The case concerned a challenge by SNAP participants from five states to the USDA’s approval of state pilot projects that banned the use of SNAP benefits to purchase certain foods and beverages (such as soda and candy) in an effort to promote healthier eating. Plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the Secretary lacked authority to approve the projects and had skipped required procedures. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on two counts and denied the government’s cross-motion, holding that the projects were improperly authorized under 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b), which permits only pilot projects aimed at improving the administrative efficiency of SNAP itself, not at altering nutrition or health outcomes. The court further ruled that any projects intended to improve dietary health must instead comply with the distinct and more rigorous requirements of § 2026(k), which the agency bypassed entirely, and that the USDA had violated its own regulation by failing to publish the required 30-day Federal Register notice for projects with significant public impact. The court remanded the matter without addressing the remaining APA count.
The Washington Area Bicyclist Association sued the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and their officials to block the planned removal of the 15th Street Cycle Track, a set of dedicated bike lanes near the National Mall. The plaintiff claimed the agencies’ decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious and failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Capital Planning Act, and the Park Service Organic Act. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the arbitrary-and-capricious and NEPA claims, ruling that the record showed no reasoned explanation for proceeding with removal and that the agencies’ use of a NEPA categorical exclusion was also arbitrary and capricious. The court therefore vacated the removal decision and remanded it to the agencies, while denying the motion for interim injunctive relief as moot.
The case involved a FOIA lawsuit by Frimet and Arnold Roth against the Department of State, seeking records on the 1995 U.S.-Jordan extradition treaty and U.S. efforts to extradite Ahlam Al-Tamimi, who orchestrated the 2001 suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed the plaintiffs’ daughter. The State Department located 62 responsive records, withheld 30 in part and 4 in full under Exemptions 1, 5, and 7(A), and provided a Vaughn index; the plaintiffs challenged the withholdings. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the agency’s motion in part, upholding the withholdings for documents 1–16, 19, and 21–34 as properly justified by the claimed exemptions, while denying the plaintiffs’ motion as to those records. It reserved judgment on documents 17, 18, and 20, finding the agency’s Exemption 7(A) showing—that disclosure would interfere with ongoing enforcement proceedings—too general and conclusory despite the deference owed to the government’s declarations, and ordered the agency to supplement its justification by April 21, 2026.
Jarvis Grindstaff, a deaf former Economic Development Specialist at the Small Business Administration, sued the agency and its administrator under the Rehabilitation Act, alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodations for his disability, disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation leading to his termination during his probationary period. The district court granted in part and denied in part both the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s cross-motion. It entered judgment for the plaintiff on his claim that the agency unlawfully failed to provide a videophone for communicating with deaf clients, while entering judgment for the defendants on the hostile work environment, retaliation, and most disparate treatment claims; the court allowed the plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim regarding discipline for gym use during work hours to proceed. The rulings rested on the record showing that most requested accommodations were supplied and that the agency had multiple legitimate, non-pretextual reasons for termination that the plaintiff did not sufficiently rebut as to causation.
The case concerned Valancourt Books’ challenge to a U.S. Copyright Office demand letter requiring it to deposit 240 physical copies of its publications with the Library of Congress under 17 U.S.C. § 407, with fines threatened for noncompliance. After the D.C. Circuit held that the mandatory deposit, as applied through the demand letter, effected an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the district court on remand entered summary judgment for the plaintiff. The court declared the August 2018 demand letter unconstitutional and void, and enjoined its enforcement, because the letter directly appropriated private property without providing a costless means to avoid the obligation. It denied broader injunctive relief against possible future demands, finding any such claim non-justiciable due to the speculative nature of potential future injury.
This case involved a FOIA lawsuit by Watkins Law & Advocacy, PLLC against the Department of Veterans Affairs (and other agencies) seeking records on the VA’s procedures for deciding which veterans and beneficiaries to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for firearm prohibitions based on mental capacity adjudications. After the D.C. Circuit remanded the claims against the VA, the district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the VA’s withholdings under FOIA Exemption 5 (deliberative process and attorney-client privileges) and segregability. The court granted the VA’s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion. It ruled that the VA had adequately justified its withholdings through a detailed Vaughn Index, declarations describing the deliberative nature of the records, and the court’s own in camera review, while also confirming that no reasonably segregable non-exempt information existed.
