Case law

Beer v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 9, 2010

The FSIA provides that such immunity may be waived by operation of statute. … The facts in this case establish a waiver of defendants’ sovereign immunity.

Dean v. American Federation of Government Employees Local 476

402 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2005

If the answer is yes, then the Plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion in establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Bowes, Inc., 27 F.Supp.2d at 18 . … March 7, 2005), and found that “[t]his Circuit clearly held that whether an employer has enough employees to be covered by the ADA is not a prerequisite to federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. at *4; see St.

National Fair Housing Alliance v. Department of Housing and Urban Development

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2025

Following publication of a NOFO, qualified applicants may submit applications up to a designated deadline after which applications will not be accepted for review by HUD. U.S. … Circuit has “interpreted the Tucker Act . . . to impliedly forbid[] contract claims against the Government from being brought in district court under the waiver [of sovereign immunity] in the APA.” Perry Cap. LLC v.

National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Service

333 F. Supp. 566 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 20, 1971

Moreover, the Court cannot find that Section 10(c) of the PRA was intended to grant immunity from the effects of general economic legislation to contracts negotiated under Section 10. … Where the accomplishment of the clearly manifested legislative purpose of the statute would be frustrated unless the statute was applied to the government, the courts will not resort to a rule whose purpose is but to resolve

Gray v. Lahood

74 F. Supp. 3d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 2014

“To establish a prima facie case under the ADEA, for a claim involving a failure to hire, the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) she is a member of the protected class (i.e., over 40 years of age); (2) she was qualified … Rather, the plaintiff asserts generally that she was “highly qualified,” Opp’n at 8, 19, and conclusorily that Gallaway and Sierra were “less qualified,” id. at 5; Compl. ¶¶ 12, 18, 46.

Beattie v. United States

592 F. Supp. 780 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 1984

In view of this status of Antarctica, 5 if the words of the statute are to be the decisive guide to statutory interpretation, the government’s motion must fail, for clearly the instant claim did not arise in a foreign country … In making this assessment, the Court has considered the familiar rule that, because the FTCA constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, it must be strictly construed. Thomas v.

Neithamer v. Brenneman Property Services, Inc.

81 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 17, 1999

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs dismal credit record clearly shows that he was not qualified to rent the property. … Looking at the record as a whole, Plaintiff has established that he was qualified to rent the property, and thus he has established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Swinney v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 2025

Each Bellwether attack qualifies. Mr. Pregent and Dr. … In meeting these three criteria, the Bellwether Plaintiffs have established that Iran lacks immunity under the FSIA and that the Court meets the statutory requirements to hear their claim.

Hensley v. OFFICE OF ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

806 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2011

There are two instances, however, where it is clearly not appropriate to award money damages in a Bivens claim. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 396 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 . … immunity argument.

United States v. Shark

158 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2001

This conviction clearly qualifies as a prior felony conviction that was a crime of violence. The factual circumstances surrounding the December 1981 attempted robbery are not so clear. … The Court finds that prejudice is clearly established in this case.

Voinche v. Obama

744 F. Supp. 2d 165 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2010

immunity from constitutional and statutory claims.” … Accordingly, the Court agrees with defendants that “[plaintiffs Bivens claims against Defendants must be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for any violation of clearly established law, and Federal Defendants

Akins v. Federal Election Com

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2010

The FEC found that, under the regulations then in force, the Executive Committee of AlP AC qualified as "members" of the organization and that communications to them were "membership communications." … Such a sham, according to the Commission, is clearly not in issue here, given AIPAC's primary focus on lobbying, which it has actively conducted for more than forty years.

America First Legal Foundation v. Roberts

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2025

Neither the Judicial Conference nor the Administrative Office qualifies as an agency for FOIA purposes. America First’s strongest counterargument focuses on FOIA’s reference to “the courts.” … Why should law clerks, who are not themselves constitutional officers, be immune from FOIA’s reach? And what about the Tax Court, which is part of the Executive Branch but has been held immune from FOIA? See Elec.

Ark Initiative v. Tidwell

895 F. Supp. 2d 230 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 2012

Sovereign immunity and res judicata thus impose no barriers here. C. … Effectively, the Forest Service is saying that any error in earlier inventories is harmless because the Burnt Mountain parcel cannot qualify as roadless now anyway.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Better Life Club of America, Inc.

995 F. Supp. 167 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 1998

The evidence clearly established that the Advertising Pool was not a legitimate investment venture, but was instead a pyramid scheme, destined to collapse and to leave investors stranded, with millions of dollars in losses … The statute waives immunity in many cases, but it reserves immunity for claims based on discretionary regulatory functions, “whether or not the discretion involved be abused.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (a).

Keeley v. Small

391 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2005

Clearly, plaintiff engaged in statutorily protected activity when he filed administrative complaints in December 1999, February 2000, and June 2000. … More importantly, only where a reasonable employer would have found plaintiff “significantly better qualified” can a fact finder infer that the employer consciously selected the less qualified applicant. Carter v.

Millican v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 2010

It specifies that a promotion may be delayed for six months after the date of promotion if there are any ongoing investigations or proceedings or any cause to believe that the officer is not qualified. 10 U.S.C. § 14311 … That provision does not provide any time limit, but clearly states that the “President may remove the name of any officer from a promotion list at any time before the date on which the officer is promoted.” 10 U.S.C. §

Lytes v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority

527 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 2007

To establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination based on a failure to reasonably accommodate, Plaintiff must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; ( … To establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination based on disparate treatment, Plaintiff must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) he had a disability within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he was qualified

Williams v. Veterans Affairs Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2020

The FTCA contains a limited waiver of sovereign immunity that allows the United 10 States to be sued for the negligent acts or omissions of its employees acting within the scope of their … Porter] will use the VA’s own guidelines, a national standard, which clearly states ‘[m]edical documentation is required for all 22 services provided to a Veteran under the [VA].’”

Hooker v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

887 F. Supp. 2d 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2012

The withheld records qualify as predecisional and deliberative. … Cir. 2005) (noting that even innocuous information may qualify for Exemption 6 protection).