Gerhard Alden Gesell

The case involved the Center for Auto Safety's FOIA request seeking the names and addresses of individuals who complained to NHTSA about auto safety problems. NHTSA denied the request under Exemption 6, asserting that disclosure would invade the complainants' privacy. The court granted summary judgment to NHTSA, holding that the privacy interests of the thousands of complainants outweighed the asserted public interest in disclosure. The core reasoning relied on D.C. Circuit precedent giving heavy weight to the indirect effects of releasing a mailing list available to anyone, including risks of unwanted solicitations, commercial exploitation, and intrusions into potentially sensitive personal experiences, without regard to the plaintiff's specific consumer-advocacy purposes.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a federal employee seeking insurance coverage under the 1992 Blue Cross/Blue Shield Government-wide Service Benefit Plan for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant (HDC-ABMT) to treat advanced cancer, after the insurer and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denied the claim. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no material facts in dispute and applying the arbitrary and capricious standard under the Administrative Procedure Act. The core reasoning was that the plan's language on page 16 explicitly listed covered transplants and excluded related high-dose chemotherapy for unlisted conditions like the plaintiff's, with no ambiguity or inadequate disclosure of changes from the prior year. The court noted that OPM had final authority over benefits and that the denial aligned with the plain contract terms, even under de novo review.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by Public Citizen against the U.S. Trade Representative seeking regular access to U.S. submissions to GATT dispute panels and the panel decisions themselves before their adoption by the GATT Council. The court held that Count One regarding specific past requests was moot after documents were released, but addressed the broader policy challenge. It ruled that the USTR submissions must be affirmatively disclosed under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(B) because they contain statements of policy and interpretations adopted by the agency, and that GATT procedures do not exempt the panel decisions from FOIA since the GATT is not a ratified treaty with the force of domestic statutory law. The core reasoning was that FOIA creates a presumption of disclosure that prevails over international agreements, though the court declined to issue a broad injunction and noted that specific exemptions under FOIA could still apply to portions of future documents.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved Miami Free Zone Corp. seeking judicial review in U.S. District Court of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's decision to grant a new foreign trade zone that could compete with the plaintiff's existing zone. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that the Foreign-Trade Zones Act and related statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), place exclusive jurisdiction over such matters involving tariffs, duties, and import regulations with the Court of International Trade rather than district courts, based on the statutory scheme and legislative history aimed at consolidating trade disputes in a specialized court.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case involved hospitals in Tennessee and North Carolina challenging Medicare regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that govern geographic reclassification of hospitals for standardized payment amounts under the Medicare Act. The hospitals sought reclassification into higher wage-index areas but were denied by the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board because they failed to satisfy the adjacency requirement (interpreted by the Secretary as meaning contiguous), even though they met the separate proximity requirement. The court granted summary judgment to the Secretary, finding that the adjacency requirement and its interpretation fell within the Secretary's statutory authority, were consistent with the Medicare Act's goals for grouping hospitals with similar costs, and were not arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a Freedom of Information Act request by plaintiff Michele Steinberg seeking FBI documents from the agency's headquarters and Boston Field Office concerning materials allegedly provided to Swedish authorities about a purported disinformation campaign linking presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche to the assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel a further search, finding that the FBI's search of relevant files was adequate and reasonable based on detailed declarations and in camera review. On the motion for summary judgment, the court upheld most of the government's exemption claims under FOIA Exemptions 1, 6, and 7, including for classified national security materials, personal privacy, and law enforcement sources, but ordered disclosure of specific non-exempt paragraphs in four documents that did not reveal protected information such as names or sources. The reasoning emphasized that the exemptions were properly applied after balancing interests, with no basis to doubt the search completeness or to override valid protections absent extraordinary circumstances.

procedurefederal powercriminal law

The case involved District of Columbia government employees terminated in 1991 as part of a reduction in force (RIF) aimed at addressing the city's fiscal crisis under emergency legislation that overrode standard RIF procedures. The plaintiffs, non-union employees at salary grades DS-11 and above, sued under the Fifth Amendment, claiming the terminations violated their due process rights by denying them a property interest in continued employment without adequate process, and their equal protection rights by targeting only certain higher-level non-union positions. The court consolidated the cases and, on motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, rejected both claims. It held that RIF terminations do not trigger the same due process protections as for-cause dismissals because employees lack a protected property interest in positions eliminated for budgetary reasons. On equal protection, the court found the classification rationally related to the legitimate goal of reducing the government workforce and budget, even if imperfect or politically influenced.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved four U.S. House members with oversight of the District of Columbia suing D.C. officials to declare the Assault Weapon Manufacturing Strict Liability Act of 1990 invalid under the Home Rule Act. Plaintiffs argued that the Act never received its required thirty legislative days of congressional review because an emergency repealer was enacted before the review period ended, and the Act should have been retransmitted after voters rejected a permanent repealer via referendum. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that the initial transmittal of the Act to Congress in January 1991 satisfied the Home Rule Act's requirements and that the Act became effective in March 1991, subject only to temporary suspension by the repealers. The core reasoning was that the emergency and temporary repealers did not invalidate the prior review period, no retransmittal was needed after the referendum, and precedent from the D.C. Court of Appeals confirmed the Act's validity.

federal powergunstorts & liability

Defenders of Wildlife sued the Secretary of the Interior to compel immediate implementation of the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan under the Endangered Species Act, specifically by reintroducing gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park. The court considered motions to dismiss after Congress enacted a rider in the 1992 Appropriations Act barring any expenditure of funds to reintroduce wolves in Yellowstone and central Idaho. The Recovery Plan itself was not an action document and anticipated further environmental studies, including an EIS requested by Congress. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that the funding ban rendered the suit moot, that no injunction could issue without appropriated funds, and that a declaratory judgment would be advisory with no live controversy.

environmentfederal power

The plaintiff, an attorney offered a conditional non-competitive position with the Department of Justice, had the offer withdrawn after an FBI background investigation and sued to obtain the complete investigative records under the Privacy Act, FOIA, and the Fifth Amendment, also seeking to amend alleged inaccuracies and enjoin use of the materials. The court granted the Department's motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's requests for a more detailed Vaughn index and discovery, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It reasoned that the investigation was a routine suitability check governed by Privacy Act exemption (k)(5) and FOIA exemption (b)(7)(D), which properly protected confidential sources, that the records contained no specified reason for the withdrawal, and that the plaintiff had no protected entitlement to the position or to the withheld information.

labor & employmentprocedurecivil rights

This case was a class action brought by hundreds of mostly unsophisticated Spanish-speaking customers against key promoters of Latin Investment Corporation (LIC) alleging securities fraud under the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs claimed the defendants misrepresented LIC as a bank, issued passbooks promising fixed interest and profit shares, and operated a Ponzi scheme that caused over $6 million in losses. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the fraud counts, ruling that the passbooks qualified as securities in the form of notes and investment contracts based on their economic reality and substance rather than nomenclature. It further held the individual defendants liable as controlling persons for the misrepresentations and material omissions, entering judgments against them totaling $6,461,266.91.

business & regulatory

The case involved defendant Ralph Ferguson, who was indicted for theft and possession of machineguns from the State Department mail room, specifically charged under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) for possessing unregistered machineguns. Ferguson moved to dismiss those counts, claiming the registration requirement was unconstitutional due to the enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which generally prohibited machinegun possession. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the guns at issue were lawfully possessed before 1986 and thus fell under the grandfather clause of § 922(o)(2)(B), preserving the validity of the tax and registration requirements under § 5861(d) for such firearms.

gunscriminal lawfederal power

The case involved a challenge by the American Lithotripsy Society to a final notice from the Health Care Financing Administration classifying extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) as a surgical procedure eligible for Medicare reimbursement in ambulatory surgical centers and setting a prospective rate of $1150 for such procedures. The court upheld the classification of ESWL as a surgical procedure, finding it rationally justified based on medical expert opinions and properly noticed. However, the court remanded the rate determination because the agency relied on data and assumptions from its own study that were not made available for public comment during the rulemaking process, contrary to requirements for adversarial discussion under the Administrative Procedure Act. The final notice was stayed pending further proceedings on remand.

healthcareprocedure

The case involved a union representing mine workers challenging the Mine Safety and Health Administration's (MSHA) exclusion of union representatives from private interviews conducted as part of an investigation into a 1991 mine explosion. The union argued that the Federal Mine Safety Act required its participation in these interviews, similar to its role in mine inspections. The court granted summary judgment to MSHA and dismissed the complaint, holding that the statute mandates union access only during physical inspections of the mine under 30 U.S.C. § 813(f) and does not require union involvement in off-site, non-public interviews or formal hearings, which the agency has discretion to conduct privately. The reasoning emphasized that the Act gives MSHA flexibility in investigative procedures outside of on-site inspections and does not convert transcribed private interviews into public hearings requiring broader access.

labor & employmentprocedure

This FOIA case concerned a motor carrier's request for FHWA documents describing the agency's secret computer algorithm that weights factors from safety reviews to assign carriers a satisfactory, conditional, or unsatisfactory rating. The agency withheld the materials under FOIA exemptions for internal personnel rules and practices and for law-enforcement techniques whose disclosure could risk circumvention of the law. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and ordered release of the documents, holding that the algorithm is not purely internal or investigatory because statutes and regulations give the resulting ratings binding legal consequences, such as automatic bars on certain hazardous-materials or passenger transport and ineligibility for Department of Defense contracts. The court further reasoned that carriers' statutory right to challenge factual findings would be impaired without knowing how the factors are weighted, and that disclosure would not facilitate circumvention but would instead allow carriers to focus compliance efforts on the agency's priorities.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a former executive vice president of a HUD-coinsured lender who was suspended in 1989 and later debarred for three years by HUD for allegedly remaining an affiliate of the company after resigning and entering a consulting agreement. The plaintiff challenged the actions under the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary or capricious, arguing improper affiliation findings and procedural irregularities despite two administrative law judges ruling in his favor. The court reviewed the record under the APA's arbitrary-or-capricious standard and found that HUD's affiliation determination lacked support and its extended proceedings were flawed. It granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied the government's, and vacated both the suspension and debarment.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved a challenge by Texas Rural Legal Aid to a Legal Services Corporation regulation barring LSC-funded organizations from participating in redistricting litigation, even when the organization determined such cases would benefit the poor under statutory procedures. Following an earlier ruling that LSC lacked authority, the appeals court reversed, and on remand the district court addressed claims that the rule was arbitrary and capricious or violated the First Amendment. The court granted summary judgment to LSC, finding the regulation had a rational basis in budgetary and policy considerations and did not facially infringe protected speech because it limited only the use of LSC funds and allowed other activities outside funded work.

electionsfree speechfederal power

In this Title VII race discrimination case, a federal employee sued the FBI and later sought to amend his complaint, filed before the Civil Rights Act of 1991 took effect, to add claims for compensatory damages and a jury trial under the new statute. The court denied the motion to amend. It reasoned that the 1991 Act's damages and jury trial provisions are substantive changes that do not apply retroactively to pending cases absent clear statutory language or legislative history indicating otherwise, and that applying them here would improperly expand the limited waiver of sovereign immunity for federal employment claims without the required prior administrative process.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

This case involves a challenge by the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association and several member companies to revised interim standby loss requirements for commercial storage water heaters issued by the Department of Energy under the Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings Act of 1976. The requirements, which apply to federal building construction, were promulgated after the court in a prior related action (GAMA I) remanded the original standards to DOE for a more adequate statement of reasons addressing practicability, cost-benefit analysis, and impacts on affected groups. Plaintiffs argued that the revised standards remained arbitrary, capricious, and impracticable. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court upheld the revised interim standards, finding that DOE had sufficiently justified its adoption of modified ASHRAE-based criteria, that the interim nature of the standards and their limited application to federal buildings warranted deference, and that the statutory requirements had been met.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power

The case involved claims of libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress brought by Eric Foretich, an oral surgeon, and his parents Vincent and Doris Foretich against a publishing company, an editor, and a freelance writer over a letter to the editor and accompanying editor's note in the January 1989 issue of Glamour magazine. The publication concerned the highly publicized custody dispute between Eric Foretich and Elizabeth Morgan involving their daughter Hilary and allegations of sexual abuse. After prior dismissals of most claims, the court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the claims of Vincent and Eric Foretich, and to defendant Trebilcock on the claims of Doris Foretich, but denied summary judgment as to the other defendants on Doris Foretich's claims. The court reasoned that Vincent and Eric Foretich failed to show actionable defamation or distress, that Doris Foretich qualified as a limited-purpose public figure, and that her remaining claims turned on factual issues of falsity, context, and special damages under Virginia law that required trial.

free speechtorts & liabilityfamily law