The case involved the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) suing the Department of State, AID, DEA, and Department of Agriculture for failing to prepare an environmental impact statement under NEPA regarding U.S. support for Mexico's program spraying herbicides on marijuana and poppy plants. NORML argued that the spraying posed health risks to its members from contaminated marijuana and environmental harm in Mexico and the U.S., seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt U.S. participation until an EIS was completed. The defendants countered that the program was primarily a Mexican initiative that would continue without U.S. aid and that they had begun preparing an EIS on U.S. impacts and an environmental analysis for Mexico. The court found that defendants' ongoing preparation of the required statements rendered further injunctive relief unnecessary and entered judgment in favor of the defendants on all other claims.
This case involved a constitutional challenge to the National Flood Insurance Program by states, localities, and landowners in designated flood zones, who argued that the program's requirements for community participation in flood plain management and mandatory insurance for federally assisted financing violated principles of federalism under the Tenth Amendment, amounted to an uncompensated taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and failed to provide adequate due process. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and, on cross-motions for summary judgment, upheld the program against all claims. The court's core reasoning was that the program represents a valid exercise of congressional authority to mitigate national economic burdens from floods through conditional federal benefits and incentives, without directly commandeering state sovereignty or effecting a physical taking of property.
The case involved Beverly J. Nitterright, an Accounting Technician employed by the Department of the Navy, who alleged sex discrimination in compensation compared to male employees performing similar work and reprisal after filing an administrative EEO complaint. Following administrative review by the Appeals Review Board, which found both discrimination and reprisal but incomplete remedial action by the agency, the plaintiff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act seeking back pay and other relief. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ordering the defendant to pay back wages with interest and implement corrective actions, while denying a request for an injunction against future discrimination. The decision rested on the binding effect of the ARB findings, the agency's failure to fully remedy the violations as required by statute, and the evidence in the administrative record showing unequal pay and retaliatory actions.
This case involved a dispute over the Northwest Airlines Pilots’ Pension Plan, a collectively bargained agreement under the Railway Labor Act, where pilot plaintiffs sought interest payments and other relief on voluntary contributions to a former fund that was eliminated by 1975 amendments, claiming violations of ERISA. The airline moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the matter fell under the RLA's compulsory arbitration requirements rather than ERISA's federal court provisions. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the RLA governs disputes requiring interpretation of collectively bargained agreements concerning pay, rules, or working conditions, including pension plans, and that ERISA did not override this framework. The court also denied the related discovery stay as moot and declined to award attorney fees or costs.
This case involved the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against federal officials to determine whether Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which requires permits for discharging dredged or fill material into waters, applies to Puerto Rico's unnavigable waters in light of Sections 7 and 9 of the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the FWPCA permit requirements do apply to those waters. The core reasoning was that the FWPCA defines "State" to include Puerto Rico and reflects clear congressional intent for the statute to apply there, while the FRA provisions do not override or limit federal regulatory jurisdiction under the FWPCA.
This case involved consolidated lawsuits by U.S. Army Reserve officers (Majors and Captains) who were not selected for promotion by 1975 and 1976 selection boards and faced release from active duty under Army regulations. The plaintiffs challenged the original boards' composition for lacking required Reserve officer members, sought corrections to their records via the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), and argued that the boards' actions were void, with additional claims about improper zone reservations, record errors, and equal protection violations. The ABCMR initially noted the composition issue, recommended reconstituting the 1975 boards for reconsideration, but ultimately denied relief after the reconstituted boards also did not select the plaintiffs, a decision approved by the Secretary of the Army. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, applying the arbitrary-and-capricious standard and finding the ABCMR's actions lawful after reviewing all claims, including precedents like Henderson v. United States. The equal protection argument based on a related settlement was rejected as meritless.