June Lazenby Green

The case involved Zotos International, a cosmetics manufacturer, which sought to exempt a chemical ingredient used in its products from FDA-mandated labeling disclosure under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act by claiming trade secret status. After a lengthy administrative process, the FDA denied the exemption, concluding based on cited publications and patents that the ingredient and its use were not confidential. Zotos challenged this denial in court under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on Count II. The court held that the FDA's determination was arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to provide adequate notice of the evidence it relied upon or a sufficient opportunity for Zotos to respond before final agency action.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved a former employee of Arabian national origin who sued his employer for alleged discrimination in employment decisions including promotions, pay, and termination, bringing claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various other constitutional and statutory provisions. The court granted the employer's motion to dismiss the Title VII claims based on race, color, religion, and sex because those grounds were not raised in the EEOC complaint, and it dismissed most other claims for lack of jurisdiction, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or failure to state a viable cause of action. The court permitted the plaintiff to proceed on certain national origin claims under Title VII and Section 1981 only if he filed a more definite statement specifying the facts, and it struck requests for punitive damages and a jury trial on the Title VII claims. The core reasoning was that administrative exhaustion requirements limit the scope of judicial claims and that the cited provisions do not support the alleged bases of discrimination or relief.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case concerned a request for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses after a successful sex discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was resolved at the administrative level before the Department of the Interior. The district court held that federal administrative agencies have discretion to award such fees in Title VII cases, endorsing the analysis in Smith v. Califano. However, the court declined to decide the amount or appropriateness of fees itself, citing its lack of firsthand knowledge of factors like case complexity and attorney skill, and instead remanded the matter to the agency for initial resolution. The ruling noted that the agency's prior reluctance to award fees was understandable given prior uncertainty but that the path was now clearer following recent precedent.

civil rightsprocedure

This FOIA case involves the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and its Washington bureau chief seeking disclosure of FBI investigatory files compiled over a decade, including those related to phone record subpoenas issued during a 1971 grand jury probe into the Pentagon Papers leak. The defendants withheld 68 documents or portions under multiple exemptions, including those for national security, confidential sources, and privacy. Plaintiffs challenged the withholdings and sought in camera review, while defendants moved for summary judgment. The court ruled that in camera inspection of the documents is warranted on a case-by-case basis to enable de novo assessment of the exemption claims, given the plaintiffs' credible challenges and the availability of public Vaughn indices to guide the review.

free speechprocedure

The case involved importers seeking refunds of a 10% supplemental duty on dutiable imports collected under Presidential Proclamation 4074, issued in August 1971 to address a balance-of-payments crisis during a declared national emergency. Defendants moved to dismiss the suits for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that the U.S. Customs Court possessed exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1582 because the claims concerned the classification, rate, and amount of duties and related exactions within the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority. The court noted that the statutory language, the surcharge’s integration with existing tariff schedules, and Congress’s subsequent enactment of specific surcharge authority in the Trade Act of 1974 all confirmed the Customs Court’s exclusive role, leaving no jurisdiction in district court even for plaintiffs who had not filed timely administrative protests.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Lucas v. United States, plaintiff Theodore Lucas sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for assault, battery, false arrest, and personal injury, seeking damages after deputy U.S. Marshals arrested him outside a highly secured Superior Court courtroom during a murder trial involving Black militants. The court, after a bench trial, entered judgment for the United States and dismissed the case. It found that Deputy Parker had approached Lucas while investigating a potential security breach near the courtroom, that Lucas became belligerent and physically grabbed the deputy causing him to lose balance, and that this conduct gave the deputies probable cause to arrest Lucas for assaulting a federal officer. The court reasoned that the arrest was made in good faith during official duties, that Lucas was aware Parker was a marshal, and that under D.C. common law the United States could not be held liable on a respondeat superior theory when the arresting officers themselves would not be liable.

criminal lawfederal powertorts & liability

In Ward v. Califano, the plaintiff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, alleging that her employer at the National Institutes of Health discriminated against her on the basis of sex by requiring her to perform GS-3 Pharmacy Assistant duties from 1964 to 1970 while paying her only as a GS-2 Medical Aide. The defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the claim not being pending on the 1972 effective date of the amendments, failure to consult an EEO counselor within 30 days, and untimely filing of the court complaint after the Civil Service Commission's final decision. The court denied the motion, holding that the administrative process initiated in December 1971 rendered the claim pending on the critical date, that the agency's full investigation and findings negated any prejudice from the delayed counseling, and that the 30-day period for filing suit began only upon the plaintiff's actual receipt of notice in December 1976, making her January 1977 complaint timely.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by the Six Nations Confederacy to the constitutionality of Indian Claims Commission procedures under the 1946 Act and the validity of the final judgment and award in Docket No. 84, which compensated certain tribes for deficiencies under two 18th-century treaties. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent distribution of the approximately $30,000 award, alleging that unauthorized representatives had pursued the claims and that payment would violate due process by impairing the Confederacy's treaty rights. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the judgment had become final after congressional appropriation and distribution plan approval, that the plaintiff had received notice but made no timely intervention attempt, and that an independent action in the Court of Claims might be the appropriate avenue instead.

civil rightsfederal powerpropertyprocedure

In Cleaver v. Kelley, plaintiffs filed a Freedom of Information Act request for files on Eldridge and Kathleen Cleaver, including FBI activities against them and the Black Panther Party, and sought expedited processing because of Eldridge Cleaver's impending California criminal trial on attempted murder and assault charges. The district court initially denied expedited treatment due to the agency's backlog and chronological processing policy, but on remand from the D.C. Circuit, the court assessed whether exceptional need or urgency existed. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering the defendants to process the narrowed request ahead of others and to produce non-exempt documents or a detailed index of claimed exemptions by January 12, 1977. The core reasoning was that the risk to Mr. Cleaver's liberty or life in the criminal proceeding, combined with the potential for exculpatory information tied to known FBI covert activities during the relevant period, created an exceptional and urgent need that justified prioritizing the request over others.

criminal lawcivil rightsfree speech

This case involves the United States seeking enforcement of a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determination under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that a defect in the fuel inlet plug of Rochester Quadrajet carburetors in certain 1965-1966 Chevrolet and Buick vehicles created a risk of raw gasoline discharge and engine fires. General Motors refused to issue the required owner notifications and contested the finding, claiming any future risk of injury or death was statistically negligible. On the government's motion for summary judgment, the court found that the defect existed, was related to motor vehicle safety, and posed an unreasonable risk of accidents and injuries because plug failure could cause vehicles to stop in traffic or lead to underhood fires that endanger occupants. The court ordered General Motors to provide the notifications and imposed a $400,000 civil penalty.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Eldridge and Kathleen Cleaver to the Department of Justice and FBI for records relating to them, which they sought on an expedited basis for use in Eldridge Cleaver's upcoming state criminal trial. The plaintiffs sued to compel immediate processing and disclosure, arguing that the agency's failure to meet statutory deadlines amounted to a denial. The court held that the FBI's chronological processing policy complied with FOIA because exceptional circumstances existed due to an unprecedented surge in requests that created a large backlog, despite the agency's substantial increase in staff and due diligence. The court therefore entered judgment for the defendants and declined to retain jurisdiction or order expedited handling.

free speechcriminal lawprocedure

This case involves a Freedom of Information Act request by plaintiff Florence for the Technical Abstract Bulletin Indexes produced by the Department of Defense, which indexes technical reports and is classified as confidential overall. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on undisputed facts showing that most indexed reports and their titles are unclassified. The court decided that the defendants must disclose each unclassified entry because the FOIA requires disclosure of reasonably segregable portions of records after deleting exempt parts, without reaching the question of whether the classification itself was proper under Executive Order 11652. Additionally, the court awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the plaintiff as the prevailing party under the Act.

federal powerprocedure

This case involved thirteen states and others challenging a federal HEW regulation under the AFDC program that withheld federal matching funds from states when erroneous payments exceeded tolerance levels of 3% for ineligible recipients and 5% for overpayments. The plaintiffs argued that HEW lacked authority to set such financial disallowances by regulation and that the specific percentages were unreasonable. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding the regulation invalid. It reasoned that the tolerance levels were arbitrarily chosen without adequate empirical support from the Westat study, that HEW failed to articulate relevant findings or respond to concerns raised in rulemaking, and that the rule was inconsistent with the Social Security Act by unreasonably restricting funds needed to fulfill the program's purposes.

federal powerhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a reporter suing Amtrak under the Freedom of Information Act for access to portions of its Board of Directors meeting minutes and related corporate documents showing policy actions, individual votes, and the basis of decisions. The court ruled that Amtrak, created by federal statute and heavily funded by the government, must disclose final policy decisions, resolutions, approved actions, final votes including names of dissenting directors, and purely factual material such as meeting dates and attendees, while protecting predecisional deliberative discussions. Core reasoning distinguished between non-disclosable internal policy-making communications under exemption 5 and disclosable final agency actions or separable facts, drawing on precedents like NLRB v. Sears; it also applied a balancing test under exemption 6 to require salary disclosures due to the public interest in accountability and rejected exemption 7 as inapplicable to non-law-enforcement records.

federal powerprocedure

The case involved Heidi Ann Fletcher, who was convicted in 1971 of first-degree murder, bank robbery, and related charges and sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act (YCA) to a nine-year commitment based on her potential for rehabilitation. Despite her progress in treatment programs and institutional recommendations for conditional release in 1975, the U.S. Board of Parole denied parole solely on the ground that the severity of her offense would depreciate the seriousness of the crime. Fletcher sought relief via habeas corpus and a motion to correct sentence, contending that the YCA prohibits denying release to a rehabilitated youth offender based only on offense severity. The court held that the Parole Board's decision violated the YCA's focus on treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment, granted the habeas petition, and ordered her conditional release under supervision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by the National Congress of Hispanic American Citizens (formerly RASSA) against the Secretary of Labor and others, alleging failure to promulgate required permanent occupational safety and health standards for agricultural workers under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, including field sanitation, personal protective equipment, machinery guarding, rollover protection, nuisance dust, and noise, in violation of statutory timelines and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs after finding that several requested standards had either been issued or become moot, but that the Secretary had violated mandatory time limits in 29 U.S.C. § 655(b) by delaying publication of proposed rules, advisory committee recommendations, and final actions on the remaining standards. The core reasoning was that the Act's deadlines are not merely hortatory but reflect congressional intent to ensure timely standards for safe working conditions, particularly for migrant farmworkers, and that the agency's inaction constituted unlawful withholding of required agency action. The court ordered the defendants to proceed without undue delay in publishing and finalizing the standards while adhering to the Act's procedural timelines going forward.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves a challenge by the Investment Company Institute to a Federal Reserve Board regulation allowing bank holding companies to serve as investment advisors to registered investment companies, claiming it violates the Glass-Steagall Act. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief in district court after participating in the administrative proceedings. The court dismissed the case, holding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because judicial review of Board actions under the Bank Holding Company Act is exclusively vested in the courts of appeals pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1848. The reasoning was that the 1970 amendments allowing regulations instead of only orders did not change the review provision, and the comprehensive administrative record makes appellate review appropriate, especially with summary judgment motions pending.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Hoffmann-LaRoche, a pharmaceutical company holding approved new drug applications for chlordiazepoxide (Librium), challenging the FDA's interim policy of allowing manufacturers of chemically equivalent 'me-too' drugs to market them via abbreviated new drug applications without full preclearance approval under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the policy violated 21 U.S.C. § 355, which requires affirmative FDA approval before introducing new drugs into interstate commerce. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, permanently enjoining the FDA from implementing the policy. The core reasoning was that the 1962 New Drug Amendments mandate prior approval based on safety and effectiveness data for all new drugs, including me-toos, and the FDA cannot use abbreviated procedures as a holding action to bypass this statutory requirement.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case concerned a challenge by Tax Analysts and Advocates to IRS Revenue Ruling 72-355, which allowed political donors to qualify for the annual $3,000 gift tax exclusion by contributing in increments to multiple campaign finance committees for the same candidate, provided at least one-third of each committee's officers differed. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate the ruling as inconsistent with the gift tax statute and Supreme Court precedent in Helvering v. Hutchings. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Anti-Injunction Act (§7421(a)), the Declaratory Judgment Act's tax exception, sovereign immunity, and lack of standing barred the suit. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that §7421(a) did not apply because the plaintiffs sought to compel collection of additional taxes rather than restrain existing collections, and that recent Supreme Court decisions supported jurisdiction and standing in such cases.

taxeselections

This case involves a dispute between a District of Columbia real estate brokerage firm and a Florida development company over an unpaid commission for procuring a buyer for Florida property. The plaintiffs alleged that an agent approached them in D.C. to enter a brokerage agreement, which was later ratified by the defendant's vice-president via telephone. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under the D.C. long-arm statute, holding that the ratification via phone call into the District constituted transacting business sufficient to invoke jurisdiction in a contract action. The court also denied the motion to preclude testimony from the alleged agent, finding that the communications were not confidential and thus not protected by attorney-client privilege.

procedurebusiness & regulatory