Thomas Penfield Jackson

This case concerns whether several non-party journalists should be held in civil contempt for refusing to identify confidential sources during depositions in Wen Ho Lee's lawsuit against the Department of Justice. The court held each journalist in civil contempt of its prior October 9, 2003 order requiring them to answer questions about government sources who provided information on Wen Ho Lee, imposing a $500-per-day fine stayed pending appeal. The core reasoning was that the journalists' refusals to comply, based on assertions of reporter's privilege, claims of ignorance, or arguments that questions concerned unrelated matters, violated the clear terms of the discovery order and lacked credibility.

free speechprocedure

In Lee v. United States Department of Justice, Dr. Wen Ho Lee sued the Departments of Justice and Energy and the FBI under the Privacy Act, alleging that the agencies improperly disclosed personal information about him to the media during investigations into suspected espionage at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The plaintiff issued subpoenas to journalists who had published stories containing the allegedly leaked information, and the journalists moved to quash them based on a reporter's privilege. The court ruled that the District of Columbia Shield Law does not apply because evidentiary privileges in federal-question cases are governed exclusively by federal law under Fed. R. Evid. 501. Relying on Branzburg v. Hayes, the court reasoned that there is no absolute First Amendment privilege for journalists to withhold sources, and that lower courts must balance the interests of justice against the need to protect confidential sources on a case-by-case basis.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

The case arose from a series of agreements between Gulf Resources, its subsidiary, Occidental, and the Republic of the Congo for the purchase and sale of Congo's royalty oil between 1993 and 1996, with Gulf alleging breach of contract, conversion, tortious interference, and related claims after Congo allegedly stopped deliveries, causing Gulf over $100 million in losses including a failed merger. Congo moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, asserting sovereign immunity. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the commercial-activity exception did not apply because Congo's conduct produced no direct effects in the United States and that Congo had not waived immunity by its conduct or agreements, which provided for arbitration in Paris under French law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Barrick Goldstrike Mines sued the EPA under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the agency's use of guidance documents, letters, and preambles to reinterpret EPCRA provisions on 'manufacture' and 'process' of toxic chemicals and to limit the de minimis exemption for mixtures. These changes expanded reporting obligations under the Toxic Release Inventory program for the company's gold mining operations without formal rulemaking. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, analyzing whether the EPA's interpretations warranted deference and complied with the statute's text and APA procedures. It concluded that the EPA's expansive reading of 'process' and related terms impermissibly disregarded statutory language requiring chemicals to be prepared after their manufacture, rendering the interpretations invalid.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved Atlantic Tele-Network (ATN), an American company that built a telecommunications system in Guyana under a contract granting it an exclusive license and a guaranteed return, after which Guyana allegedly blocked rate increases and planned a competing system using funds from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). ATN sued IDB, U.S. federal officials overseeing IDB lending, and Guyana, seeking to enjoin the loan and compel enforcement of federal statutes like the Inter-American Development Bank Act and Foreign Assistance Act, plus a contract claim against Guyana. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that ATN lacked Article III standing against the federal defendants because any injury was not redressable, that the statutes provided no private right of action, that IDB enjoyed immunity, and that the contract claim against Guyana failed due to a forum-selection clause. The reasoning relied on precedents such as Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife for standing and analogous cases denying standing in similar foreign-aid disputes.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case is a wrongful death action brought by the widow, children, and estates of Malcolm Kerr against Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security for his 1984 assassination in Beirut, Lebanon, by Hizbollah gunmen acting with Iranian support as an act of terrorism. The court entered a default judgment for the plaintiffs after the defendants failed to respond and evidence was presented ex parte showing Iran's sponsorship of the killing. Jurisdiction exists under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for claims involving extrajudicial killings by state sponsors of terrorism, even though Iran was designated after the murder, because the assassination contributed to that designation. The court found the killing deliberate, unsanctioned by any tribunal, and directly linked to Iranian agents based on U.S. intelligence and prior similar cases.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityfederal power

In United States v. Price, the defendant was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana and faced sentencing under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as a career offender with a range of 360 months to life. The court accepted the Presentence Investigation Report's calculations but addressed a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during pretrial plea negotiations, where the government had offered a 30-month sentence that the defendant declined based on inadequate advice about mandatory minimums, career offender status, and trial risks. The court rejected arguments regarding over-representation of criminal history and indictment manipulation, found that original counsel failed to ensure the defendant understood the consequences of rejecting the plea, and imposed a sentence of 120 months imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release as a remedy.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Bullock, the defendant moved to suppress crack cocaine discovered under the back seat of his car after a traffic stop by plainclothes vice officers in Washington, D.C. The court granted the motion to suppress the evidence and any subsequent statements. Officers had followed and stopped Bullock after he turned left on a red light, but the court found the stop was pretextual with no genuine intent to enforce traffic laws and no probable cause for the violation. The subsequent search of the vehicle occurred without valid consent, as Bullock was not free to leave, had prior experience with such stops, and did not voluntarily invite the officers to search hidden areas of the car.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose after the FTC sued Hearst, First Databank, and related entities for an unlawful 1998 merger that created a monopoly in integratable drug information databases, resulting in a consent judgment with divestiture and a $19 million disgorgement of profits intended in part to fund private class actions. Private purchasers then filed consolidated class actions that settled in tandem with the FTC matter, creating separate direct-purchaser and indirect-purchaser settlement funds. The court granted class counsel's fee petitions in part: it awarded indirect-purchaser counsel their full requested amount (roughly 10% of their fund) but reduced direct-purchaser counsel's fee from the requested $5.115 million to $2.4 million plus expenses. The reduction rested on the percentage-of-the-fund method for common-fund cases, which limits fees to a reasonable share of the value attributable to counsel's own efforts rather than the entire fund secured primarily by the FTC's 20-month investigation and pre-suit settlement commitment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved U.S. Capitol Police Officer James Pickett, who was charged with making false statements and obstructing police duties after leaving a note and a sugar substitute powder at his post during the 2001 anthrax scare, which he intended as a prank. The court denied the motion to dismiss the false statements count under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), finding that the indictment sufficiently alleged material false statements in a matter within the legislative branch's jurisdiction. However, it granted the motion to dismiss the obstruction count under 40 U.S.C. § 212a-2(d) because the indictment failed to set forth essential facts as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1), merely reciting the statutory language without specifics.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned claims by U.S. military personnel and their families against Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security for injuries arising from the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847, during which one serviceman was murdered and others were beaten, tortured, and held hostage. The plaintiffs brought suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act seeking damages for these acts. After defaults were entered against the defendants, the court held an ex parte evidentiary hearing and found that the facts established liability under the FSIA for the terrorist acts committed by agents supported by Iran. The court therefore entered judgments awarding damages to the plaintiffs and their representatives based on the proven injuries, including loss of solatium and other harms.

criminal lawfederal powertorts & liability

This case involved United States citizens detained by Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, who were held against their will as hostages under harsh conditions, including some confined near potential military targets. The plaintiffs sued the Republic of Iraq and Saddam Hussein for money damages under 1996 amendments to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for claims including hostage-taking, false imprisonment, personal injury, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After the defendants failed to respond and default was entered, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing to establish the facts by satisfactory evidence as required by the statute. The court awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiffs based on their individual hardships and also entered a judgment for punitive damages against Saddam Hussein.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

The case was a wrongful death action brought by the family of U.S. Navy Petty Officer Michael Wagner against Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security for his death in a 1984 suicide car bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, which the court found was carried out by Hizballah acting as an instrumentality of the defendants. The defendants did not appear, so the case proceeded by default under 1996 amendments to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that permitted such suits against state sponsors of terrorism, with jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330(b) and 1605(a)(7). After an evidentiary hearing featuring testimony from U.S. ambassadors, experts, and declassified intelligence materials, the court found the defendants liable and awarded damages for economic loss from wrongful death, pain and suffering, and solatium to the plaintiffs under North Carolina law, District of Columbia law, or federal common law, which the court determined were substantially similar. The core reasoning rested on the evidence conclusively linking Hizballah's actions to Iran and MOIS, along with the calculation of damages based on expert economic projections and family impact.

federal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves a challenge by the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC), a forest products trade association, and 13 co-plaintiffs against the Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the Secretary of the Interior seeking to invalidate the Northwest Forest Plan, a 1994 regime that substantially restricted private timber harvesting and road construction on BLM forest lands in the Pacific Northwest. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, concluding that all claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. AFRC was held to be a direct successor-in-interest to Northwest Forest Resource Council, which had participated as an intervenor-defendant in the earlier Seattle litigation (Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons) that upheld the Plan. The co-plaintiffs were barred under the doctrine of virtual representation because their interests had been adequately represented in that prior litigation, which resolved the same nucleus of operative facts under applicable environmental statutes.

environmentprocedurefederal power

The case concerns thirty-one large dairy producers challenging U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations under the Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program that capped assistance payments based on the first 26,000 hundredweight of milk produced, thereby directing most funds to smaller producers. Plaintiffs alleged that the caps exceeded the Secretary's authority under the relevant appropriations acts, violating the Non-Delegation Clause, the Takings Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court reviewed the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, interpreting the statutory language that authorized the Secretary to distribute funds "in a manner determined by the Secretary" and assessing whether the caps were arbitrary or beyond the agency's discretion. The opinion analyzes standards for non-delegation, APA deference, and rational basis review of the allocation formula.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves the United States seeking civil forfeiture of approximately $4.6 million in three Spanish bank accounts allegedly containing proceeds from drug trafficking by Juan Ramon Matta Ballesteros. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and denied the claim of Matta's wife, Nancy Marlene Vasquez-Martinez, ordering the funds forfeited to the United States. The court held that it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1355(b)(2) over property located in a foreign country because the funds were under the constructive control of the court through cooperation with Spanish authorities. The action was timely filed as the government did not have knowledge of the additional accounts until later, and there was no obligation to conduct exhaustive searches to start the limitations period earlier.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

Advantage Health Plan, Inc., a Medicaid HMO, sued Thomas Knight and Dalton Tong, officers of Greater Southeast Community Hospital, for negligence and tortious interference with Advantage's contracts with the D.C. Department of Human Services and its members. The claims arose from the hospital's alleged practice of balance-billing Advantage's Medicaid patients in violation of its agreements with the District, which Advantage said caused its enrollment to drop sharply. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. It held that res judicata barred the suit because Advantage had already obtained a final judgment against the hospital for the same conduct, and the officers were in privity with the hospital as its agents acting within the scope of their duties. The court further ruled that the claims were also time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations, which began to run no later than September 1996 and was not extended by the continuing-tort doctrine beyond January 1997.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

This case is a Title VII class action lawsuit brought by African-American employees against Microsoft Corporation, alleging systemic racial discrimination in employment terms and conditions. Microsoft moved for the presiding judge's recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, citing the judge's prior involvement in antitrust cases against the company and public statements that allegedly showed bias. The court granted the recusal motion, finding that while opinions formed from prior judicial proceedings do not constitute bias under Supreme Court precedent, extra-judicial comments created an appearance of personal bias or prejudice. The case was returned to the Calendar Committee for random reassignment to another judge.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a former Navy chaplain, Rev. D. Philip Veitch, who sued for reinstatement to active duty after resigning his commission in 1999, claiming his separation was involuntary due to religious discrimination, coercion, and violations of his First Amendment rights to free exercise, free speech, and equal protection, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He sought a preliminary injunction to restore him to duty pending resolution of his claims. The court denied the motion, finding that Veitch failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, as any alleged infringement on his religious or speech rights had occurred years earlier and he was now free to preach without military constraints. The court applied a heightened standard for the requested mandatory injunction, which would alter the status quo rather than preserve it, and concluded that the balance of harms and public interest did not favor relief.

religious libertyfree speechcivil rights

This case concerns a property purchaser's claim for contribution under CERCLA § 113(f) against the District of Columbia for costs to remediate lead and mercury contamination discovered on a 7.98-acre tract in Washington, D.C., which had been bought from the United States at auction in 1985. The District denied responsibility, attributing the contaminants to historic munitions manufacturing on the adjacent former Washington Arsenal site owned by the United States, with which the plaintiff had already settled. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the contaminants originated from the Arsenal's operations prior to 1881 and rejecting alternative sources such as surface percolation, river sediments, or groundwater migration based on the even vertical distribution of pollutants and historical fill patterns. The court further held that the property qualified as a CERCLA facility and that the contamination impeded development, supporting the contribution claim for response costs.

environmentproperty