Case law

Fong v. Beggs

620 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1985

. *852 Of the 382 individuals occupying excepted positions, 168 had their salaries established at the $47,500 level. An additional 108 were established at either $46,300 or $45,000. … In this case, plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of age discrimination by demonstrating (1) that they belong to the statutorily protected age group, (2) that they were qualified and eligible for substantial pay

Koretoff v. Schaefer

841 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2012

basis of a lengthy analysis of the history of federal milk regulation programs, the Supreme Court concluded that the Secretary had exceeded its statutory authority because the Secretary’s “‘nearby’ differential” did not qualify … The Circuit’s ruling in Koretoff II, however, clearly rejected the argument that the Rule amended the Order: [P]roducers did not vote on promulgation of 7 C.F.R. § 981.442(b)’s [Salmonella R]ule.

Institute for Energy Research v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2024

However, in this jurisdiction, communications with the White House Counsel’s Office may nonetheless qualify as intra- or inter-agency communications under Exemption 5. See Jud. Watch., Inc. v. Dep’t of State, 306 F. … Exemption 6 protects information contained in “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).

Exxon Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission

466 F. Supp. 1088 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 17, 1978

Administrative Law Judge Berman denied Exxon’s motion on the grounds that the economic report, containing assessments of strategy, evaluations and recommendations about theory development and discovery, was clearly attorney … As a matter of logical extension of this principle courts have established the general rule that pre-decisional, deliberative memoranda are privileged, while post-decisional memoranda — communications designed to explain

Center for Biological Diversity v. Ross

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2022

This issue merits some scrutiny because “[u]nlike an ordinary statute of limitations, § 2401(a) is a jurisdictional condition attached to the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, and as such must be strictly construed … That the text of subsection A contains no such qualifier implies that the six-month requirement in subsection B — the one relevant here — in fact does create a concrete target. See Oceana, Inc. v.

American Bar Ass'n v. Federal Trade Commission

671 F. Supp. 2d 64 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 1, 2009

See 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(h)(8)(B) (incorporating enforcement scheme established by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s). 1. … But to make it absolutely clear that the Commission has acted beyond its authority, the Court will assume for the sake of argument that Congress’ failure to specifically indicate whether lawyers qualify as creditors under

Manyan v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 2025

Establishing that an officer’s conduct amounts to state action does not alone establish the deprivation of a constitutional right. See Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks¸ 436 U.S. 149, 156–57 (1978). … Further, “[p]leading a party’s residence alone is insufficient to establish the citizenship necessary for diversity jurisdiction,” so listing residences on the complaint would not establish diversity of citizenship even without

British Airports Authority v. Civil Aeronautics Board

531 F. Supp. 408 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 14, 1982

To qualify for exemption 3 status, however, a “withholding statute” must either (1) “require” that matters be withheld “in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue” or (2) “establish particular criteria for withholding … The Court next must determine whether defendant has adequately established that Mr.

Baraldini v. Meese

691 F. Supp. 432 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 1988

Beliefs, whether political [sic] religious, or ideological, do not immunize activities which pose threats to the safety and well-being of others. Id. … In focusing on the political organizations that they may have been affiliated with in the past, the Bureau is clearly concerned with the ideologies of those groups.

State of New Mexico v. Musk

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2026

And the APA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to orders “to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money.” Dep’t of Educ. v. … As discussed above, the alleged powers of the head of DOGE are clearly weighty and important.

Vermont National Telephone Company v. Northstar Wireless, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2023

The Communications Act of 1934 (“Communications Act”) sets forth certain objectives for the FCC to consider when establishing the bidding processes for these spectrum licenses. … In other words, Congress clearly knew how to insert a clause clarifying that a court “may or may not in its discretion” dismiss a claim where dismissal is opposed by the United States, but it did not do so.

Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2021

Jd. at 9, And, they argue that Plaintiff “fail[s] to allege or even identify a common law tort. . . for which the FTCA has waived the United States’ sovereign immunity.” … The key difference between the Social Security Act and the FTCA is that only the latter clearly prohibits the Court from hearing a case before the plaintiff has exhausted administrative 2 In relevant part, 42 U.S.C.

Garcia Ramirez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2018

However, the complaint must still “clearly and specifically set forth facts sufficient to satisfy” Article III. … As the Supreme Court established in Bennett v.

Leopold v. Central Intelligence Agency

89 F. Supp. 3d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2015

Supp. 2d 202, 208 (D.D.C. 2010) (e-mails that post-dated grant of immunity to individual were nonetheless predecisional because they were “generated as part of a continuous process of agency decision making, viz., how to … At the time of writing the author could not know whether the decisionmaking process would lead to a clear decision, establishing the privilege, or fizzle, defeating it.

Dellums v. Bush

752 F. Supp. 1141 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 1990

the issue is factually close or ambiguous or fraught with intricate technical military and diplomatic baggage, the courts would not defer to the political branches to determine whether or not particular hostilities might qualify … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for determining standing under Article III of the Constitution.

Benson v. Sebelius

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2011

The MSP is clear: if a third party is responsible for injuring a qualified individual and Medicare pays for the resulting medical treatment, the payment is considered conditional and repayment to Medicare is required. … The government clearly has a broad interest in “conserv[ing] scarce fiscal and administrative resources” and in collecting sums due to the federal treasury. Phillips v.

Meshal v. Higgenbotham

47 F. Supp. 3d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2014

Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 389 (1971); and (2) 10   Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. They also argue that Mr. … Meshal alleges that Defendants acted in accordance with guidelines established by the executive branch.

FDIC v. Interdonato

988 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 1997

Yet, the letters sent by UNB clearly referred to the possibility of director and officer liability. … VSC has failed to establish any facts to show that the APA loan problems were known before the signing of the application on May 21, 1987.

American Tunaboat Association v. Ross

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2019

Clearly, fishing is an action that is authorized by federal agencies. But is it the action? … Cir. 2000) (“District Court decisions do not establish the law of the circuit, nor, indeed, do they even establish the law of the district.”

Global Reach, Inc. v. Hawkwood Group LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 2026

Second, HGL is an “artificial entity” and thus may only appear in court with representation by licensed counsel, and Kent does not qualify as such. Am. … “These limitations reflect the ‘fundamental principle that no citizen should be . . . subjected to punishment that is not clearly prescribed.’” Id. (quoting United States v.