The court reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs likely established associational standing based on the threatened increase in immigration enforcement at their member congregations’ houses of worship.
Federal court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
The 40 most recent opinions analysed by LawDiver, newest first. The case name opens the published case page. Read full opinion opens the opinion text.
Recent opinions
The court affirmed Trankle’s convictions, sentence, and forfeiture order. It held that the challenged writings were hearsay and did not qualify on the record for the state-of-mind exception; although the district court erred by cutting off argument on that exception, the error was harmless.
The court held that Basin had standing to challenge the Commission’s order because the Commission rejected Basin’s contract position, affecting Basin’s current business planning and finances.
The court affirmed dismissal of Remus’s federal claims because they were barred by res judicata, having been raised or capable of being raised in the earlier D.C. litigation. It vacated the dismissal of the D.C.
The court affirmed dismissal of Zhang’s Title VII national-origin discrimination claim because her complaint did not plausibly allege that NPR took action against her because of her national origin.
The court affirmed Sterlingov’s convictions on all four counts and his 150-month sentence, rejecting his challenges to venue, the statute of limitations, expert testimony, discovery restrictions, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the sentencing calculation.
The court denied Anthropic’s petitions for review, holding that the Department reasonably treated the company’s ability and willingness to constrain Claude’s functions as a supply-chain risk under the governing statute and reasonably found no less intrusive alternative.
The court held that Alstom had Article III standing because setting aside the waiver would substantially likely lead Brightline to shift its train order to Alstom rather than risk losing $3 billion in federal funding.
The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the Department’s supply-chain exclusion and rejected Anthropic’s statutory and constitutional challenges. It concluded that the Department reasonably found a covered supply-chain risk, no reasonably available less intrusive measure, and no prejudice from providing…
The court held that Alstom had Article III standing because setting aside the waiver would substantially likely lead Brightline to switch its train order to Alstom rather than risk losing $3 billion in federal funding.
The court affirmed Sterlingov’s convictions on all four counts and his 150-month sentence, rejecting challenges to venue, timeliness, expert and other evidence, discovery restrictions, jury instructions, and the sentencing calculation.
The court held that the Eastern Steps are a nonpublic forum because they are physically integrated with the Capitol, serve as an entrance for members and staff, and are distinct from the surrounding Capitol Grounds.
The Court vacated the Copyright Royalty Board’s final allocation of 2014‑2017 cable retransmission royalties because the Board failed to explain how it merged regression and survey methodologies into the final percentages, and remanded for further explanation.
The D.C. Circuit dismissed the motion for stay in case 26-5236 as moot and denied the motion for stay in case 26-5310, finding the appellants had not satisfied the stringent Nken stay requirements, had not shown likelihood of success on the merits, and had forfeited certain arguments.
The court affirmed Burke’s convictions for bribery, conspiracy, conflict of interest, and concealment. It rejected his indictment and evidentiary challenges, found no instructional error in the missing-witness or overt-act instructions, and concluded that the erroneous bribery mens rea instruction was invited by the…
The court affirmed Burke’s convictions for bribery and related offenses, rejecting his challenges to the indictment, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the cumulative fairness of the trial.
The court affirmed the district court’s order because the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the challenged state-court decisions and the remaining claims, including a request to correct records, were not plausibly pleaded. It also dismissed the appellant’s fee-waiver motion as moot.
The court affirmed the district court’s order because that court lacked jurisdiction to review another district court’s sanctions order. The appellant also failed to establish jurisdiction to review the other court’s Executive Committee order, and the district court could not undo the resulting revocation of his…
The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal of Bordelais’s Federal Tort Claims Act claims under the foreign-country exception. It concluded that the exception bars the claims because the injury occurred in a foreign country, regardless of where the alleged tortious act or omission occurred.
The D.C. Circuit denied Jaffe’s motion to appoint counsel and affirmed dismissal of his case as frivolous. It also concluded that the dismissal did not violate his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
The court affirmed the district court’s orders dismissing Wilson’s damages claims against the Supreme Court Clerk and denying reconsideration. It concluded that accepting or refusing filings is integral to the judicial process and protected by judicial immunity, that dismissal with prejudice was proper, and that…
The court held that the Department of Energy may invoke its emergency authority under section 202(c) only when an electricity-supply risk requires immediate, essentially last-resort federal action not being timely addressed through state and regional resource planning.
The court granted the petitions for review and vacated DOE’s order requiring continued operation of Michigan’s Campbell coal plant. It held that the Federal Power Act permits DOE to order generation under section 202(c) only to address an acute reliability risk requiring immediate, essentially last-resort federal…
The court held that the Department of Energy may use its emergency power only to address an acute electricity-reliability risk requiring immediate, essentially last-resort federal action that state and regional planning mechanisms will not timely address.
The court held that the Department of Energy exceeded its authority under section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act by ordering a Michigan power plant to continue operating because the identified short-term and long-term reliability concerns did not establish an emergency requiring immediate federal action.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the SEC’s denial of John Doe’s whistleblower award, holding that his delayed submission did not satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements that the information be provided to the Commission and actually lead to a successful enforcement action.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's common‑law claims and granted summary judgment to Priority Life Care on all Title VII claims, finding the plaintiff failed to meet her burden on the discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, the latter on the ground…
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction staying the IRS's Data-Exchange Procedure, holding that the procedure constitutes final agency action subject to APA review, that the Center for Taxpayer Rights has standing, and that the Internal Revenue Code does not preclude APA review.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment that Vertex's Fertility Support Program violates the Anti‑Kickback Statute, but reversed the judgment on the Beneficiary Inducement Statute and on HHS's advisory‑opinion timing regulations, remanding for further proceedings.
The Court affirmed summary judgment for the District, holding that Title VII’s business necessity test requires only that an employment practice reasonably fit the employer’s legitimate interests and that the District satisfied this test for both challenged practices and the plaintiffs failed to propose an adequate…
The D.C. Circuit dismissed the NRA's appeal, holding that as a nonparty that only intervened to unseal the record, the NRA lacks standing to appeal the district court's orders and judgment. The court relied on the well‑settled rule that only parties may appeal adverse judgments.
The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the §1983 retaliation claim, holding that The Big Board’s refusal to enforce the District’s masking and proof‑of‑vaccination orders was not protected expressive conduct, but that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Eric Flannery’s protected speech was a…
The D.C. Circuit denied the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal and dismissed the request for an administrative stay, finding that the government failed to meet the stringent Nken standard and that its arguments were forfeited. The court also granted the parties’ motions to participate as amici curiae.
The court affirmed the denial of David Floyd's ineffective-assistance claim arising from the inclusion of a firearm enhancement in his plea-agreement sentencing estimate. It held that counsel's agreement to the enhancement was not objectively unreasonable given the factual proffer, Floyd's repeated failure to object…
The court held that Ortega-Hernandez’s enhanced offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1363 categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s force clause because willfully and maliciously injuring a dwelling requires material impairment caused intentionally and by physical force, and § 1363 reaches another person’s…
The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant Bergdahl the relief he sought because his request to expunge and set aside his court-martial conviction was effectively a request for direct review.
The court affirmed summary judgment for the Library of Congress, holding that the Librarian’s adoption and renewal of the medical-device repair exemption were lawful under the APA.
The court denied Heroes Technology’s petition for review, holding that the Consumer Product Safety Commission acted within its statutory authority when it classified infant support cushions as durable infant or toddler products.
The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Olson’s motion to reconsider his pretrial detention. Applying clear-error review, it held that the district court reasonably found that the charged offenses, the strength of the evidence, Olson’s history and characteristics, and the risks of flight and witness…
The court affirmed the district court’s pretrial detention order, concluding that the district court did not improperly shift the government’s burden or require certainty that release would be safe.