Case law

District of Columbia v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 2025

out-of-state National Guard units operating in the District pursuant to 32 U.S.C. § 502(f). 7 In their briefing, the Parties extensively dispute whether the activities the National Guard units are undertaking in the District qualify … The phrase “to aid” is best 21 A similar provision in South Carolina state law is also clearly a prohibition, not a grant of affirmative authority. See S.C.

Budik v. Department of the Army

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2010

dispersed through the document, Mead Data, 566 F.2d at 261, and where an agency’s submission does not specify which portions of the documents withheld are disclosable and which are allegedly exempt, it does not even qualify … The PPE and Exemption (b)(6) Exemption (b)(6) applies to “personnel and medical files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).

Stewart v. United States Department of Agriculture

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2024

“It is not sufficient to merely provide a qualified individual with any accommodation; the accommodation needs to address the limitation arising from the individual’s disability.” Di Lella v. Univ. of D.C. David A. … Chambers, 35 F.4th at 875 (“Brown’s approach is clearly mistaken.”). Because Chambers overruled Brown, it is binding D.C. Circuit precedent that Chambers applies to § 2000e-16. See Cameron v.

Lewis v. District of Columbia Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2017

Code § 5-1402(a) (establishing OCME as an executive agency under the Mayor). … The Complaint clearly alleges that both the alcohol and drug tests violate the ADA. See Am. Compl., ¶¶ 86-93.

Williams & Connolly LLP v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 2025

Under Exemption 6, an agency may withhold “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). … The Court therefore finds that CBP and USCIS have established the foreseeable harm necessary to justify their withholdings under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). See Ball v.

In Re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation

District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 2019

Plaintiffs filed their [334] Omnibus 3 OnFebruary 25, 2019, this Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Disburse Funds for Costs of Class Notice from the Qualified Settlement Fund. … P. 23(c)(2)(B), which sets forth seven items that must be clearly and concisely stated.

State of Texas v. United States of America

831 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 2011

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. … [M]inority voters are not immune from the obligation to pull, haul, and trade to find common political ground. 1987 was very similar.

Bombardier, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor

145 F. Supp. 3d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 12, 2015

The judge qualified his findings and explained that they did not mean that Mr. Sobhani was entitled to relief, or that he had even established a prima facie case. Id. … Because this Court must “respect the review process established by Congress,” Bombardier’s complaint must be dismissed.

['Scudder v. Central Intelligence Agency']

25 F. Supp. 3d 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2014

The court described affidavits consisting of “speculative opinion” and a “terse and self-serving statement” as “not enough to establish the requisite risk of impairment” to label a record confidential under Exemption 4 … While the former may qualify as a technical infeasibility, as the defendant claims, the latter would not.

Maverick Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Does 1 - 1,000

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2011

Courts have permitted discovery even when a party has failed to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. … ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997) (“There is ‘no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to [the Internet]”); accord, Sinclair v. TubeSockTedD, 596 F.

Stat-Trade Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

869 F. Supp. 2d 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 2012

STANDARD OF REVIEW The APA establishes the scope of judicial review of agency action, see Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. … If, however, the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, Congress has not spoken clearly, and a permissible agency interpretation of the statute merits judicial deference.

Boster v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

959 F. Supp. 2d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2013

The Plan qualifies as an employee welfare plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1), and is therefore governed by ERISA. Id. ¶ 8. … Contrary to Boster’s assertions, these email exchanges do not “clearly reflect that the ‘new process’ was established for Boster’s claim in November 2010.”

Doe v. Mamsi Life and Health Ins. Co.

471 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 2007

for the first time that the Court’s review should instead be de novo because MAM-SI’s decision was based on its interpretation of the term “medically necessary” in the Group Certificate, and plan administrators are not qualified … It is “well-established” that “barring exceptional circumstances, parties aggrieved by decisions of ... plan administrators must exhaust the administrative remedies available to them under their ... plans before challenging

Tobias v. U.S. Department of Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2024

“To qualify for the deliberative process privilege, an intra-agency memorandum must be both pre-decisional and deliberative.” Abtew, 808 F.3d at 898. … Defendants’ declarations and Vaughn Indexes, credited with being made in good faith, are sufficient to establish the non-segregability of the disputed exempt records. IV.

Worma v. Healey

293 F. Supp. 3d 251 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 2018

For a long time, it appeared to be settled that to succeed in a facial challenge to a statute, "the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid." *269 United States v. … Here, the Act lists certain individual models that qualify as "assault weapons" but also incorporates the now-expired federal ban's general definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon." See Mass. Gen.

United States v. Brock

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2022

Regardless, Brock does not seem to suggest factual ambiguity, only that the government explain how the clearly described conduct falls under the statute. … However, he fails to explain how the requested discovery would qualify as information material to his “guilt or to punishment,” as required under Brady. See 373 U.S. at 87.

United States v. Jae Shik Kim

103 F. Supp. 3d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2015

He explained that “it would be inappropriate to search his laptop without – without an individual who’s qualified to preserve the contents of the laptop. … in that case since the Saboonchi court was otherwise constrained by the Fourth Circuit precedent in Ickes. 30  does not render the contents of a suitcase immune

National Public Radio Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2020

Exemption 7(E) clearly protects information that would train potential violators to evade the law or instruct them how to break the law. But it goes further. … NPR attacks the Hardy Declarations in several ways, but the Court need only discuss one to conclude that the videos do not qualify for withholding under Exemption 7(E).

Groenendal v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2024

“The system of disclosure established by the FOIA is simple in theory. … Exemption 6 protects “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), while Exemption 7(C) protects “records

United States v. Guertin

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2022

The Government says the obtain/maintain distinction is irrelevant on these facts: “[I]f the alternative, absent fraud, is that the defendant is likely to lose his job . . . then the fraudulent scheme clearly is intended … Those concerns make some sense—reading mail- and wire-fraud statutes to sweep in a vast, ambiguous realm of public/private interactions would run against well-established norms of fair notice and due process.