Case law

Harbury, Jennifer K. v. Deutch, John M.

244 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 12, 2000

immuni- ty because the scope of the alleged right was not clearly established. … For purposes of qualified immunity, it is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that a defendant's conduct violated a right that is clearly established in general terms.

Louis TOMASELLO, Jr., Appellant, v. Robert E. RUBIN, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Appellee

167 F.3d 612 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 29, 1999

Tomasello claimed that the disposal method he used was “clearly authorized.” McArdle disagreed, claiming that Tomasello should have returned it to local authorities because ATF had not sought forfeiture of the gun. … He does not challenge the district court’s finding that Gagliardi and Hart were better qualified.

In Re Oliver L. North (Reagan Fee Application)

94 F.3d 685 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 3, 1996

Reasonableness As we have often observed, the fee petitioner bears the burden of establishing all elements of his entitlement. See, e.g., Shultz, 8 F.3d at 852. … As noted above, the waiver of sovereign immunity found in section 593(f) must be strictly construed, see Donovan, 877 F.2d at 994 , and we must not enlarge this section’s waiver of immunity beyond what a fair reading of it

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Interstate Commerce Commission

761 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 3, 1985

ICC has thus established conditions for discharging its statutory responsibility to protect labor benefits in the midst of consolidations. … Congress has given ICC broad powers to immunize transactions from later legal obstacles, but this delegation by Congress is explicitly qualified by a necessity component.

In Re Philip Bart

304 F.2d 631 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 7, 1962

Both counsel a strict construction of the statute and suggest that it should be applied only after the necessity for so doing has been established. Thus informed, we examine the statute. … We cannot demand that the government establish or the court find the very facts the grand jury has yet to consider. *637 While the witness is entitled to notice and must be given an opportunity to be heard before being compelled

Thomas v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

305 F. Supp. 3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 9, 2018

WMATA is immune from ADEA claims. WMATA asserts that it is immune from ADEA suits; the Court agrees. … WMATA proceeded to hire another candidate, even though that candidate allegedly did not meet the posted job requirements and was allegedly less qualified than Thomas. See id. ¶¶ 5, 8-11.

Hwang, Geum Joo v. Japan

413 F.3d 45 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 27, 2003

The commercial activity exception to the FSIA, by qualifying what previously had  9 been the absolute immunity of foreign sovereigns, also ‘‘cre- ates jurisdiction where none previously existed … Did the Congress clearly intend to legislate retroactively?

Transohio Savings Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision

967 F.2d 598 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 5, 1993

Moreover, as Transohio says, reading § 702 as waiving sovereign immunity for contract claims seeking specific relief would seem to establish a coherent and complementary regime in which the Claims Court and federal district … An agency, in short, cannot contract away Congress’ sovereign power to regulate unless Congress has clearly and unmistakably empowered the agency to do so.

Swan v. Clinton

100 F.3d 973 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 22, 1996

until a “successor has qualified.” … It could be argued that “qualified” means confirmed when used in the phrase “appointed and qualified,” since otherwise the words “and qualified” would be surplusage.

Student Loan Servicing Alliance v. Dist. of Columbia

351 F. Supp. 3d 26 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 21, 2018

and intergovernmental immunity. … intergovernmental immunity.

In Re: Sealed Case

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 24, 1999

It is well established that "[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued ..., and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain … And even a discussion of "strategy and direction of the investigation" could include references to not yet delivered but clearly anticipated testimony. See Lance, 610 F.2d at 216-17 and n.4.

Harbury, Jennifer K. v. Deutch, John M.

244 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 5, 2001

immuni- ty because the scope of the alleged right was not clearly established. … For purposes of qualified immunity, it is not enough for a plaintiff to allege that a defendant's conduct violated a right that is clearly established in general terms.

Ramona Matos Rodriguez v. Pan American Health Organization

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 14, 2026

We held that those allegations, if proven, would suffice to establish the “commercial activity” exception to immunity. Id. at 717. We then remanded to the district court for further proceedings. … Fulton, 890 F.2d 279, 283 (10th Cir. 1989) (discovery orders “narrowly tailored” to facts bearing on qualified immunity are not appealable); Asante-Chioke v.

In Re Oliver L. North (Cave Fee Application)

57 F.3d 1117 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 27, 1995

We concluded in Dutton that an individual who would otherwise qualify as a “subject” of an independent counsel investigation does not automatically lose that status (and his right to seek reimbursement of attorneys’ fees) … And, “once a defendant establishes that he has testified under a grant of immunity, ‘the prosecution [has] the affirmative duty to prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent

Bey v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

341 F. Supp. 3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 11, 2018

," and "bears only the burden of identifying *19 an accommodation, the costs of which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits." … "[T]he burden of establishing immunity [is] on the official." Id. (citing Westfall , 484 U.S. at 299 , 108 S.Ct. 580 ).

James Blassingame v. Donald Trump

87 F.4th 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 1, 2023

And actions taken in an unofficial capacity cannot qualify for official-act immunity. … before [a] motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds can be resolved.’”

Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan

332 F.3d 679 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 27, 2003

The commercial activity exception to the FSIA, by qualifying what previously had been the absolute immunity of foreign sovereigns, also “creates jurisdiction where none previously existed” and therefore affects the substantive … Did the Congress clearly intend to legislate retroactively?

National Black Police Ass'n v. Velde

631 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 14, 1980

Economou, 11 the Supreme Court held that as a general rule, federal officials obtain only a qualified immunity in suits raising constitutional violations. … Accordingly, we find that appellees have only a defense of qualified immunity and reverse the district court’s dismissal of the claims for monetary damages.

Jangjoo v. Sieg

319 F. Supp. 3d 207 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 13, 2018

was 'clearly established at the time.' " District of Columbia v. … Jangjoo thus cannot prevail on the first prong of the qualified immunity test, Ms. Sieg is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. 7 IV. ANALYSIS OF FIFTH AMENDMENT CLAIM Ms.

In Re: Sealed Case

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 13, 1999

It is well established that "[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued ..., and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain … And even a discussion of "strategy and direction of the investigation" could include references to not yet delivered but clearly anticipated testimony. See Lance, 610 F.2d at 216-17 and n.4.