Case law

Cities of Anaheim, Riverside, Banning, Colton, & Azusa, California v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

941 F.2d 1234 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 20, 1991

The Cities “clearly stated ... that the retail rate that is the focus of our inquiry herein is the A-8 industrial rate.” … The Commission’s use of the Morton Salt inference must be qualified in two important respects.

Darian McKinney v. DC

142 F.4th 784 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 8, 2025

1 (J.A. 24).2 Under the Settlement Agreement, McKinney was deemed “excessed” pursuant to his union’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, meaning that DCPS eliminated his position.3 A teacher who is “excessed” before qualifying … Supp. 2d 114, 117 (D.D.C. 2003) (internal quotation  6 marks omitted), DCPS even more clearly did so here when it failed to follow statutorily required hiring procedures.

Trump v. Oversight

380 F. Supp. 3d 76 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 20, 2019

It did so in 1973 by establishing the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, better known as the Watergate Committee, and then did so again in 1995 by establishing the Special Committee to Investigate … days of taking office, and to divest all financial interests that would pose a conflict of interest by "either converting those interests to cash or investments that satisfy ethics rules or placing those interests in a qualified

Dick Heller v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 4, 2011

. * Specifically, the applicant must: • Have vision qualifying one for a driver’s license. § 7-2502.03(a)(11). … Hence we conclude the grant of authority in the HRA comprises the subject of firearms and supersedes the qualified grant to the District in the 1906 Act.

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, Intervenors. Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, United Telephone System, Inc., Intervenors. People of the State of California and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Southern Pacific Communications Company, Intervenors. MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Aeronautical Radio, Inc., Intervenors. Lexitel Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, United Telephone Systems, Inc., Intervenors. Western Union Telegraph Company v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Intervenors. North American Telephone Association v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Gte Sprint Communications Corporation, Intervenors. MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Gte Service Corporation, Intervenors. Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Gte Sprint Communications Corporation, Intervenors. Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Western Union Telegraph Company, Intervenors. United States Transmission Systems, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Gte Sprint Communications Corporation, Intervenors. Telesphere Network, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, American Broadcasting Companies, Intervenors. Association of Long Distance Telephone Companies v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Western Union Telegraph Company, Intervenors

737 F.2d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 12, 1984

We are endeavoring to establish an entry policy for the 1980's. … California reasons that just as connecting carriers are exempt from the tariff-filing requirement of Sec. 203, they should be immune from Commission power under Sec. 205. California Brief at 12.

Boroughs of Ellwood City v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

731 F.2d 959 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 30, 1984

Such a holding by any administrative agency would clearly be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. … They urged the Commission to find a price squeeze whenever the retail rate, for which Boroughs would qualify but for their identity as wholesale/resale customers, was lower than the wholesale rate.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc., United States, Intervenor. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc., Edward R. Luter, United States, Intervenor

628 F.2d 1368 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 17, 1980

We have examined the record and do not find that the District Court's determination on this point was clearly erroneous. 75 Second, Dresser argues that the District Court erred in granting judgment for the SEC without permitting … investigations; (2) that agency attorneys might not be legitimately appointed as special assistant United States Attorneys to assist in preparing cases for grand juries; (3) that a grand jury witness might gain effective immunity

Advanced Energy United v. FERC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 31, 2026

As a result, most interconnection customers will be able to add affected-system upgrade costs to their host-transmission-facility costs and thereby qualify for a fine-free withdrawal. … The Clean Energy Petitioners failed to clearly raise this argument in their rehearing request.

Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee, Intervenors. Democratic National Committee v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Republican National Committee, Intervenor

454 F.2d 1018 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 1971

F.C.C., 143 U.S.App.D.C. 383, 394 , 444 F.2d 841, 852 (1971). 20 We do not challenge the Commission's well established right to modify or even overrule an established precedent or approach, for an administrative agency concerned … Yet it is clearly irrational to suggest that the mere failure to specify issues, by itself, somehow fundamentally alters the basic nature of the broadcast when its content remains entirely unchanged. 48 Whether the issue

Chemical Manufacturers Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, (Two Cases)

919 F.2d 158 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 16, 1990

As I understand one provision in the committee's amendment, a surface impoundment which does not qualify to continue to receive or store hazardous waste after 4 years after enactment may, however, receive nonhazardous waste … The preamble to the 1989 regulations as initially proposed in 1988 clearly indicates that the EPA undertook the process of revision because it now agreed that there were "a number of sound policy reasons why it is desirable

BellSouth Corp v. FCC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 1998

In a "triennial review" process established by the decree, the Department of Justice moved to lift the information services restrictions, and no party to the decree opposed the motion. … Clearly the structural separation re- quirements regulate expressive activity within the scope of the First Amendment.

National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Elyria-Lorain Broadcasting Co., Intervenors. Owosso Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, Ksl, Inc., Intervenor. National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America, Ksl, Inc., Intervenor. Wjag, Inc. v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, Whas, Inc., Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corp., Intervenors. The Ogden Newspapers, Inc. v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, Ksl, Inc., Intervenor (Two Cases). Daily Telegraph Printing Company v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, Whas, Inc., Louisiana Television Broadcasting Corporation, Ksl, Inc., Intervenors. American Newspaper Publishers Association v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Ksl, Inc., Intervenor. The Brockway Company v. United States of America and Federal Communications Commission, Ksl, Inc., Intervenor. Gray Communications Systems, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Ksl, Inc., Intervenor

555 F.2d 938 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 1977

The Commission has sought to limit divestiture to cases where the evidence discloses that cross-ownership clearly harms the public interest. … In Citizens, the Commission's policy statement on comparative hearings was invalidated because it improperly denied a full hearing to qualified license challengers.

An opinion was released in case 23-7061, Andrew Hanson v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 29, 2024

While “[t]he public interest favors the protection of constitutional rights,” Hanson would need to establish a likely violation of his consti- tutional rights to establish that the public interest outweighs the District’s … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc.

628 F.2d 1368 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 16, 1980

We have examined the record and do not find that the District Court’s determination on this point was clearly erroneous. … investigations; (2) that agency attorneys might not be legitimately appointed as special assistant United States Attorneys to assist in preparing cases for grand juries; (3) that a grand jury witness might gain effective immunity

Saad Khalid v. Todd Blanche

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

reasonably suspected . . . to engage in conduct constituting . . . terrorism,” J.A. 20–21, and one who poses “a threat of engaging in or conducting a violent act of terrorism and who is operationally capable of doing so” qualifies … That, too, is a claim the government has never advanced, and comparison of the two lists’ criteria does not clearly support it.

Joseph J. Schultz v. National Labor Relations Board, Robert E. Gray, Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board v. Grand Union Company, Robert E. Gray, Intervenor

284 F.2d 254 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 15, 1960

fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership;" 3 121 N.L.R.B. 880 , 884 33 DANAHER, Circuit Judge (dissenting). 34 Had Teamsters Local 294 been selected as the bargaining representative, it clearly … When Congress barred the closed shop because of certain abuses by some unions, it had no occasion to strike down maintenance or support plans of other entities which qualified as labor organizations. 10 Where formerly an

Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

799 F.3d 1035 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 7, 2015

The Affordable Care Act established new subsidies for the purchase of health insurance and expanded the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. … But the House bill here was clearly revenue- raising, so we need not explore that issue further. .

Gwynne A. Wilcox v. Donald J. Trump

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 2025

A different line of precedent qualifies these cases. … Yet the NLRA clearly gives the  30 Board itself, not the General Counsel, final authority over section 9 administration.

An opinion was released in case 23-7061, Andrew Hanson v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 29, 2024

While “[t]he public interest favors the protection of constitutional rights,” Hanson would need to establish a likely violation of his consti- tutional rights to establish that the public interest outweighs the District’s … No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

National ATM Council, Inc. v. Visa Inc.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 25, 2023

Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559, 563 n.2 (2014) (“A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling . . . on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” (quoting Cooter & Gell v. … that manage encryption keys or service Qualified ATMs” (an entity that holds the encryption keys) “are not ATM Operators.”