Case law

Huffman v. Johnson

239 F. Supp. 3d 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2017

“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … This argument clearly challenges his underlying discharge, not the Board’s decision.

Boumediene v. Bush

450 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2006

left open the question of the effect of the exclusive review provisions of the Act on other cases, stating that “[tjhere may be habeas cases that were pending in the lower courts at the time the DTA was enacted that do qualify … Thus, it would seem to the Court, consistent with its opinion in Khalid , that the conditions under which a detainee is held — which are clearly implicated by Respondents' Motion — are the province of the Executive Branch

Henry v. Secretary of Department of Treasury

266 F. Supp. 3d 80 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2017

First, the IRS established a new set of criteria that contractors must meet in order to be eligible for staff-like access. … of the Selective Service registration requirement would be effectively immunized from review for continued eligibility.

Western Center for Journalism v. Internal Revenue Service

116 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2000

Here, the Service employed, in conjunction with Exemption 3, a qualifying non-disclosure statute under 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (a), which mandates that tax return information be held confidential subject to a number of strictly … In this instance, the private interest to protect persons from possible harm that may result in the release of particular information clearly outweighs the public interest in gaining access to this information.

Singh v. United States House of Representatives, Committee on Ways & Means

300 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2004

Smith’s alleged conduct clearly falls well below this standard, especially in light of Ms. Singh’s admittedly limited interaction with these men. … Salary Discrimination “To establish a prima facie case [of salary discrimination], [Ms.

Cato Institute v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2026

As the FBI has met its burden to pursue all leads and clearly explain the scope of its search, the Court finds summary judgment for Defendants proper on this question. B. … Circuit has recognized, the NSA “qualifies as an exemption statute under exemption 3” because it “refers to particular types of matters to be withheld” — namely, “intelligence sources and methods.” ACLU v.

Hardy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

243 F. Supp. 3d 155 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2017

“To qualify for the deliberative process privilege, an intra-agency memorandum must be both pre-decisional and deliberative.” Abtew v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 808 F.3d 895, 898 (D.C. … The plaintiff falls short, however, of establishing that the materials in question would “routinely be available.” See Defs.’ Reply at 3.

Friedman v. United States Secret Service

923 F. Supp. 2d 262 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2013

“[A] plaintiff pursuing an action under FOIA must establish that either: (1) the Vaughn index does not establish that the documents were properly withheld; (2) the agency has improperly claimed an exemption as a matter … An agency still bears the burden 21 of establishing that documents are properly classified and thus clearly exempt from disclosure, see Founding Church of Scientology of

Rabbani v. Obama

76 F. Supp. 3d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2014

Here, while a purported right to be free from force-feeding may possibly qualify under the rubric of the constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, see Aamer v. … Inj. 5, Rabbani clearly implies that he had previously refused to walk voluntarily to his force-feedings.

Heritage Foundation v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 3, 2024

On one hand, Heritage argues that when a custodian has “been credibly accused of wrongdoing or [is] clearly bound up in or tainted by credible allegations of misconduct,” it is not reasonable for that custodian to perform … Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974), and this “special province of the Executive Branch” is “presumed immune from judicial review,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985). Accord Frederick Douglass Found., Inc. v.

Powell v. Castaneda

390 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2005

(noting that a mere assertion of failure to exhaust administrative remedies without more is “clearly inadequate under prevailing regulations to establish a failure to exhaust administrative remedies”). … But, a plaintiff “must present facts that would establish the elements of each claim.” Major v.

Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2024

The ranchers have established this much already in litigation. The question before the Court today is whether these violations injured the ranchers. … “History and tradition offer a meaningful guide to the types” of harms that qualify as “concrete for purposes of Article III.” Id. at 424 (cleaned up).

Palmer v. Shultz

679 F. Supp. 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 1988

Such an adjustment brings plaintiffs’ below-market rates within the range of reasonable community rates without producing a windfall “in excess of the rate at which qualified counsel would be willing to represent civil rights … In view of plaintiffs’ thorough documentation of the degree to which the market compensates for contingency, the Court finds that plaintiffs have clearly established that attorneys in the Washington D.C. community will ordinarily

Durant v. District of Columbia Government

875 F.3d 685 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 17, 2017

The letter alleged that the Department retaliated against him by failing to notify him of job vacancies and giving preferential hiring treatment to other, less qualified Department employees. … A sworn statement by a Department official explaining the Department’s reasons for eliminating Durant’s position satisfied the Department’s burden of “explaining clearly the [nonretaliatory] reasons for its actions.”

Lincoln Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Wall

743 F. Supp. 901 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 1990

This case clearly proves this point. … This acquisition was to be made in cash and was to qualify as a contribution to Lincoln’s regulatory capital. See Agreement (May 20, 1988), PI.Ex. 858. .

Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Mueller

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2020

Having reviewed the averments in the Brinkmann declaration, the Court finds that the redacted information in the Weekly Press Report qualifies for protection under the deliberative-process privilege, and the disclosure … Supp. 2d at 211 (“It is well-established that information identifying law enforcement and support personnel can be withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(C).”).

Marsh v. Barry

705 F. Supp. 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 1988

With respect to the overcrowding issue, the Court held that, although the jail was illegally overcrowded, plaintiffs could not establish as a matter of law that their injuries were caused by that overcrowding. … Based on the guidelines mandated by the Court of Appeals and the evidence in the record, the answer must clearly be in the affirmative.

Winder v. District of Columbia

555 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2008

Salary reviews will be based upon your achievement of previously established objectives and your performance. Your salary will be reviewed annually. … In short, the pension benefits referenced in the contract were clearly subject to the law of the District of Columbia governing such benefits, which, in turn, is governed by federal law.

Friendship Edison Public Charter School Collegiate Campus v. Nesbitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 18, 2009

I set an evidentiary hearing where I expected defendant to provide a witness or a number of witnesses to testify, either from personal knowledge, or, if they were appropriately qualified, as experts about the following … The 2005 evaluations are clearly the value of “b.” Therefore, to establish an estimated value for “y,” Dr. Marryshow had only to compare the 2002 evaluations to the 2005 evaluations.

Harrison v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

611 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2009

Deck ¶ 21, records that might easily *67 qualify as ones compiled for law enforcement purposes. In the face of a sworn statement by an agency, which is entitled to a presumption of good faith, SafeCard Servs. v. … Section (b)(6) exempts from disclosure "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6). 7 .