Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Congress enacted section 703 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, 10 U.S.C. 1074g(f), which subjected all prescriptions purchased at retail pharmacies by service members to the same price caps as drugs procured directly by the Department of Defense. Pursuant to this provision, the Secretary of Defense issued a regulation requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to refund to the federal government the difference between the retail price and the price cap. The Coalition, a multi-industry interest group that represented pharmaceutical companies, filed suit challenging these actions. The court concluded that the Secretary reasonably interpreted section 703 to impose involuntary price caps and held that the statute itself imposed retroactive rebate liability on pharmaceutical manufacturers. View "Coalition For Common Sense in Government Procurement v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of three murders and sentenced to death. This appeal stemmed from appellant's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, requests to the FBI seeking information related to the FBI's investigation of him. Appellant appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the FBI, which concluded that the FBI had released all non-exempt documents as required by FOIA; that the FBI performed an adequate search; and that the FBI correctly applied FOIA Exemptions 3, 7(C), and 7(D). The court affirmed the judgment and rejected appellant's argument that the FBI improperly withheld the 125 pages at issue and appellant's complaint about the alleged inadequacy of the search. The court concluded that the FBI had released all reasonably segregable, non-exempt material to appellant. View "Hodge v. FBI, et al" on Justia Law

Black Beauty petitioned for review of an order of the Federal MSHRC adopting the findings of the ALJ. The court held that the ALJ's conclusion that Black Beauty violated 30 C.F.R. 75.400 was supported by substantial evidence; Black Beauty's violation of section 75.400 constituted an unwarrantable failure; and the ALJ's high negligence finding was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Black Beauty Coal Co. v. MSHR, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a group of California generators, including Calpine, petitioned for review of FERC's orders under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824. On appeal, the court considered FERC's authority to regulate public-utility charges to independent generators for the latter's use of "station power" - the electricity necessary to operate a generator's requirements for light, heat, air conditioning, etc. The court concluded that FERC's jurisdictional determination was not arbitrary or capricious. The generators were on notice that they could be assessed retail charges for station power depending on the outcome of this litigation. The generators have alternative means of alleviating any potential grievances stemming from retroactive charges. Accordingly, Calpine's petition for review was denied and FERC's orders on remand were affirmed. View "Calpine Corp., et al v. FERC" on Justia Law

A group of Freedmen, former Cherokee slaves and their descendants, sued in district court claiming that the Cherokee Nation had violated the 1866 Treaty that guaranteed the Freedmen all the rights of native Cherokees. To avoid the sovereign immunity bar, the Freedmen sued not only the Cherokee Nation itself but also the relevant executive official, the Principal Chief, in his official capacity. Applying the precedents that permitted suits against government officials in their official capacities, the court concluded that this suit could proceed against the Principal Chief in his official capacity, without the Cherokee Nation itself as a party. The Cherokee Nation and the Principal Chief in his official capacity were one and the same in the Ex Parte Young suit for declaratory and injunctive relief. As a result, the Principal Chief could adequately represent the Cherokee Nation in this suit, meaning that the Cherokee Nation itself was not a required party for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Vann, et al v. DOI, et al" on Justia Law

When an employee's name and Social Security number listed on Form W-2 do not match in the SSA's database and this happens to a sufficient number of employees, the SSA sends the employer a "no-match" letter. In 2006, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request with the SSA seeking the names of the 100 U.S. employers that generated the most no-matches from 2001 through 2006. The agency declined to produce such records, concluding that they were exempt under FOIA Exemption 3. The district court agreed with the SSA. The court affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the records sought by Judicial Watch would disclose "return information" and were protected from disclosure by the Tax Code, 26 U.S.C. 6103(a). Moreover, the Haskell Amendment was not applicable here because Judicial Watch sought data that could be associated with a particular taxpayer, the employer. View "Judicial Watch, Inc. v. SSA" on Justia Law

Recognizing the growing importance of mobile data in a wireless market in which smartphones are increasingly common, the FCC adopted a rule requiring mobile-data providers to offer roaming agreements to other such providers on "commercially reasonable" terms. Verizon challenged the data roaming rule on multiple grounds. The court held that Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq., plainly empowered the FCC to promulgate the data roaming rule. And although the rule bears some marks of common carriage, the court deferred to the FCC's determination that the rule imposed no common carrier obligations on mobile-internet providers. In response to Verizon's remaining arguments, the court concluded that the rule did not effect an unconstitutional taking and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. View "Cellco Partnership v. FCC" on Justia Law

This appeal was from the denial of a motion for attorneys fees and costs under the citizen-suit provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1540(g)(4). Appellants sued the FWS, alleging that the agency violated the ESA by refusing to process applications for permits to import as hunting trophies Canadian wood bison, a listed species, for nearly nine years. The court affirmed the denial of appellants' motions for attorneys fees and costs where the agency's delay in processing the import permit applications was an instance of agency delay on a matter not subject to firm time constraints. Appellants' remaining argument lacked merit. View "Conservation Force, et al v. Salazar, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the EPA's rulemaking regarding hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). At issue was whether section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(c)(6), required the EPA to impose the same stringency levels in standards for non-112(c)(6) HAPs occurring at section 112(c)(6) sources that it did for section 112(c)(6) HAPs. The EPA rejected the claim that section 112(c)(6)'s cross-reference to section 112(d)(2) required that the EPA subject all HAPs emitted by a section 112(c)(6) source to standards at the stringency level specified by section 112(d)(2). The EPA also made clear that, despite language in the Gold Mine Rule arguably suggesting that it covered "fugitive emissions" - namely emissions from certain sources - in fact the rule did not address such emissions. The court rejected petitioners' claims challenging the EPA's rulemaking and affirmed the EPA's order. View "Desert Citizens Against Pollution, et al v. EPA, et al" on Justia Law

Sierra Club challenged a determination of the EPA, which announced that it had met the regulatory obligations imposed on it by section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7412(c)(6). The court concluded that the determination was a legislative rulemaking subject to the notice-and-comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553. Because the EPA issued the determination without providing notice and opportunity for comment, the court vacated and remanded for the agency to follow those procedures. View "Sierra Club v. EPA, et al" on Justia Law