The D.C. Circuit releases opinions on Tuesdays and Fridays. We read them all so you don’t have to. On Friday (July 20), the court issued seven opinions:
Kaplan v. Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. A group of American, Israeli, and Canadian citizens sued Hezbollah and two Iranian banks in connection with terrorist attacks in Israel in summer 2006 that injured them. They sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act and Alien Tort Statute, and the district judge dismissed both complaints. In an opinion by Judge Srinivasan (joined by Judge Williams), the court affirmed the ATS claims under the Supreme Court’s 2018 holding in Jesner v. Arab Bank, which held that foreign corporations are not subject to liability under the ATS, and sent the ATA claims back to the district judge to first determine if there is jurisdiction over the defendants before dismissing the ATA claims. (Judge Kavanaugh was on the panel that heard the case but did not participate in the opinion.)
Oglala Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A uranium mining company called Powertech (USA), Inc. acquired a license to mine uranium in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Oglala Sioux Tribe opposed the license because it feared the project would destroy the tribe’s cultural, historical, and religious sites. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that the license did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, but it left the license in place while agency staff tried to get into compliance. In an opinion by Chief Judge Garland (joined by Judges Henderson and Griffith), the court said that’s not how the statute works. The agency must adequately assess the environmental impact before taking any major action, including issuing a uranium mining license—it cannot “act first and comply later.” The court, however, chose not to vacate the license. Citing concerns that Powertech’s stock price would “plummet” if the license were vacated, and noting that the mining project is on hold due to a separate permitting requirement, the court left the license in place “for now” and sent it back to the commission for further proceedings.
Association of American Railroads v. United States Department of Transportation. Amtrak, which was established by Congress, competes with privately-owned freight railroads for the use of the same tracks (many of which are owned by the freight railroads themselves). In 2016, the D.C. Circuit held that a portion of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 violated the Due Process Clause because it gave Amtrak the power to help write rules governing priority use of the tracks—rules that could harm Amtrak’s competitors. The only question remaining was the proper remedy to cure that constitutional violation. Judge Millett (joined by Chief Judge Garland) homed in on the law’s binding arbitrary provision as “the linchpin for Amtrak’s ability to unconstitutionally exercise regulatory authority over its competitors.” The proper remedy, she said, is to sever that provision and leave the rest of the statute in place. Judge Tatel dissented, arguing that a broader piece of the law, not just the arbitrary provision, should be invalidated.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection Agency. Under the Clean Air Act, each state is subject to certain air pollution limits. But pollution caused by “exceptional events”—such as wildfires, windstorms, or volcanic eruptions—does not count against a state. Environmental groups challenged a 2016 EPA regulation that allows for some types of pollution to be classified as exceptional events even when the pollution was partially caused by human activity, so long as the human activity complied with EPA regulations. Under Chevron deference, Judge Griffith (joined by Judges Katsas and Edwards) found that the EPA’s regulation was a permissible way to resolve a statutory ambiguity over the definition of exceptional event. “The point at which human contributions convert a natural event into one caused by human activity is blurry at best,” Griffith wrote.
Kaufman v. Nielsen. James Kaufman, who was convicted of sexual assault of a minor, tried to renounce his citizenship post-conviction. In 2014, a field office of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his request because he did not have the requisite “intention” to renounce, and Kaufman appealed. In an opinion by Judge Griffith (joined by Judges Tatel and Wilkins), the court first held that the USCIS decision was not subject to Chevron deference because it amounted to an “informal adjudication” of Kaufman’s rights. Without Chevron, the USCIS decision got “a respect proportional to its power to persuade,” which in this case wasn’t very much. USCIS was primarily concerned about ending up with a “stateless citizen” because Kaufman did not hold any other citizenship, but the court held that the concern was not enough and that “USCIS may not set aside the text of the statute simply because ‘it leads to undesirable consequences in some applications.’”
Oscar Salazar v. District of Columbia. In 1993, Medicaid recipients filed a class action lawsuit alleging numerous violations in the D.C. government’s administration of its Medicaid program. The two sides reached a settlement, which was ratified by a district judge’s consent decree that set forth various ongoing obligations of the D.C. government. In 2015, Medicaid recipients came back into court, alleging that D.C. was failing to properly process Medicaid applications under a new procedure mandated by the Affordable Care Act. They asked the district judge to modify the consent decree and order D.C. to correct those failures, and the judge did so. On appeal, Judge Millett (joined by Judges Henderson and Ginsburg) said the so-called modification was actually “brand new relief based on brand new facts alleging violations of a new law.” That sort of relief would need an entirely new injunction, not merely a modification of the old decree. “Courts may not, under the guise of a modification, impose entirely new injunctive relief,” Millett wrote. “That practice would end run the demanding standards for obtaining injunctive relief in the first instance.” The case goes back to the district judge for another try.
United States v. Smith. In 2016, Robert Smith, who had pleaded guilty to a non-violent drug charge, requested a 22-month reduction in his sentence after the U.S. Sentencing Commission issued new guidelines. The government argued Smith was ineligible for a reduction because his sentence was based on his plea agreement, not the commission’s earlier guidelines. The district judge agreed with this rationale and additionally ruled that resentencing was unwarranted because Smith was a danger to the community due to his involvement with a violent gang. On appeal, Judge Millett (joined by Judge Williams) found that the sentencing guidelines were a significant part of Smith’s original sentence and that the district judge had inappropriately used the violent actions of other gang members to assess Smith as a dangerous threat. The case goes back to the district judge for a new decision on Smith’s resentencing request. (Judge Kavanaugh was on the panel that heard the case but did not participate in the opinion.)
Citizens Association of Georgetown v. Federal Aviation Administration. In 2015, Georgetown University and several neighborhood associations challenged the FAA for newly (18-month-old) approved routes for planes flying overhead due to “increase[d] noise from air traffic.” They lost—not on the merits but because they waited too long to file suit. In an opinion that was originally published on March 27 but was reissued Friday, Judge Tatel (joined by Judges Henderson and Edwards) held that the groups waited too long—more than the statutory 60 days—to file a complaint.
Circuit Breaker contributor Jake Goldberg assisted with this story.
- Chaim Kaplan, et al v. Central Bank of Iran, et al
- Oglala Sioux Tribe v. NRC, et al
- Association of American Railr v. DOT, et al
- Natural Resources Defense Coun, et al v. EPA, et al
- James Kaufman v. Kirstjen Nielsen, et al
- Oscar Salazar, et al v. DC, et al
- USA v. Robert Smith
- Citizens Assn of Georgetown, et al v. FAA, et al