The case involved the Lumber Industry Pension Fund suing Warm Springs Forest Products Industries (WSFPI), a tribally owned lumber mill on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, to collect unpaid pension contributions required under a collective bargaining agreement and ERISA. WSFPI had stopped payments for tribal member employees after a tribal ordinance required equivalent benefits under tribal plans. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that ERISA does not apply to WSFPI because the operation of a tribal pension plan constitutes a purely intramural matter of self-government. The reasoning relied on the principle that, despite the general applicability of federal statutes to Indian tribes, an exception exists for matters involving core tribal self-governance, which ERISA's pension requirements would infringe upon in this internal context.
The case Brown v. McMahon was a class action brought by AFDC recipients challenging the California Department of Social Services' policy on calculating benefit levels under the federal AFDC program. Specifically, the dispute centered on whether social security benefits paid to children of disabled wage earners qualify as "child support" eligible for the $50 monthly disregard under the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984's amendments to 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(8)(A)(vi). The court examined the statute's mandatory filing unit, pass-through, and disregard provisions, along with related regulations and legislative history. It reasoned from the plain language of the statute, including its parenthetical reference to section 657(b), that the disregard applies to child support payments more broadly than only those collected by the state, while distinguishing contrary interpretations from other courts.
This case involved an environmental group (MESS) suing the Secretary of Defense over alleged hazardous waste handling, toxic discharges, and permit violations at McClellan Air Force Base under RCRA, the Clean Water Act, state hazardous waste and water laws, and the APA. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court ruled that RCRA permits were not required for waste units that had not handled hazardous materials after the November 19, 1980 effective date of the permitting regulations, that the base had not violated CWA section 301 through discharges from waste pits into navigable waters, and that plaintiffs had no APA cause of action to enforce certain state statutory provisions against the federal facility. The court also declined to issue declaratory relief on previously dismissed claims due to mootness or lack of jurisdiction and noted limited admissions of NPDES effluent violations while finding other counts moot. These holdings rested on the plain language of the federal statutes, regulatory definitions of storage and disposal, sovereign immunity principles, and the inapplicability of state requirements to federal facilities under the CWA.
In this case, plaintiff Rezendes filed a civil action in California state court in November 1987 against Dow Corning and Doe defendants. More than a year later, after defendant received the complaint in April 1989, Dow Corning filed (and then amended) a petition to remove the case to federal court on diversity grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing procedural defects and untimeliness. The court held that the 1988 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) impose a strict one-year limit on removal based on diversity jurisdiction measured from the commencement of the action in state court, a limit that had expired here; removal statutes are to be strictly construed, and the action was therefore improvidently removed.
The case involved defendants Abdelkader Helmy and James Huffman, who were charged with conspiring to export and actually exporting certain commodities and defense articles without required licenses, in violation of the Arms Export Control Act and Export Administration Act. The defendants moved for discovery of documents detailing the process and rationale for placing the items on the U.S. Munitions List and Commodity Control List, seeking to challenge the validity of those designations. The court denied the discovery request on reconsideration, holding that determinations regarding placement on the lists fall within the executive branch's authority over national security and foreign affairs. The reasoning emphasized internal executive safeguards, periodic reviews, and interagency coordination under the statutes, along with the principle that such classifications are not subject to judicial inquiry in this context.
The case North Valley Baptist Church v. McMahon concerned a religiously-affiliated preschool's challenge to California's Child Care Facilities Act, which requires day care centers including preschools to obtain licenses and comply with regulations on health, safety, staffing, and operations. The court was asked to decide whether the licensing scheme, as applied to the preschool, violated the free exercise clause, establishment clause, equal protection clause, or parental rights guarantees. After reviewing the Act's provisions on corporal punishment, criminal record checks, and religious services access, along with its exemption for certain non-day-care facilities, the court concluded that the preschool operated as a day care center subject to licensure and that the neutral, generally applicable regulations did not unconstitutionally burden religious exercise or create impermissible distinctions. The core reasoning was that the scheme addressed only health and safety without regulating program content or religious activities, applied equally to secular and religious providers, and aligned with similar conclusions in other state court decisions.