Case law

Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture

219 F. Supp. 3d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2016

Circuit discussed the weight of this very passage in considering whether “back pay” qualified as specific relief. … Circuit then concluded that, contra Bowen, back pay did not qualify as relief other than money damages for § 702’s purposes. Id. at 539.

Risley v. Hawk

918 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 1996

Most of the statutes and some of the Constitutional Amendments relied upon by the plaintiff are clearly inapplicable to the facts which he posits. … Federal officials are entitled to qualified immunity from constitutional and statutory claims, and the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the defendants’ alleged actions violated clearly established law or were objectively

Cohen v. Islamic Republic of Iran

238 F. Supp. 3d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2017

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Foreign sovereigns are generally immune from suit in United States courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1604. … To begin, it is well- established by courts in this district that MOIS and IRGC are the functional equivalent of Iran, thus qualifying as “foreign states” as defined by the FSIA. See, e.g., Murphy v.

Sheikh v. Republic of the Sudan

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2016

Commenced in December 2014, they clearly do not satisfy the first option. What about the second? … Thus, they say, the Aliganga plaintiffs were full members of the Owens case, which qualifies as a related original action under § 1083(c)(3).

Young v. Foley

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 11, 2025

Cir. 1984) (confirming immunity for government employees acting in their official 3 capacity). … Plaintiff’s argument that the Tax Court is an independent establishment subject to suit under Title VII, see Opp’n at 19-24, is unavailing. 2 Moreover, “employees of the judicial branch . . . do not generally qualify as

Jawad v. Hagel

113 F. Supp. 3d 251 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2015

It would similarly be inappropriate to expand the TVPA beyond the limits clearly established by Congress. See Al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1, 17 (D.C. … Contrary to clearly established law, plaintiff responds that allowing him to “pursue his Bivens claims would not disrupt or hinder the ability of our military to act decisively in defense of our national interests.”

Berman v. Crook

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 2, 2018

When a plaintiff brings an action for money damages against a federal official in his individual capacity, the official may entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Moreover, defendant Rabinowitz could not have violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Valencia v. Islamic Republic of Iran

774 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2010

FINDINGS OF FACT Under the FSIA, a court cannot simply enter default judgment against a foreign state, but must, out of respect for the principle of sovereign immunity, ensure that plaintiffs “establish [their] claim or right … The actions of defendants here certainly qualify under this standard.

M.K. v. Tenet

99 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2000

In both cases, however, these broad statements were used to establish only the more limited proposition that a civil litigant has a qualified right to retain the counsel of his chaics. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Taylor v. Gearan

979 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 1997

that their conduct violated any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … With the exception of the Rehabilitation Act and Title VII claims, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate or even allege that defendants have violated any clearly established right of plaintiff or acted unreasonably in regard

Owens v. Republic of Sudan

412 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 2006

Section 1604 of the FSIA establishes the general rule that a foreign state is immune from suit, declaring that “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except … If that evidence is not rebutted or offset, proximate cause is established as a matter of law.”) (quoting Bowman v.

Marlowe v. Argentine Naval Commission

604 F. Supp. 703 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 1985

The ANC is part and parcel of the Argentine Navy thereby qualifying as a foreign state or a political subdivision of the Argentine government. … ANC contends that the established international practice requires express and unambiguous consent to such jurisdiction.

In Re Snipe

276 B.R. 723 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2002

I The trustee concedes that the Retirement Plan qualifies as an ERISA-qualified pension plan and hence is not property of the estate. Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. 753, 760 , 112 S.Ct. 2242 , 119 L.Ed.2d 519 (1992). … The enactment in 1983 of 42 U.S.C. § 407 (b) now clearly limits the applicability of § 1325(c) to Social Security benefits.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

736 F. Supp. 2d 202 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2010

For a document to qualify for this exemption, “it must fall within the ambit of a privilege against discovery under judicial standards that would govern litigation against the agency that holds it.” … It is well-established that information identifying law enforcement and support personnel can be withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(C). See Amuso v. U.S.

Welsing v. Government of the District of Columbia

784 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 1992

While Siegert involved an assertion of qualified immunity, that approach is also justified in this case, where Plaintiffs pleadings do not meet the heightened pleading requirement. … The very purpose of that heightened pleading requirement is to allow Defendants to assert qualified immunity defenses. Plaintiff claims that she cannot meet such pleading requirements without discovery.

Krieger v. United States Department of Justice

529 F. Supp. 2d 29 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2008

immunity. … To determine whether a federal official is subject to qualified immunity, a court must engage in a two-step analysis.

Black Lives Matter D.C. v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 4, 2024

For example, in contrast to damages suits against federal officers, the United States cannot claim qualified immunity in suits under the FTCA. Compare Loumiet v. United States, 828 F.3d 935, 946 (D.C. … Qualified immunity, for example, bars recovery unless a defendant violates a “clearly established” constitutional command. Harlow v.

Kaur v. Kellenberger

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2026

The Court declines to hold in the alternative that qualified immunity bars the Plaintiffs’ individual-capacity claims. … immunity.

Beck v. Test Masters Educational Services, Inc.

937 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2013

Circuit authority clearly establishes that the Court’s sanctions award cannot be appealed at this time. See Cunningham v. … Supp. 2d 56, 66 (D.D.C. 2004) (finding irreparable harm where entity receiving funds would be immune from suit to recover them).

Estes v. Spence

338 F. Supp. 319 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 14, 1972

There are however, instances in which an individual’s career has varied from the normal in sufficient degree that his background does not always fit this normal career pattern, although he is clearly well qualified for the … Sovereign immunity does not bar this suit since it challenges actions of government officials as allegedly beyond their official powers. See Dugan, et al. v.