Case law

Coley v. Bowser

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 2021

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “A clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Mullenix v.

Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Department of the Interior

919 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2013

The plaintiffs argue both that the North Fork people do not qualify as “Indians” under the IRA and also that, even if the North Fork Tribe does qualify under the IRA, the Secretary’s conclusion in this regard was not supported … that in order to qualify for trust land, a tribe must satisfy the definition of ‘Indian’ not ‘tribe.’”

Heffez v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

569 F. Supp. 1551 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 1983

Section 76 of the Compact empowers WMA-TA to establish and maintain the Metro Transit Police, “to provide protection for its patrons, personnel, and transit facilities.” 2 . … Transp., 683 F.2d 663, 672 (2d Cir.1982), where the compact clearly specified that the multi-state entity “shall enjoy the sovereign immunity of the party states.” 7 .

East Bay Municipal Utility District v. United States Department of Commerce

948 F. Supp. 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 4, 1996

Third, in 1944, the WMC established a nationwide, uniform system for priority employment referrals. Seven categories were established. … However, the contours of CERCLA liability must be established by Congressional action. It is not for this Court to depart from clearly stated Congressional policy to satisfy Plaintiffs equitable claims.

Strauss v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2025

Here, the Court will take judicial notice of several sworn affidavits by experts whom the Court has already qualified in prior proceedings. See Mem. Op. 5-6, Roberts, ECF No. 24. … And his estate has met the requirements for the terrorism exception to abrogate sovereign immunity and establish his claims. See supra 25 IV.A.2.

Sierra Club v. Leavitt

355 F. Supp. 2d 544 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 2005

When construing these provisions, the Court is mindful that a waiver of sovereign immunity -may not be implied, but rather, there must be an “ ‘unequivocal expression’ ” of congressional intent to waive the Government’s immunity … Nevertheless, because the regulation clearly and unambiguously establishes a nondis-cretionary duty, the Court need not look any further to discern the agency’s interpretation. In re Sealed Case, 237 F.3d at 667 .

Hussain v. Lewis

181 F. Supp. 3d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2016

The “property” protected by the Due Process Clause does not encompass “everything that might be described as a ‘benefit’: To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or … True, one of the example scenarios in Rule 4 involves a client seeking ACAB arbitration after a 5 lawsuit has been filed, but this example does not establish an ironclad

Bai v. Sherwin

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 21, 2023

Further, because the FTCA’s exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite, the plaintiff bears the burden of pleading exhaustion of administrative remedies to establish the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. … to qualified immunity); Bundy v.

Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran

74 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1999

Because this Court finds that Congress has not clearly and unequivocally waived the United States’ sovereign immunity, the Court GRANTS the United States’s Motion to Quash the Writ of Attachment. … In holding that a subcontractor’s lien against government funds owed to an insolvent prime contractor was barred by sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court stated that such a result “is in accord with our precedent establishing

Slack v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2018

Because Congress did not clearly declare its intent to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity when it passed the FCA, it has not conferred jurisdiction on the Court to hear Ms. Slack’s FCA claim. … Finally, as noted above, WMATA’s contract with the FTA does not clearly convey rights to third parties.

Dougherty v. Barry

604 F. Supp. 1424 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 1985

The Court must first decide whether Elijah Rogers is entitled to claim the defense of qualified immunity for his acts as City Administrator. In Harlow v. … The Court thus established the qualified immunity privilege and further explained that while the case did not involve a § 1983 suit against state officials, “it would be untenable to draw a distinction” between such suits

Lewis v. United States

83 F. Supp. 3d 198 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2015

that the government has unequivocally waived its immunity.” … Ewers’s misrepresentation to Representative Cleaver qualifies as a wrongful act “in the provision of legal assistance” for which Mr. Lewis can recover under § 1054.

Goolsby v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2019

In an earlier decision considering only the constitutional claims, the Court held that the dispatchers and officers were entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed all but one of the claims. … immunity.

United States v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 1, 2023

Unlike most government officials, who only receive “qualified” civil immunity, prosecutors and judges have absolute civil immunity due to “the especially sensitive duties” of their office and the public interest in their … Here, as in Clinton, that absence of precedent negates rather than validates Defendant’s argument that history establishes his immunity from criminal prosecution.

Saffron v. Wilson

481 F. Supp. 228 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 1979

Quaker Action IV, supra, commands that expressive conduct near the White House be regulated only according to clearly established standards. … The Court noted that the Supreme Court had adopted for federal officials the “objective and subjective standards for qualified immunity” of Wood v.

Gilson v. Republic of Ireland

517 F. Supp. 477 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 1981

Under these circumstances, the first two clauses of section 1605(a)(2) clearly do not apply to this defendant. … Plaintiff has thus failed to establish a jurisdictional basis on clause three of section 1602(a)(5).

Keeffe v. Library of Congress

588 F. Supp. 778 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 1984

Without deciding the effect of Bush , the Court dismisses that portion of the complaint seeking damages, because of Gude’s qualified immunity as a federal official under Harlow v. Fitzgerald. … Gude’s second argument is that under the qualified immunity standard of Harlow v. Fitzgerald he is entitled to summary judgment.

Lkq Corporation v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2019

Alternatively, the government argues that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The Court agrees that the plaintiffs’ Bivens claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, so the Court declines to reach the qualified immunity issue.

Chester v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

335 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2004

However, this immunity is not absolute. … According to plaintiff, because his retaliation claim alleges an intentional tort, it is distinguishable from the past cases establishing WMATA’s immunity from tort claims resulting from employment decisions.

Sharma v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 17, 2011

As case law establishes, Defendant’s sovereign immunity argument lacks merit. The D.C. courts have clearly held that the pre-suit notice provision, which is contained in D.C. … Rather, pre-suit notice “is a condition precedent which, if not met, will prevent the destruction of sovereign immunity. . . .