Case law

United States v. Hicks

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2021

Gov’t’s Opp’n, Ex. 1, BOP Health Services Immunizations (“Vaccination Record”), ECF No. 737-1. … the law established in section 404 of the First Step Act.

International Finance Corp. v. GDK Systems, Inc.

711 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 1989

Certainly, it is true that Congress may not “expand the jurisdiction of the federal courts beyond the bounds established by the Constitution.” Verlinden B.V. v. … For it is enough that, in the present case, jurisdiction is clearly proper within the bounds of Article III.

Laukus v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2010

See Compl. ¶¶ 3-8; id. ¶ 23 (“Defendants have engaged in unlawful collection activity because they did not establish when, where or how Plaintiff Kyle W. … Because Laukus’s APA claim clearly relates to the IRS’s tax collection activity, it is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. 16 Without a waiver of sovereign immunity, the

Lea v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2022

entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from suit under § 1983 so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

In the Matter of the Yellow Line Cases

273 F. Supp. 3d 168 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2017

As such, these decisions are clearly ‘susceptible to policy analysis,’ even if specific decisions were not the result of such a reasoned analysis.” Id. at 341. The court reaches the same conclusion here. … official immunity.”

Young v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2011

Marshals must be dismissed, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), because the Government is immune from suit.4 Defs. Mot. 10-11. It is well-established that the U.S. … Plaintiff’s claim regarding his conviction and sentence clearly sound in habeas corpus since he seeks to overturn his conviction and obtain his freedom.

Nagy v. United States

471 F. Supp. 383 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 1979

It is well established that a service member cannot sue the United States or other servicemen for injuries incident to his service in the Armed Forces. Feres v. … Despite this, the doctors did not review the past medical record of the patient, which was available in the same building and which clearly stated that the plaintiff had received umbrathor.

Reddish v. Washington Metro Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2026

To establish a violation of the Rehabilitation Act, Reddish bears the burden of proving that (1) she was “disabled within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act;” (2) that she was “otherwise qualified;” (3) that she was … Her complaint, however, clearly identifies her termination as the adverse action anchoring her retaliation claim, rather than any other act by WMATA. Dkt. 16 at 9 (Am.

Pendergrass v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 6, 2023

WMATA “openly acknowledges” his prior offense as “a non-violent offense[,]” it has deemed him “a lifetime threat to the vulnerable population consisting of the elderly, children, disabled, etc.” despite being “well- qualified … Pendergrass’ 2018 Case, “that this waiver of immunity does not waive immunity against claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.”

Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp.

292 F. Supp. 2d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2003

(“FSIA”), does not overcome that immunity. … "[T]he Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, ... preserves immunity for tort claims unless injury or death occurs in the United States." Tel-Oren v.

Simpson v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

362 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2005

Price I, 294 F.3d at 85 (holding that properly stating a claim for one of the acts set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(7) such as torture or hostage taking is required in order “to abrogate sovereign immunity and establish subject-matter … Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 290 F.Supp.2d 54, 60 (D.D.C.2003) (stating that § 2337(2) “clearly precludes” a plaintiffs claim against a foreign state under § 2333).

McCoy v. Kollar-Kotelly

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2025

Pro se litigants must still establish subject matter jurisdiction and state a claim to survive dismissal. Id. … Supp. 3d at 37–40 (concluding that sovereign immunity barred official-capacity claims against federal judges); Slate v. District of Columbia, 79 F.

Lopez v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2021

TSGLI provides payments of $25,000 per qualifying 30-day period (up to a total of 120 days, for a maximum benefit of $100,000) for the short-term recovery needs of those who qualify. Id. … Such injuries are clearly caused by “external force [or] violence.” 38 C.F.R. § 9.20(b).

Navajo Nation v. Peabody Holding Co., Inc.

209 F. Supp. 2d 269 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2002

The Navajo Nation is clearly bound by the terms of the CAPO, to which it is a party. … Rather, contends the Nation, the clause is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity.

Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

723 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2010

Sovereign immunity bars part of plaintiffs’ suit against Keegan. … The exception to Ex parte Young established in Coeur D’Alene does not apply. The Court next addresses Keegan’s third argument.

Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States

679 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 20, 2010

The Court found that the contract only established plaintiffs ownership of the timber and that therefore the action sounded in tort. Id. at 552 . Similarly, in Walsh v. … However, the waiver clearly applies to suits brought for “any violation of this chapter," which unequivocally shows that Congress intended to waive sovereign immunity for violations of § 1125. 15 U.S.C. § 1122 (emphasis added

Muhammad v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2018

Muhammad’s allegations fail to establish that he was excluded from, denied the benefits of, or discriminated against within any “program or activity” for which he was otherwise qualified. … On its face, neither constitutes a government program that Muhammad was qualified to access.

Reyna v. United States Postal Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 17, 2026

Second, Plaintiff has not established that he is currently unable to file a lawsuit. … Nor are court costs and fees a prohibition to filing suit, as Plaintiff has shown that he currently qualifies to proceed IFP.

Rangel v. Boehner

20 F. Supp. 3d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2013

Cir. 1995) (“[T]he Rulemaking Clause . . . clearly reserves to each House of the Congress the authority to make its own rules.”). It is a “broad grant of authority,” Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. … Immunity Under The Speech Or Debate Clause Defendants also move to dismiss on the basis that they are absolutely immune from suit under the Speech or Debate Clause.

Jack's Canoes & Kayaks, LLC v. National Park Service

937 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2013

An Act to Establish the National Park Foundation, Pub. L. No. 90-209 (1967). … Here, NPF’s Charter contains a “sue and be sued” provision and therefore necessarily waives any potential claim to immunity from suit. See An Act to Establish the National Park Foundation, Pub. L.