Case law

Black Lives Matter D.C. v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2025

The Court found that the plaintiffs had alleged plausible claims of speech restriction and First Amendment retaliation, and that the defendant officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Black Lives Matter D.C. v. … immunity.”

Daskalea v. the Washington Humane Society

275 F.R.D. 346 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2011

In addition, the Court has already concluded that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as they are being sued for constitutional violations in their individual capacities in connection with … Hawk, 215 F.3d 90, 94 (D.C.Cir.2000) ("Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established

Local 2677, American Federation of Government Employees v. Phillips

358 F. Supp. 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 11, 1973

Sovereign Immunity The defendant argues that in reality these are unconsented suits against the United States which must be dismissed because of sovereign immunity. … Thus this suit clearly falls within the exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity which allows suits against federal officials who have allegedly acted beyond their statutory powers or have exercised their statutory

Thornberry v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

535 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2008

Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis of sovereign immunity therefore is denied. B. … Elsea resides in the District of Columbia but claims that they “qualify” under the long-arm statute as employees of BOP. Pl.’s Opp. at 2.

Noble v. Claytor

448 F. Supp. 1242 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 13, 1978

would suggest that if the Congress intended § 2000e-16(b) to authorize CSC or the independent agencies to make fee awards, it knew how to accomplish that purpose, and the Congressional intent to do so would have been more clearly … It is a well established principle of statutory construction that Congress will not be presumed to have intended such an unjust result. See, e. g., Pennsylvania v.

In Re: In the Matter of the Fort Totten Metrorail Cases Arising Out of the Events of June 22, 2009

756 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2011

WMATA has sovereign immunity, Morris v. WMATA, 781 F.2d 218, 219-20 (D.C. … This high volume of alarm activity coupled with the implications 14 resulting from the volume clearly supports WMATA’s assessment that its redesignation of the alarms was

Shade v. United States Congress

942 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2013

The United States is immune from suit unless it waives its sovereign immunity through an act of Congress. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). … The Speech and Debate Clause, which protects activities that are “clearly a part of the legislative process,” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408, 415 (D.C.

Hayes v. United States

539 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2008

See id. 2 Plaintiffs administrative claim form, the SF-95, clearly provided the government with notice of the first theory. … Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322-23 , 111 S.Ct. 1267 (elaborating on a test established in Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536-37 , 108 S.Ct. 1954 , 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988)).

Weingarten v. Devos

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 2020

have qualifying loans or were not in qualifying repayment plans.” … It “would be hopelessly circular” to hold that the diversion of resources itself—necessary for establishing step two—also inflicts the harm necessary for establishing step one. Id.

DiNapoli v. Yelp Inc.

355 F. Supp. 3d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2019

Yelp contends that its conduct qualifies under parts three and four. … In short, the fact that Yelp provides a forum for customer reviews does not immunize it from suit, nor does it mean that every act it undertakes is in furtherance of free speech.

Acosta v. the Islamic Republic of Iran

574 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2008

Legal Standard for FSIA Default Judgment Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, no judgment by default shall be entered by a court unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory … The first and third requirements are clearly met in the instant case.

White v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2011

Plaintiffs clearly state that these Bivens claims are based upon a conspiracy, and yet they fail to allege any facts showing that there ever was any agreement. A. … also generally involved in violating White's rights by "establishing and condoning" this pattern.

White Coat Waste Project v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2024

Cir. 2002) (“[T]he three signatories [to the WMATA Compact] conferred each of their respective sovereign immunities, including the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the two states, upon [WMATA].”). … These clearly implicate the Authority’s “social, economic, or political goals,” and Plaintiff offers no argument to the contrary. See Pl. Opp. at 32–33; Am. C.L.

Mazer v. D.C. Department of Health

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2022

Because of time limits set by the NCVIA, petitioners must quickly identify vaccine- related injuries to qualify for the Program. … The District claims it needed the MCA “so that the District can move towards a high enough immunization rate to achieve herd immunity—or 95% immunity—from diseases such as measles.” Booth Defs.’

Consumers Union of U. S., Inc. v. Rogers

352 F. Supp. 1319 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 1973

It is only when a distinct aspect of the struggle surfaces into a clearly justiciable controversy that a court must act. … any more than he can grant immunity under such laws.

Mohammad Hilmi Nassif & Partners v. Republic of Iraq

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 2, 2024

Plaintiff relies on oral statements purportedly made by these officials, described in a series of declarations, as establishing a waiver of Defendants’ sovereign immunity. … On the other end of the spectrum, several cases have found no explicit waiver based on statements that are either clearly silent on sovereign immunity or include words that contradict an intent to waive such immunity. 5

Broidy Capital Management LLC v. Muzin

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2020

State Department Test It is not the established policy of the State Department to recognize immunity for these defendants. In Yousuf v. … opposed to a formal official—could qualify for immunity under the common law.

Maniaci v. Georgetown University

510 F. Supp. 2d 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2007

Martin specifically dealt with an action against public officials invoking qualified immunity. Id. at 256 . The Court notes two distinguishing factors in this case. … Second, while Defendants have not briefed the issue of qualified immunity, they state in their Motion that only the Public Safety Officers "are entitled to have qualified immunity if they are held to be state actors.”

Thompson v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 2022

Fitzgerald thus established a scope of presidential immunity for civil money damages that is unquestionably capacious, though not categorical. … The court emphasized that the burden of establishing immunity rests on the official claiming it. Id. at 1140.

Patterson v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 20, 2023

Tasks that clearly fall within the ambit of the judicial process include the “receipt and processing” of filings. Id. … Cir. 2006) (“It is well established that judicial immunity extends to other officers of government whose duties are related to the judicial process.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Thomas v. Wilkins, 61 F.