Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Binder, a law firm representing claimants before the SSA, appealed from summary judgment in two related cases where Binder seeks past attorney's fees. When Binder sought to hold the SSA liable for the fees, the district courts granted summary judgment to the SSA on the basis of sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the judgments and held that, regardless of the SSA’s statutory duties to withhold attorney’s fees from payments to successful claimants, there is no waiver of sovereign immunity in 42 U.S.C. 406(a) that would permit Binder’s lawsuits for money damages. View "Binder & Binder v. Colvin" on Justia Law

In 2000, the Secretary of Health and Human Services issued a regulation, known as the “reclassification rule,” 42 C.F.R. 412.230(a)(5)(iii), which provided that a hospital that has been reclassified from urban to rural under the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(8)(E), may not thereafter receive an additional reclassification by the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board (MGCRB) for reclassification as urban under subsection (d)(10). Lawrence filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from applying the Secretary's reclassification rule to Lawrence's MGCRB application. The district court denied the motion. However, the court found the statutory language to be plain and unambiguous, and at odds with the Secretary’s reclassification rule, 42 C.F.R. 412.230(a)(5)(iii). Therefore, the court declared the regulation invalid and reversed the judgment of the district court, remanding for a determination of the appropriate remedy. View "Lawrence + Memorial Hosp. v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Main Street filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), seeking a judicial order compelling the NSC to produce requested records. The district court concluded that the NSC was not an agency and dismissed the case on the merits. On de novo review, the court construed the “agency” provision of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 551(1), 552(f)(1), the “function” provisions of the NSC’s statute, 50 U.S.C. 3021(a), and the current presidential directive organizing the NSC System, among other available legal sources, and concluded that the NSC is not an agency subject to the FOIA. The court further construed the FOIA's agency requirement to relate to the court’s remedial power rather than to its subject‐matter jurisdiction and concluded that the district court properly granted dismissal for failure to state a claim, rather than for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in granting dismissal without discovery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Main Street Legal Servs. v. National Security Council" on Justia Law

The NYTimes challenged the district court's decision and order regarding requests for disclosure of information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, related to targeted killings by the use of drone aircraft. On a prior appeal, the court ordered disclosure of a 2010 document known as the "OLC-DOD Memorandum," advising as to the legality of the targeted drone attacks. In this appeal, the court concluded that all the OLC documents at issue shall remain undisclosed, except Exhibit K (the redacted version of Exhibit 15 B), which the district court has authorized to be disclosed; that the redacted portions of the district court’s opinion shall remain undisclosed, except for the three paragraphs on page 9, which the district court wishes disclosed; and that the redactions from the transcript of the June 23 hearing may remain undisclosed. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment, authorized the district court to disclose the three redacted paragraphs on page 9 of its opinion, and maintained undisclosed the redacted portions of the district court’s opinion and the June 23, 2015, transcript. View "The New York Times Co. v. US DOJ" on Justia Law

Keepers appealed, and the City cross-appealed, from partial summary judgment awards. At issue are two questions related to Chapter 2.3 of Milford’s municipal code, which regulates “adult‐oriented establishments.” First, whether the district court improperly considered the affidavit of the police chief in granting partial summary judgment to the City. The court concluded that the district court did not “abuse its discretion” in considering the affidavit and therefore affirmed as to this issue. Second, whether the City’s requirement that sexually oriented businesses publicly post the names of their operators, officers, and significant owners violates the First Amendment. The court concluded that the district court should not have reached the merits of that issue, nor does this Court do so, because Keepers’ First Amendment challenge does not present a justiciable case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Even if Keepers originally had standing to challenge the public‐posting requirement based on its asserted right against compelled speech, the case has become moot on appeal. Therefore, the court vacated as to this issue and remanded with directions. View "Keepers Inc. v. City of Milford" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging violation of his due process rights and that defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously by terminating his employment. The district court dismissed his complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject‐matter jurisdiction. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff does not have a private right of action under the Due Process Clause of the sort recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Therefore, the court concluded that this claim was properly dismissed. However, the court found that the district court erred in determining that it lacked subject‐matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 702. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Atterbury v. U.S. Marshals Service" on Justia Law