Case law

Campaign Legal Center v. Federal Election Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2025

With that goal in mind, FECA establishes certain disclosure requirements for individuals and organizations spending money in connection with federal elections. Id. … J. at 17 (saying the ad qualified as independent expenditures “[u]nder the plain terms of the express advocacy standard at 11 C.F.R.

National Conservative Political Action Committee v. Kennedy

563 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 1983

Moreover, even were it the case that plaintiffs could establish some kind of federal right with respect to the opportunity to advertise on the airwaves, that would not be enforceable under section 1985(3) in that administrative … or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws; or of equal privileges and immunities

Hensley v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol

806 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 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. … immunity argument.

Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd. v. Abbott Gmbh & Co. Kg

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 18, 2013

“Work product protection is not absolute but rather is a qualified immunity.” 15 Westrick, 288 F.R.D. at 226; see also United States v. … Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 (1975) (“Like other qualified privileges, [the work-product privilege] may be waived.”).

Hammond v. D.C. Record Center

593 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2009

“Such simplified notice pleading is made possible by the liberal opportunity for discovery and the other pre-trial procedures established by the Rules to disclose more precisely the basis of both claim and defense to define … But, “[a]bsent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v.

Force v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2020

To establish subject-matter jurisdiction, an FSIA “plaintiff bears an initial burden of production to show [that] an exception to immunity, such as § 1605A, applies.” Owens IV, 864 F.3d at 784. … Supp. 3d at 205, and a plaintiff that offers proof sufficient to establish a waiver of foreign sovereign immunity under § 1605A(a) has also established entitlement to relief as a matter of federal law—with one minor exception

Gulf Restoration Network, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries, Service

730 F. Supp. 2d 157 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2010

Similarly, the affidavits in this case do not clearly define when or how Plaintiffs would be affected. … This reasoning fails to meet the standard established in DRG Funding.

Glenn v. Bair

643 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2009

The defendant responds that the selectees were at least as qualified, if not more qualified, than the plaintiff. Def.’s Reply at 9-12. … The correlation between rankings and age, however, more clearly supports the argument that age must have motivated the selection process because it is unlikely that the seven most qualified candidates also happened to be

Rodriguez v. Del Toro

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2026

) Temporary Not Physically Qualified, if “the Marine is clearly not physically qualified to perform [active duty] or [inactive duty for training] due to a non-service connected condition”; and (2) Not Physically Qualified … The Memo provides that the service member’s testimony alone may be sufficient to establish the existence of PTSD. Kurta Memo ¶ 7.

Aamer v. Obama

58 F. Supp. 3d 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2014

In contrast to Al Warafi , Petitioner does not claim to fit within one of the clearly-defined detention categories listed in Army Regulation 190-8. … Circuit nonetheless considered whether he qualified as a medic under Army Regulation 190-8, see Al Warafi II, 716 F.3d at 627-29 .

Local 808, Building Maintenance, Service & Railroad Workers v. National Mediation Board

727 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 19, 1989

The courts are not free to terminate or qualify that right, except in pursuance of authority granted by Congress. No such authority appears in the wording of the Railway Labor Act. … Such a standard would be clearly erroneous.

Little v. Garland

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2026

She argues that the exhibits establish an inference of discrimination by showing that the FBI’s proffered reasons for the non- selections were “clearly pretextual.” Id. at 14. … Little was not the first or second most qualified.”).

United States Ex Rel. Tran v. Computer Sciences Corp.

53 F. Supp. 3d 104 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 3, 2014

At all times relevant herein, Infotran qualified as a small business concern. … Supp. 2d at 208 (“The plain language of th[e] phrase [‘terms and conditions of employment’] clearly establishes that section 3730(h) applies only to the employment context[.]”)

McGowan v. Billington

281 F. Supp. 2d 238 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2003

Hence, plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied and was qualified for a job for which defendant was seeking applicants; (3) … Where subsequent to these complaints defendant selected 58 other individuals for positions to which plaintiff was qualified, a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination has been established.”)

Goldschmidt v. United States Department of Agriculture

557 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 1983

The Staff reviews are clearly routine administration. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. GSA, 509 F.2d 527, 528 (D.C.Cir.1974); Rural Housing, supra at 80-82 . … As a threshold matter, it is questionable whether the FSIS’s informal, voluntary negotiation with a meat or poultry establishment qualifies as an “enforcement proceeding.”

Gipson v. Wells Fargo N.A.

460 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 24, 2006

To establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination under Title VII in a non-selection claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position she sought … Clearly, Gipson’s internal complaint remained on the mind of her interviewer and target of her charge regardless of whether the resolution of the complaint took place in August or October.

Perry v. SHINSEKI

783 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 10, 2011

Qualifications Gap Perry can establish pretext if she can demonstrate that “a reasonable employer would have found the plaintiff to be significantly better qualified for the job.” Aka, 156 F.3d at 1294 . … Thus, Murphy’s experience with remote locations and his superior management style were clearly relevant factors.

Warmbier v. Democratic People's Republic of Korea

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 24, 2018

Fourth Element: Actions of North Korea Qualify for the Terrorism Exception Finally, as detailed below, the plaintiffs have provided ample evidence to establish the fourth element: that their … Circuit has explained that while a plaintiff may rely on “alternative sources of substantive law,” including “state tort law,” to bring a claim against a foreign state after establishing a waiver of sovereign immunity through

Smith Property Holdings, 4411 Connecticut L.L.C. v. United States

311 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2004

However, despite this representation, the ESA indicated that four of eight soil samples “clearly reflected] the presence of oil in the soils.” … On the other hand, the EPA Order clearly identified Smith as the responsible party liable for removal actions. A.R. at 22.

Ullico Inc. Litigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

ULLICO also established the ULLICO Inc. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Deferred Compensation Plan"). Countercl. ~ 8. … The first amendment, adopted at the Benefits Committee's October 20, 1999 meeting, changed the definition of "Sponsoring Employee ULLICO Group Compensation" in the Qualified Plan to include "regularly established annual