Latest 4 Cases: Maryland v. Federal Aviation Administration (Aviation), Molock v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. (Class Action), Committee on the ...

Can A City Refuse Land-Use Permits Because it Doesn’t Like the Federal Policies the Property Will be Used to Implement?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains why a local government cannot constitutionally create policy discriminating against entities that do business with the feds. Specifically, Amar discusses a situation in which the city of Farland, California, is trying to prevent a privately operated state prison facility located in that city from contracting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Read More

Maryland v. Federal Aviation Administration

Docket: 18-1173

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: Henderson

Areas of Law: Aviation, Government & Administrative Law

The DC Circuit dismissed the State's petition challenging the FAA's amended flight paths to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport as untimely. Although the State acknowledged that its petition was filed well after the statutory sixty-day review window, it claimed reasonable grounds for the delay. The court held, however, that the State's delay was extreme and it lacked reasonable grounds for missing the statutory deadline. The court explained that the key distinction between this case and City of Phoenix v. Huerta, 869 F.3d 963 (D.C. Cir. 2017), is the FAA's near constant engagement with petitioner City of Phoenix throughout the period between the new flight paths' implementation and the City's late petition. In this case, throughout the more than two and one-half years during which the State delayed filing its petitioner, its communications with the FAA were almost entirely self-initiated, sporadic and primarily through the Working Group. The court also denied the State's motion to amend as moot.

Molock v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.

Docket: 18-7162

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: David S. Tatel

Areas of Law: Class Action, Labor & Employment Law

Current and former Whole Foods employees initiated this diversity action seeking to recover purportedly lost wages, alleging that Whole Foods manipulated its incentive-based bonus program, resulting in employees losing wages otherwise owed to them. In the not yet certified class action, Whole Foods moved to dismiss all nonresident putative class members for lack of personal jurisdiction. The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Whole Foods' motion to dismiss, on alternative grounds, holding that putative class members -- absent class certification -- are not parties before a court and thus Whole Foods' motion was premature. The court wrote that, only after the putative class members are added to the action, should the district court entertain Whole Foods' motion to dismiss the non-named class members. Finally, the court held that Whole Foods' remaining arguments were without merit.

Committee on the Judiciary v. United States Department of Justice

Docket: 19-5288

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: Judith Ann Wilson Rogers

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

The Committee seeks to obtain the redacted grand jury materials referenced in the Special Counsel's Report in connection with its impeachment investigation of President Trump. The Committee requested three categories of grand jury materials: (1) all portions of the Mueller Report that were redacted pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); (2) any portions of grand jury transcripts or exhibits referenced in those redactions; and (3) any underlying grand jury testimony and exhibits that relate directly to certain individuals and events described in the Mueller Report. The district court authorized disclosure of the first two categories of requested information and stated that the Committee could file additional requests articulating its particularized need for the third category of information. The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's decision authorizing disclosure of the grand jury materials under the "judicial proceeding" exception in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(i). The court held that a Senate impeachment trial qualifies as a "judicial proceeding" under the rule. The court also held that the Committee has established a "particularized need" for the grand jury materials. The court wrote that Counsel Mueller prepared his Report with the expectation that Congress would review it; the district court released only those materials that the Special Counsel found sufficiently relevant to discuss or cite in his Report; the Department has already released information in the Report that was redacted to avoid harm to peripheral third parties and to ongoing investigations, thereby reducing the need for continued secrecy; and the Committee's particularized need for the grand jury materials remains unchanged. In this case, the Committee has repeatedly stated that if the grand jury materials reveal new evidence of impeachable offenses, the Committee may recommend new articles of impeachment.

Evans v. Bureau of Prisons

Docket: 18-5068

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: Sentelle

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking to compel the release of records related to an incident in which plaintiff was stabbed from behind with a screwdriver in prison. The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment insofar as it pertains to the Bureau's response to plaintiff's request for records related to the screwdriver. In this case, nothing in the record refutes the Bureau's repeated assertions that it knows nothing about the screwdriver and has no records responsive to plaintiff's demands. The court vacated and remanded the judgment to the district court in regard to the Bureau's withholding of surveillance footage under Exemptions (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E), holding that the agency's declaration was too unspecific on its own to establish that withholding the footage was justified.