James Robertson

The case involves a habeas corpus petition filed by Omar Mohammed Khalifh, a Libyan national detained at Guantanamo Bay, challenging his detention by the U.S. government. The court denied the petition and granted the government's motion for judgment on the record. The decision was based on the government's evidence showing by a preponderance of the evidence that Khalifh was part of al-Qaida and associated forces, including his activities in Sudan working for Osama bin Laden's company, receiving training, and his continued associations in Afghanistan up to his capture in 2002, without evidence of dissociation.

criminal lawfederal powercivil rights

The case involved Khadija Duma's remaining Title VII claim against her employer Fannie Mae for alleged workplace discrimination, following the earlier dismissal of most other claims and the voluntary withdrawal of an ERISA claim. The court granted Fannie Mae's motion to dismiss the Title VII claim. It did so because Duma had not filed a signed charge of discrimination with the EEOC within the required 300-day period after the last alleged discriminatory act, had not pursued corrections to an EEOC draft in a timely manner, and had not shown circumstances justifying equitable tolling of the deadline.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Kapche v. Holder, plaintiff Jeffrey Kapche prevailed at trial on his Rehabilitation Act claim that the FBI discriminated against him by revoking a conditional job offer due to his diabetes, and the court addressed his request for equitable remedies including back pay, instatement, and front pay. The court denied all equitable relief after March 1, 2007, applying the McKennon after-acquired evidence doctrine because the FBI discovered and relied in good faith on plaintiff's prior misconduct involving unauthorized gasoline use and inconsistent explanations that demonstrated lack of candor, which would have independently disqualified him from employment. The court further found no back pay was owed for the earlier period because expert calculations, after correcting errors, showed that Kapche would have earned less in the FBI position than in his actual employment, resulting in no net economic damages. The defense was properly raised, the misconduct was unrelated to the discrimination, and McKennon principles extend to refusal-to-hire cases.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved the estate and family of Mark Parsons, a U.S. national killed in a 2003 bombing near the Ben Hanoun junction in Gaza while escorting diplomats, who sued the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization under the Antiterrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333, alleging they provided material support for or conspired in the attack in violation of related federal criminal statutes such as 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A, 2332(b), and 2339B. The plaintiffs identified Amer Qarmout and the Popular Resistance Committee as possible perpetrators based on PA investigation files but offered no other admissible evidence tying them directly to the bombing. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, because the plaintiffs failed to prove the identity of the actual bomber or establish a sufficient connection between the defendants and the attack to support liability. The court also denied the plaintiffs' request for additional discovery, finding insufficient grounds to believe further efforts would yield necessary evidence.

criminal lawtorts & liability

Deborah Minor sued the USDA under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, alleging she was paid less than white male colleagues, faced race and sex discrimination through various workplace actions like delayed responses and exclusion from meetings, suffered retaliation for protected activity, and endured a hostile work environment. The court dismissed the Equal Pay Act claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claim exceeded $10,000 or was subject to venue restrictions under the Tucker Acts. It granted summary judgment on the Title VII claims because Minor did not exhaust her race and sex discrimination claims, failed to show an adverse employment action or pretext for the agency's legitimate explanations regarding retaliation, and the alleged incidents did not meet the severe or pervasive standard for a hostile work environment claim.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved the estate and family of Mark Parsons, a U.S. security officer killed in a 2003 bombing in Gaza while escorting diplomats, suing the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) under the Antiterrorism Act for allegedly supporting the attack. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. It reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence identifying the specific perpetrators or establishing that the PA or PLO provided material support to them or conspired in the bombing, as required under the relevant criminal statutes incorporated by the ATA; claims against the PLO lacked any supporting evidence, and requests for additional discovery did not meet the necessary standards.

criminal lawprocedure

In this Rehabilitation Act employment discrimination case, plaintiff Jeffrey Kapche prevailed at trial on his claim that the FBI discriminated against him by revoking a conditional job offer due to his diabetes, resulting in a $100,000 damages award. The court then addressed equitable remedies, applying the McKennon after-acquired evidence doctrine to deny instatement and front pay because the FBI discovered and relied on evidence of the plaintiff's prior lack of candor regarding a disciplinary incident at a former employer, which would have independently justified refusing to hire him. For back pay covering the period from the initial discrimination to the after-acquired evidence date, expert calculations showed that Kapche's actual earnings and benefits exceeded what he would have received as an FBI Special Agent, resulting in no compensable economic loss. The court therefore awarded no additional equitable relief.

civil rightslabor & employment

Deborah Minor sued the USDA under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, alleging lower pay than white male colleagues, failure to provide performance appraisals or awards, disparate treatment in work conditions and budget, exclusion from meetings, demeaning remarks, and other acts of mistreatment and retaliation. The court dismissed the Equal Pay Act claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, as the claim appeared to exceed $10,000 or was improperly venued. It granted summary judgment on the Title VII claims because Minor did not exhaust administrative remedies for race discrimination, failed to show an adverse employment action for gender discrimination, and did not rebut the agency's legitimate non-retaliatory explanations or demonstrate severe or pervasive conduct for hostile work environment or retaliation claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In Breeden v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., plaintiff Mary Kate Breeden sued her former employer for alleged retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act after she took FMLA leave in 2005 for pregnancy; a jury found in her favor, but the court considered Novartis's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law. The case centered on a 2005 sales territory realignment that reduced Breeden's customers and the company's failure to restore her territory afterward, which she claimed led to her termination during a separate 2008 realignment. The court granted the motion and entered judgment for Novartis, holding that Breeden failed to present legally sufficient evidence that her 2008 termination and resulting loss of compensation occurred "by reason of" the 2005 events. The three-year gap and lack of proximate causation were decisive, as the 2008 realignment involved new management and consultants implementing a different strategy, with no evidence linking the two actions or showing the 2005 change made termination inevitable.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Mary Kate Breeden's claim that Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave by realigning her sales territory in 2005 and failing to restore it, which she argued led to her termination in 2008. A jury found in her favor on the FMLA retaliation claim, but the district court granted Novartis's motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court reasoned that there was no legally sufficient evidence that the 2005 realignment was the proximate cause of her termination three years later, given the intervening new management team and a separate 2008 realignment.

labor & employment

In Hicks v. Bush and related Guantanamo Bay habeas cases, the government moved for approval of a plan to use a filter team, isolated from investigators and prosecutors, to review over 1,100 pounds of materials seized from detainees' cells following three coordinated suicides in June 2006 and to identify any attorney-client privileged documents. Petitioners opposed the motion and cross-moved for return of impounded documents or contempt sanctions. The court granted the government's motion without prejudice to the cross-motions, reasoning that the protective order implicitly protects the attorney-client privilege, the NCIS investigation required review of the seized materials to probe the suicides and assess risks of future incidents, and a walled-off filter team provided an efficient mechanism for privilege screening given the volume and nature of the materials.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involved publicist Raymone Bain suing Michael Jackson and MJJ Productions for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment, seeking $44 million in finder's fees under a 2006 Personal Services Agreement for deals she claimed to have initiated. The Jackson parties moved to dismiss, primarily relying on a December 2007 release Bain signed that discharged all claims for known or unknown monies owed under any agreements through that date. The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and found that the Jackson parties had waived any right to arbitration by first litigating the merits. Applying New York law, the court held the release language was clear and unambiguous on its face, precluding Bain's claims regardless of her asserted intent or allegations of nondisclosure, and rejected her equitable claims as well. It therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by Raymone K. Bain against Michael Jackson and MJJ Productions for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment, seeking ten percent finder's fees on several deals she claimed to have initiated under a 2006 Personal Services Agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss based on a December 2007 release Bain signed that discharged all claims for monies owed, and the court converted the motion to one for summary judgment after receiving additional materials. The court found that the defendants had waived arbitration by first addressing the merits in litigation, but concluded that the release's broad language covered Bain's fee claims, that there was no duty to disclose deal statuses or evidence of fraud or mistake given Bain's knowledge of Jackson's affairs, and that the equitable claims failed because of the valid contract. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants.

business & regulatoryprocedure

James A. Washington sued the Secretary of the Army for employment discrimination and retaliation, but those claims were dismissed earlier in the case. He then moved to amend his complaint a second time to add a breach of contract claim based on an alleged violation of a 2004 federal court settlement agreement, seeking $900,000 in damages. The court denied leave to amend and dismissed the contract claim without prejudice, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because claims against the United States for breach of contract exceeding $10,000 fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1491.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

The case involves Mohammedou Ould Salahi, a Mauritanian national held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 without criminal charges, who filed a habeas corpus petition seeking release after being detained on suspicion of al-Qaida ties. The court evaluated the government's authority to detain him under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, focusing on whether Salahi was 'part of' al-Qaida based on evidence of his associations, recruitment claims, and support activities from the 1990s onward. Salahi conceded early jihad involvement and an oath to al-Qaida but argued his ties ended after 1992, while contesting the reliability of his retracted statements. The court applied legal standards from cases like Hamdi and Boumediene, rejecting a broad 'substantial support' test and requiring proof of functioning within al-Qaida's command structure, while assessing the weight of sporadic contacts and evidence. Core reasoning centered on the limits of executive detention power and the need for reliable evidence tying the detainee to the organization at the time of capture.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

This case involves a habeas corpus petition filed by Mohammedou Ould Salahi, a Mauritanian national detained at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 without criminal charges, challenging the legality of his detention under the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The government argued that Salahi was "part of" al-Qaida based on his early 1990s activities, including swearing bayat, alleged recruitment of 9/11 participants, and later contacts with members, seeking to justify indefinite detention. Salahi conceded initial involvement but maintained it ended after 1992, and the court found many of his statements unreliable due to coercion or retraction. The district court held that the government failed to meet its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that Salahi was part of al-Qaida at the time of capture, as his support was too attenuated or unproven within the organization's command structure. The court granted the petition and ordered his release.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

This case involved petitioners detained at Guantanamo Bay who filed a habeas corpus petition against President Bush and other government officials challenging their custody. After the petitioners were transferred from the facility and were no longer in United States custody, the district court addressed the status of their petition. The court dismissed the habeas petition as moot, citing a related district court decision that had reached the same conclusion in similar circumstances. The ruling rested on the principle that the transfer ended the custody giving rise to the petition, rendering further judicial review unnecessary.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case is a habeas petition brought by detainee Abdu Al-Qader Hussain Al-Mudafari against President Obama and other government officials, challenging his detention. The court considered the petitioner's renewed requests for production of documents in the proceeding. It granted the request for the six custodial statements relied on by the respondents but denied the request concerning the qualifications of interpreters. The court also granted one additional request and denied another, and directed the parties to meet and confer to propose a schedule for further proceedings.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case was a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the ACLU against the Department of Justice seeking disclosure of documents about the government's use of cell phone location tracking in criminal investigations and prosecutions without probable cause findings, including lists of cases and applications, policy templates, and related materials. The court evaluated the government's withholding of case names and docket numbers under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) by balancing defendants' privacy interests against the public interest in disclosure; it upheld redaction of application templates under Exemption 7(E) because they revealed non-obvious details of law enforcement techniques; and it found the government's search for responsive documents to be adequate and reasonable in scope. The opinion resolved these FOIA questions without addressing any underlying constitutional claims.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved the ACLU suing the DOJ under FOIA to obtain documents on the government's use of cell phone location tracking in criminal investigations and prosecutions without judicial probable cause determinations, including lists of cases and applications as well as policy documents. The court considered whether FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C) allowed withholding of case names and docket numbers, whether Exemptions 2 and 7(E) permitted redaction of application templates, and whether the government's search for responsive documents was adequate. It balanced the privacy interests of criminal defendants against the public interest in disclosure, assigning greater privacy protection to those acquitted or with dismissed or sealed cases. The court found that the government properly applied Exemption 7(E) to certain template details and that its search was reasonable and adequate.

criminal lawprocedure