Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of federal insider trading crimes and subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit seeking information from the FBI that he believed would show misconduct by the federal investigators and prosecutors handling the case. At issue was whether the FBI could withhold certain documents pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E). As a preliminary matter, the court held that the documents sought in the case qualified as "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes" under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7). The court also held that defendant failed to meet the demanding National Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish test for challenging the FBI's invocation of FOIA Exemption 7(C), which protected personal privacy. The court also upheld the FBI's invocation of FOIA Exemption 7(E), which protected certain law enforcement techniques and procedures, where release of certain information at issue would expose computer forensic vulnerabilities to potential criminals and where disclosure of certain information at issue "could enable criminals to employ countermeasures to avoid detection, thus jeopardizing the FBI's investigatory missions." The court briefly addressed and disposed of defendant's two other claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Appellants, nonprofit environmental organizations, appealed from a judgment of dismissal entered by the district court in an action against the EPA under the citizen suit provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., challenging the EPA Administrator's failure to take action to prevent the construction of three proposed pollution-emitting facilities in Kentucky. The court held that the validity of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits issued under the noncompliant State Implementation Plan (SIP), and the possible invalidity of the amended SIP, sufficiently raised a current controversy to save the litigation from mootness. The court also held that the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., did not provide a cause of action to review the EPA Administrator's failure to act under section 7477 of the CAA because her decision was an agency action "committed to agency discretion by law." Therefore, the EPA Administrator's decision was discretionary and not justiciable and thus, appellants failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Although the district court dismissed the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court affirmed the district court's action because dismissal would otherwise have been proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Southwest Airlines Co. and 18 other airlines alleged that the TSA's determination of their year 2000 costs was arbitrary and capricious for purposes of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. At issue was whether the TSA should have relied on the Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Inc. report (SH&E report) commissioned by the TSA or, at least, should have more fully explained why it rejected the conclusions of the Campbell Aviation Consultants report (Campbell report) submitted by the airlines. The court held that the TSA's determination was not arbitrary or capricious when the TSA chose the SH&E report with good reason where it sent a letter to each airline stating that it had thoroughly reviewed the Campbell report and concluded that the report was insufficient due to its limited data and broad, simplistic methodologies and the letter also explained SH&E's more extensive methodology. The court also discussed and disposed of the three other arguments the airlines raised. Accordingly, the court denied the airlines' petitions for review.

In this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(A), case, a Texas death-row inmate sought information from the FBI that he alleged might corroborate his claim that four other men actually committed the quadruple homicide for which he was convicted. At issue was whether the FBI's Glomar response was permitted under FOIA Exemption 7(c), which permitted agencies to withhold information contained in law enforcement records to protect against unwanted invasions of personal privacy. The court held that the public had an interest in knowing whether the federal government was withholding information that could corroborate a death-row inmate's claim of innocence and that interest outweighed the three men's privacy interest in having the FBI not disclose whether it possessed any information linking them to the murders. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's approval of the FBI's Glomar response and, with minor exceptions, affirmed the district court's rejection of appellant's other arguments.

The District of Columbia filed this suit to recover its attorneys' fees from a lawyer who brought an administrative complaint against the District on behalf of a student with special educational needs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(A). At issue was whether the District was a "prevailing party" under the IDEA in this suit. The court held that the facts in this case followed closely in the wake of the court's precedent in District of Columbia v. Straus where that court held that the district was not a "prevailing party" where its own change of position was what had mooted the dispute, causing the case to be dismissed. Therefore, the court held that the District, in this case, was not a "prevailing party" where the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) authorized an independent comprehensive psychological evaluation for the student, which mooted the only issue before the hearing officer. Accordingly, the district court's grant of summary judgment ordering the lawyer to pay attorneys' fees was reversed.

Petitioners petitioned for review of a regulation promulgated by the EPA setting performance standards for new and existing hospital/medical/infection waste incinerators ("HMIWI"). Petitioners argued that the data set EPA used to establish these standards was flawed, that the agency's pollutant-by-pollutant approach to setting target emissions levels was impermissible, and that the agency acted arbitrarily when it removed a provision exempting HMIWI from complying with the standards during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The court held that the EPA's decision to use emissions data from the HMIWI units remaining in operation after the implementation of the 1997 standards, once it determined that the data set upon which it had relied in 1997 was flawed, was reasonable. The court held, however, that it did not have jurisdiction to review the challenges to the EPA's long-standing practice of setting emissions floors based on emissions levels achieved by the best performing unit or units for each individual pollutant, and to the agency's removal of an exemption from compliance with emissions limitations during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Accordingly, the petitioned was dismissed in part and denied in part.

This case stemmed from the discovery in an unrelated case that the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") had paid hospitals less than they were due because it had miscalculated the disproportionate share hospital ("DSH") payment. Appellants, a group of hospitals that received DSH payments, filed claims with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board ("PRRB") seeking full payments for the fiscal years 1987-1994. At issue was whether the district court lacked jurisdiction in the matter and whether the Medicare statute, 42 U.S.C. 1395oo(a), allowed for equitable tolling. The court held that a decision by the PRRB denying jurisdiction was a final decision subject to judicial review by the district court. The court also held that, given the factors emphasized in United States v. Brockamp did not apply to the facts presented, and without any other reasons for rebutting the presumption of equitable tolling, the court found that equitable tolling was available under 1395oo(a). The court noted that whether tolling was appropriate in this particular case, however, was a different question for the district court to answer on remand. The court also rejected appellants' alternative arguments and therefore, reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Appellant sued the Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") and the District of Columbia (collectively, "District"), requesting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to keep the District from preventing appellant's chalking demonstration in front of the White House pursuant to a Defacement Statute, D.C. Code 22-3312.01. Appellant claimed that the Defacement Statute was unconstitutional on its face, unconstitutional as applied to his efforts to chalk the street in front of the White House, and violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. The court held that the Defacement Statute was content neutral, and substantially justified by the District's esthetic interest in combating the very problem appellant's proposed chalking entailed, the defacement of public property. Because the District did not curtail appellant's means of expression altogether, and allowed him to protest in front of the White House in other ways, the Defacement Statute was not unconstitutionally applied. The court also held that appellant's overbreadth challenge failed because he could not show any "realistic danger" that the Defacement Statute actually chilled constitutionally protected speech. The court further rejected appellant's RFRA claims in light of Henderson v. Kennedy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing the case.

This appeal concerned whether the court or the district court had jurisdiction over matters relating to a citizen petition filed pursuant to FDA regulations promulgated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("Act"), 21 U.S.C. 301, et seq. Because its citizen petition to revoke regulations permitting Bisphenol A ("BPA") to be used as a food additive had been pending since October 21, 2008, the NRDC sought what amounted to be a writ of mandamus directing the FDA to issue a final decision on its petition. The court held that exclusive jurisdiction over citizen petitions was with the district court and accordingly, dismissed the petition.

This case involved cost-saving tools that Congress had devised for Medicare payments to cancer hospitals and specifically concerned Medicare reimbursements paid to one cancer hospital, appellant, in 2000 and 2001. The first issue on appeal related to the cancer hospitals' inpatient costs where appellant requested an increase to its target amount in 2000 and 2001 due to the high cost of certain new cancer drugs and where the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") denied that request. Appellant argued that it did not receive proper notice of the new net financial impact requirement and thus did not have a fair opportunity to satisfy the requirement at the administrative hearing. The court agreed and held that appellant did not receive timely notice of the requirement and, on remand to HHS, must be given an opportunity to satisfy it. The second issued on appeal concerned cancer hospitals' outpatient costs where appellant contended that HHS misapplied the statutory formula that provided hospitals a fraction of their reasonable costs and undercompensated appellant. The court rejected appellant's arguments and affirmed summary judgment in favor of HHS.