DC Circuit: National Fed. of the Blind v. DOT


Administrative

Specific statutory right of action  against agency displaces APA review -- the challenge should have been filed with the court of appeals.

Confusion over venue was not sufficient reasonable cause to waive the filing date requirement.


National Fed. of the Blind v. DOT

DC Circuit: Florent Bayala v. DHS


FOIA

Withholding of single document means FOIA claim is not moot - plaintiff's averment that the document is no longer being sought means that administrative exhaustion is moot, though.

As administrative exhaustion is not jurisdictional, remand to consider whether gov't litigation strategy comports with statute.


 Florent Bayala v. DHS

DC Circuit: Sierra Club, et al v. FERC

Standing, Environment

Member living under a mile away gives associational standing to challenge increased constuction and output at natural gas port, given construction plans.

Environmental analysis was a substantial part of the export strategy, so not moot.

Intervening causation defeats challenge to export strategy by challenging port expansion.

Foreseeable and proximte effects on national markets required for cumulative analysis.

Shift in metrics not raised in agency proceedings


Sierra Club, et al v. FERC

DC Circuit: Sierra Club v. FERC

Standing, Environment

Organization meets causation and redressibility requirements for associational standing in challenge to an increase in natural gas production levels due to member who fishes in the area, given the presumptive increase in tanker traffic.

On merits, claim that increasing production at this port will lead to exports, causing domestic harms is flawed, because it relies on an intervening act - a decision to increase exports.

Agency hard look did not have to take a hard look at other projects occurring outside the jurisdiction which might have had a cumulative effect.


Sierra Club v. FERC

USA v. State of Washington

Treaties

Culvert construction, by diminishing the number of fish, violates fishing rights terms in treaties with tribes.

Abrogation of treaty rights requires legislation -- agency action doesn't constitute waiver.

 State cannot compel FG to limit culvert construction, as it has no standing to assert treaty rights, and the action is barred by sovereign immunity.

Injunction not overbroad -- was a valid exercise of equitable discretion to order state to remedy rather than the FG through the state, since the state held title to the culverts.


USA v. State of Washington

Ninth Circuit: Lia Lingo v. City of Salem


Fourth Amendment, Exclusionary Rule, S 1983

Exclusionary rule does not apply in S1983 actions.

Scent of MJ gave probable cause for arrest, even if it came from a candle.


Lia Lingo v. City of Salem

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Leo Stoller

FRCrimP

Counsel's assurance of no custodial sentence was not sufficient basis to challenge voluntary nature of guilty plea.

No abuse of discretion in denial of competency hearing where deft's physician suggests that deft is exaggerating the symptoms of early dementia.

Insufficient coverage of required points during plea colloquy was harmless error.


USA v. Leo Stoller

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Jonathon Sainz


Sentencing

As restitution amount was substantively reasonable, it was not an abuse of discretion to omit certain elements of guidance in precedent.

Where the reason for the release conditions is plain, little or no explanation is needed.  Modification to some terms to allow purchase of hamburgers, Internet access, etc.


USA v. Jonathon Sainz

Seventh Circuit: Panther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC

FRCP

The fact that National Guard administrative regulations are implicated is not a basis for federal jurisdiction.

As the delegate of the Guard exercised no independent rulemaking authority, no removal under Federal Officer.

Amendment of claim to remove US as party established that removal under federal scope of employment statute would be inappropriate.


Panther Brands, LLC v.   Indy Racing League, LLC

Seventh Circuit: Kenneth Ogurek v. Jeffrey Gabor

Prisons

Claim of retaliation after letter to warden was a violation of First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances. 

Claim of innocence was sufficient showing to require production of videotape.  Summary judgment in favor of the party who had earlier refused to produce the tape was error.


Kenneth Ogurek v.   Jeffrey Gabor

Seventh Circuit: James Baptist v. Ford Motor Company

Employment, FRCP

Genuine issue of material fact exists in state retaliatory-discharge claim where there is doubt as to the reason for the end of employment,


James Baptist v. Ford Motor Company

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Dante Graf

FRCrimP

Ineffective assistance of counsel in not informing deft that he could move for the disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant is not per se a basis for the subsequent withdrawal of guilty plea.  Insufficient showing under Strickland.

Fairness and justice requires that court look to see whether actual guilt or innocence is implicated.

Circuit split flagged.

USA v.   Dante Graf

Fifth Circuit: State of Texas v. EEOC, et al

Standing, Discrimination, Administrative

State has Article III standing to challenge EEOC employment guidance, as it would have to either change its hiring policies or incur costs. 

Since the agency, although it has no enforcement authority, can make policy changes that cause injuries sufficient for Article III harms, lack of enforcement power is not a per se bar to the action being sufficiently final under the APA.

Safe harbors and definitions for key terms speak to finality.

An agency can alter rights without issuing guidance that courts are legally bound to defer to.

Dissent.  Nope, and not ripe, either.


State of Texas v. EEOC, et al

Fifth Circuit: Richard Jordan, et al v. Marshall Fisher, et al

Reissue:  Denial of En Banc



Richard Jordan, et al v. Marshall Fisher, et al

Third Circuit: In Re: Nickleodeon Consumer Pr


Standing, ECPA, Preemption, Torts

Disclosure of online user data sufficiently particular & concrete for Article III standing.

One-party consent under the wiretap act & corresponding state statute has no implicit age restriction.

 PCs are not protected computing facilities under SCA
.
 State statute requires something beyond access to data - must establish use.

Search engine not covered by video privacy statute; that statute requires something more than an identifying number, since an observer must be able to associate a person with specific content.  This holding cannot be reduced to a single sentence.

As claim derives from the expectation of privacy on the website, state intrusion on privacy tort not preempted by federal data statute.  

Third party cookies on site don't present a cause of action under the tort, but standard tracking might, if duplicitous.



 In Re: Nickleodeon Consumer Pr

First Circuit: Universal Truck & Equipment Co v. Caterpillar, Inc.

FRCP

Where a plaintiff fraudulently joins a deft to defeat diversity, the clock for deft to remove over the fraudulent joinder runs from first service.  Here though, the plaintiff waived challenge to the lack of timely removal by not contesting the untimeliness of the theory of removal while contesting the removal itself.  The post-deadline removal was in the jurisdiction of the court.  Law of the case holding that the removal was ultimately timely prevails.

Summary approval of summary judgment.


Universal Truck & Equipment Co v. Caterpillar, Inc.

First Circuit: Velez-Ramirez v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

ADA

Denial of reasonable accommodation is neither an actual nor a constructive discharge for purposes of the Act.

Automatically generated notification via company intranet sufficed for notice, despite actual notice that employee was not in the office.


Velez-Ramirez v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

First Circuit: US v. Hunter


Sentencing

No error in denying sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility where a deft who later pleaded guilty took affirmative steps to cover up the crime and later made no showing to the contrary.

In assessing criminal history for purposes of sentencing, offenses without an intervening arrest are to be counted together only if imposed on the same day or contained in the same charging instrument.

Within guidelines sentence not substantively unreasonable.


US v. Hunter