Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner sought review of PowerPoint presentations that the FMCSA posted on its website on May 16, 2012. Petitioners claimed that the presentations represented an "astonishing" change in agency policy, which the agency failed to subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. The court concluded that the presentations did nothing more than explain the agency's Safety Measurement System, which was announced and implemented in 2010. The court dismissed the petition as untimely because, under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2344, challenges to agency rules, regulations, or final orders must be brought within 60 days of their issuance. View "Alliance for Safe, Efficient and Competitive Truck Transp., et al. v. FMCSA, et al." on Justia Law

A member of the British House of Commons, an informal British parliamentary caucus, and an American lawyer representing both all filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request seeking various records from the CIA and other intelligence agencies. The district court dismissed their suit to compel disclosure, agreeing with the agencies that the requesters all qualified as "representatives" of the British government. The court concluded that FOIA requesters who have authority to file requests on behalf of foreign government entities are "representatives" of such entities when they file requests of the sort they have authority to file. Since the intelligence agencies conceded that under this theory these three requesters fall outside the Foreign Government Entity Exception, the exception posed no barrier to the FOIA requests at issue. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "All Party Parliamentry Group, et al. v. Dept. of Defense, et al." on Justia Law

Congress prohibited Bell Operating Companies from subsidizing their own payphones or charging discriminatory rates to competitor payphone providers. At issue were the remedies available for violations of that prohibition. Specifically, whether independent payphone providers who were charged excessive rates by Bell Operating Companies were entitled to refunds or instead were entitled only to prospective relief in the form of lower rates. The court concluded that Congress granted discretion to the FCC to determine whether refunds would be required in those circumstances and that the Commission reasonably exercised that discretion here. The court denied the petitions in part and dismissed the remainder for lack of jurisdiction. View "Illinois Public Telecommunications v. FCC, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the EPA's issuance of a memorandum entitled, "Next Steps for Pending Redesignation Requests and State Implementation Plan Actions Affected by the Recent Court Decision Vacating the 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule." The court dismissed the petition for review because petitioners failed to show that they suffered injury that is imminent or certain as a result of the Memorandum. Accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioners' challenges. View "Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law

In August 2011, the Department updated the special procedures that establish the minimum wages and working conditions employers must offer U.S. sheepherders, goatherders, and open-range (cattle) herders before hiring foreign herders. Plaintiffs, U.S. workers experienced in herding claimed that the Department administers the temporary worker visa program in a way that gives herding operations access to inexpensive foreign labor without protecting U.S. workers. The court concluded that the district court erred in holding that plaintiffs lacked both Article III and prudential standing to bring this action where plaintiffs were injured by the Department's promulgation of the Training and Employment Guidance Letters (TEGLs) and fell within the zone of interests protected by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1188(a)(1). On the merits, the court concluded that plaintiffs were entitled to entry of summary judgment in their favor where the Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, by promulgating TEGLs without providing public notice and an opportunity for comment. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Mendoza, et al. v. Harris, et al." on Justia Law

The Board of County Commissioners of Kay County appealed the district court's dismissal of its complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the FHFA as their conservator, violated state law by failing to pay Oklahoma's documentary stamp tax (the Transfer Tax). The court held that 12 U.S.C. 1452(e), 1723a(c)(2), 4617(j)(1)-(2) exempt the entities from all state and local taxation, including Oklahoma's Transfer Tax, and that the Transfer Tax did not constitute a tax on real property such that it fell into the real property exceptions from the exemptions. The court also held that Kay County has forfeited its argument that the exemptions represent an invalid exercise of the Commerce power. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. FHFA, et al." on Justia Law

These consolidated petitions concerned proposed alternatives to security procedures mandated by the TSA. Amerijet requested alternative cargo screening procedures at various foreign airports it services and the TSA largely denied these requests. Amerijet petitioned for review, arguing that TSA's denials failed for want of reasoned decisionmaking and that TSA's actions violated Amerijet's right to equal protection of the law. The court concluded that, even under a highly deferential standard of review, TSA's denials were arbitrary and capricious as to most of Amerijet's requests where TSA failed to adequately explain most of its denials. Because the court had no meaningful basis to evaluate TSA's decisionmaking, the court remanded, excluding two issues. Accordingly, Amerijet's equal protection claim is unripe and the court dismissed the claim without prejudice. View "Amerijet Int'l, Inc. v. Pistole" on Justia Law

The United States and others filed suit against several mortgage servicers, including Wells Fargo, alleging claims under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), 12 U.S.C. 1833(a), based on Wells Fargo's alleged misconduct in issuing home mortgage loans insured by the FHA. The parties agreed on a settlement where the United States agreed to release certain claims. On appeal, Wells Fargo challenged the district court's order denying its motion to enforce the consent judgment. The court concluded that the Release's plain text forecloses Wells Fargo's interpretation. View "United States, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from events surrounding six individuals formerly detained at Guantanamo Bay. At issue was whether the detainees cleared by a military tribunal but nevertheless subjected to continued detention and allegedly abusive treatment have sufficiently alleged that those authorizing and supervising their detention acted outside the scope of their employment. The actions at issue can be divided into two categories: (1) the continued detention of plaintiffs post- Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) clearance, and (2) all acts attendant to that continued detention that occurred during the post-clearance period. The court concluded that claims in both categories, as pled, failed to support the conclusion that defendants acted outside the scope of their employment. Accordingly, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. View "Allaithi v.Rumsfeld, et al." on Justia Law

Prime Time filed suit contending that USDA's method of calculating assessments for cigars violated the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act (FETRA), 7 U.S.C. 518d. Applying Chevron deference, the court concluded that USDA's decision to read the word "volume" in subsection (e) as Congress used it in subsection (e) is entirely reasonable and fully implements subsection (e)'s "pro rata basis" requirement; nor is USDA's interpretation of the statutory term "share of gross domestic volume" "internally inconsistent"; although subsection (e) may have little independent operative effect, USDA's interpretation of subsection (e) as setting forth a general requirement was perfectly reasonable; and the court rejected Prime Time's argument that its interpretation gives more effect to subsection (e)'s pro rata basis limitation than does USDA's. Accordingly, the court concluded that USDA's approach represented a reasonable interpretation of the Act. View "Prime Time Int'l Co. v. AGRI, et al." on Justia Law