Donald S. Voorhees

This case involved a Korean national challenging the INS's denial of his request to extend nonimmigrant treaty investor status tied to his motel investment in the U.S. The court reviewed the denial under the arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion standard and determined that the INS had abused its discretion by not considering evidence of the plaintiff's other assets, such as bank accounts, real estate, and a pension, when assessing whether the motel qualified as a marginal enterprise solely for earning a living. The court remanded the matter to the INS to evaluate the full record, including those assets, and issue a decision that accounts for all relevant factors in line with agency precedents.

immigrationprocedurefederal power

This case concerned the Suquamish Indian Tribe's asserted rights under the Treaty of Point Elliott and the creation and expansion of the Port Madison Indian Reservation in Washington. Plaintiffs sought declarations that the Tribe was a party to the treaty entitled to assert rights on behalf of its members, that the reservation was established by the treaty, and that its boundaries were enlarged by a Secretarial Order of October 21, 1864. Defendants cross-moved for findings that the treaty and order did not affirmatively grant land rights to the Tribe and that certain lands including tidelands were not included. The court granted plaintiffs' motion in part and denied defendants' motion, ruling that the Tribe was recognized by the federal government as a party to the treaty, the reservation was established by the treaty, and the order enlarged the reservation. The court reached these conclusions by deferring to the executive branch's political determination of tribal status and by interpreting the treaty and order in light of accompanying historical correspondence, while declining to address tideland issues as outside the permitted scope or subject to factual disputes.

federal powercivil rightsproperty

In Hirabayashi v. United States, the petitioner sought a writ of error coram nobis to vacate his 1942 misdemeanor convictions for failing to report to a Civil Control Station under Civilian Exclusion Order No. 57 and for violating a curfew under Public Proclamation No. 3, both targeting persons of Japanese ancestry during World War II, on the ground that the government had suppressed evidence about the military necessity for the orders. The court granted the petition as to the failure-to-report conviction, finding that the nondisclosure was an error of the most fundamental character that prejudiced the petitioner's Supreme Court appeal, but denied it as to the curfew conviction. The court reasoned that the curfew was a milder and temporary restriction that the Supreme Court would have upheld even with the suppressed evidence, while the exclusion order's basis directly undermined the reporting requirement.

civil rightscriminal lawfederal power

This case arose after Queen City Savings and Loan made a $2 million loan to Wayne Rembold that later went into default; FSLIC was appointed receiver for Queen City and transferred the loan to Gibraltar, which then asserted cross-claims against Westside Federal based on a standby commitment. FSLIC moved to dismiss those cross-claims, arguing that federal statutes require claims against it in its capacity as receiver to be presented first to the receiver and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board for administrative resolution before any court action. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that 12 U.S.C. §§ 1464(d)(6)(C) and 1729(d) mandate exhaustion of the administrative process and that allowing immediate judicial review under 12 U.S.C. § 1730(k)(1) would create an irreconcilable conflict with those provisions. It adopted the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit in Hudspeth, found that the statutes should be read to preserve the administrative scheme Congress created for liquidating troubled thrifts, and rejected Gibraltar's arguments that the process was unconstitutional or that discovery was needed before deciding the purely legal issue.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a seaman employed by the State of Alaska who was injured aboard a state ferry and sought traditional maritime remedies including damages under the Jones Act for negligence, a claim for unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. The defendant moved for summary judgment based on a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between the plaintiff's union and the state that substituted Alaska workers' compensation benefits for those traditional seamen's remedies. The court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the claims with prejudice, finding that the agreement was the product of equal bargaining, provided an adequate quid pro quo through advantages such as the inapplicability of comparative negligence, a presumption of coverage, and more certain and speedy benefits, and therefore controlled over the historical maritime remedies.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved the EEOC's enforcement action against Cudahy Foods under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, where the defendants moved to dismiss the suit or strike the EEOC's jury demand on grounds including lack of authority to enforce the ADEA and improper conciliation efforts. The court held that the defendants had standing to challenge the EEOC's authority but ruled that the agency retained enforcement power, as the 1979 transfer from the Department of Labor via Executive Order 12144 remained valid despite the Supreme Court's Chadha decision on legislative vetoes. The court further found that the EEOC had fulfilled its conciliation duties and was entitled to a jury trial under applicable precedent. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss or strike the jury demand was denied.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

This case involves a class action lawsuit by Washington residents challenging the Social Security Administration's denial or termination of disability benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The court certified a class of applicants and recipients whose claims were evaluated under agency regulations and granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the Secretary from issuing determinations that fail to follow specific Ninth Circuit precedents on disability standards, including those for continuing reviews, alcoholism or drug addiction, and medical evaluations. The injunction was issued after the court determined that plaintiffs faced irreparable injury, were likely to prevail on the merits, that the balance of harms favored relief, and that it served the public interest. The ruling also directed priority reviews of class members' claims, notifications to affected individuals, and access to files for plaintiffs' counsel to verify compliance.

healthcarefederal power

This case involved former seasonal agricultural workers suing Green Giant Company, alleging a conspiracy to interfere with their organizational and collective bargaining rights under Washington state law in violation of federal civil rights statute 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3). The plaintiffs, certified as a class of agricultural employees who supported or sought to support the United Farm Workers union, claimed discrimination based on their status as union applicants or supporters or as out-of-state residents. The court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on the Section 1985(3) claims, holding that neither proposed class qualified for protection under the statute because it requires some racial or similarly class-based invidiously discriminatory animus, which was absent here. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the state law claim due to genuine issues of material fact regarding the defendant's motivation and granted limited discovery relief.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved Western Processing Company seeking to quash an administrative inspection warrant issued to the EPA for entering and monitoring a hazardous waste facility under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The court denied the motion to quash the warrant and for a preliminary injunction, allowing the EPA to proceed with its planned sampling and testing activities. The decision was based on the EPA's statutory authority to conduct such inspections and monitoring when hazardous wastes may present a substantial hazard, with the warrant supported by reasonable grounds and consistent with Fourth Amendment protections through ex parte procedures. The court found the warrant not overly broad and that Western Processing had not shown entitlement to injunctive relief.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a Veterans Administration employee who claimed hypersensitivity to tobacco smoke constituted a handicap under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and sought damages and equitable relief against his supervisor and the agency for failing to provide a completely smoke-free work environment. The court first dismissed the claims against the supervisor, finding no violation of any clearly established statutory or constitutional right. It determined that the plaintiff qualified as a handicapped person because his condition substantially limited his ability to work, but concluded there was no evidence of discrimination by the VA on the basis of that handicap, as the plaintiff received positive evaluations and the agency had made reasonable efforts to accommodate him by adjusting ventilation and workspace options. The court further reasoned that, absent a specific statute or policy banning smoking in federal offices, the rights of smoking employees must be balanced against the plaintiff's preferences, and no injunctive relief or damages were warranted.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a plaintiff whose requests to transfer into a management trainee program and a fireman position at Union Pacific Railroad were denied, leading to claims of handicap discrimination under Washington law based on his obesity, borderline hypertension, and osteoarthritis. The court ruled for the defendant, dismissing the complaint with prejudice after finding no discrimination, no disparate impact on a protected class, and no retaliation or emotional distress. The decision rested on findings that the railroad's uniform, system-wide physical standards in Form 2501 were bona fide occupational qualifications justified by business necessity for safety and efficiency in demanding roles, developed through careful medical study, and that the plaintiff's conditions did not qualify as handicaps since they were not immutable or did not substantially limit daily activities; even assuming morbid obesity was a handicap, the standards applied were lawful under precedent like Rose v. Hanna Mining Company.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved three airline employees suing their union under the Railway Labor Act for breaching its duty of fair representation after the union unilaterally withdrew their grievances without notice, preventing the employees from pursuing the claims themselves. The court held that airline employees have a statutory right to individually process grievances, consistent with the rights of railroad employees and the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. It further ruled that the union's action was arbitrary because it lacked a rational basis and reflected reckless disregard for the employees' rights, severely prejudicing them without justification. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the union's cross-motion.

labor & employment

This case involved a challenge by several Washington school districts to Initiative 350, a voter-approved measure that generally barred school boards from assigning students to schools outside their neighborhoods for the purpose of racial integration or balance. The U.S. District Court held the initiative unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the measure was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose, as shown by its disparate impact on minority students, the sequence of events leading to its passage, and its unusual preemption of local school board authority over student assignments, which departed from traditional state practice. The court further concluded that the initiative was invalid because it broadly prohibited even those student assignments needed to remedy de jure segregation, leaving districts with no way to fulfill their constitutional obligations without violating the law.

civil rights

The case concerns a longshoreman's personal injury claim against a shipowner under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Act, in which the defendant raised affirmative defenses seeking to reduce or apportion damages based on the concurrent negligence of the plaintiff's stevedore employer. The court granted the motion to strike the defense that would limit the shipowner's liability to its percentage of fault. It reasoned that Supreme Court decisions in Halcyon Lines v. Haenn and Pope & Talbot v. Hawn establish that full recovery from a negligent shipowner is permitted absent a congressional scheme for contribution or apportionment among joint tortfeasors. The court denied the motion to strike the affirmative defense regarding the stevedore's potential lien on any recovery, deferring that issue for later argument.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employment