justia Law

Judicial Watch filed suit against the DOD, alleging that the Department violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, when it failed to release copies of documents related to a 2014 determination by the Secretary of Defense about the transfer of five Guantanamo Bay detainees to Qatar. At issue is a document Judicial Watch believed was entitled: a memo from Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Lumpkin to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. The court agreed with the district court that the memo was a privileged deliberative document and therefore exempt from disclosure under FOIA. In this case, when the memo was drafted, it was both predecisional and deliberative. The court rejected Judicial Watch's claim that the Secretary expressly adopted the memo and thus the court could not treat the memo as a decisional document subject to disclosure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOD" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 704, seeking to compel the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to meet its disclosure obligations under the "reading room" provision of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2). The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that, despite some mismatch between the relief sought and the relief available, FOIA offers an "adequate remedy" within the meaning of section 704 such that plaintiff's APA claim is barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. DOJ" on Justia Law