Amy Berman Jackson

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.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

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.

environmentprocedurefederal power

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

propertybusiness & regulatory

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.

gunsprocedure

Nia Shene’ Lucas, a former SBA employee, sued the agency’s administrator under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claiming the SBA retaliated against her for filing an earlier FLSA lawsuit by failing to make required “continuation of pay” benefits after a 2019 workplace injury. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court held that the alleged non-payments stemmed from events and obligations arising in 2019 and early 2020, before Lucas filed her prior lawsuit in 2021, so the timeline precluded any plausible inference of a causal link between the protected activity and the claimed adverse actions.

labor & employmentprocedure

Jonathan Rodriguez, a former U.S. Marine, filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act against the Secretary of the Navy to challenge the disability classification code assigned at his separation and the denial of disability retirement pay, claiming the Physical Evaluation Board and Board for Correction of Naval Records failed to properly apply regulations under 10 U.S.C. § 1201 and related guidance like the Kurta Memo when rating his service-connected back and psychological conditions. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss in part for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. It applied a highly deferential standard of review to military disability determinations and concluded that the agency's decisions were supported by substantial evidence, reflected a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made, and contained no material error or injustice warranting correction.

procedurefederal powerhealthcare

This case arose under the Freedom of Information Act, in which plaintiff Antonio Sherrod, who is serving life sentences for carjacking and related crimes, sought records from the FBI, ATF, and Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys concerning his 2003 prosecution, including surveillance videos and a 9-1-1 recording referenced in his criminal trial. After earlier rulings resolved most issues and videos were released, the sole remaining dispute concerned the 9-1-1 recording. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Department of Justice’s second supplemental motion for summary judgment. The court found that EOUSA had conducted a reasonably adequate search of its files and determined it did not possess the recording, which had been returned to the Kankakee Police Department, and that FOIA obligations apply only to records an agency controls. Because the plaintiff did not oppose the motion or dispute the facts, the court treated the agency’s evidence as undisputed and entered judgment for the defendants.

procedurecriminal law

Plaintiff Ayman Fareh Soliman sued the Secretary of Homeland Security and other federal officials, alleging that his inclusion in the Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS) produced an “FBI flag” on background checks that blocked him from obtaining employment as a prison chaplain. After earlier claims were dismissed, only a Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim remained. The district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss that claim. Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the court found it plausible that Soliman had a protected liberty interest impaired by TSDS placement and that existing redress mechanisms, such as DHS TRIP, were designed only for travel-related difficulties and did not provide an adequate opportunity to contest the listing for employment purposes. The ruling allows the case to proceed to discovery but does not decide the ultimate merits.

civil rightsfederal powerlabor & employmentprocedure

Angela Smith sued the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for negligence, alleging that she was injured as a passenger when a WMATA bus she was riding collided with another vehicle in March 2023, causing her physical pain, mental anguish, and other injuries for which she sought $5 million in damages. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted WMATA’s motion for summary judgment. The court relied on video evidence from nine camera angles on the bus showing a minor, glancing impact that caused no visible reaction, jostling, or injury to any of the passengers, including Smith, and noted that the bus continued driving normally afterward. Smith failed to submit any evidence or identify facts creating a genuine dispute about whether the collision caused her any injury, as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this insurance coverage dispute, Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company sued its insured, Lexicon Title Services, LLC, and its sole member Deidre Brown, along with interested parties Doma Title Insurance and Rehabit DC, seeking a declaratory judgment that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify them in an underlying lawsuit alleging breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and conversion. The underlying claims arose from Lexicon’s alleged failure to pay off a deed of trust during a property closing, and Princeton Excess asserted that Lexicon and Brown had breached the policy’s cooperation clause by failing to respond to its attempts to investigate and defend the claims. Doma and Rehabit moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the action was premature and potentially prejudicial. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion, holding that the complaint adequately alleged an actual controversy over coverage rights that was suitable for declaratory relief, that such actions are routinely permitted in insurance disputes, and that allowing the coverage question to proceed first would avoid forcing the insurer to expend resources before its obligations were determined.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company sued its insured, Lexicon Title Services, LLC, and its sole member Deidre Brown, seeking a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify them in a separate lawsuit brought by Doma Title Insurance and Rehabit DC. The underlying suit accused Lexicon and Brown of misappropriating funds in a real estate transaction, but after being served in this coverage action, neither Lexicon nor Brown responded or cooperated with Princeton Excess. The court granted Princeton Excess’s motion for default judgment, finding that the complaint and attached insurance policy established a clear breach of the policy’s “Assistance and Cooperation” provision, which states that failure to cooperate results in loss of coverage. Because the requested relief concerned only the insurer-insured relationship and did not create inconsistent judgments with the claims against the other defendants, the court entered judgment declaring that Princeton Excess had no obligation to defend or indemnify Lexicon or Brown.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund sued Vistacare LLC and 300 Broadway Healthcare LLC in federal court to recover unpaid monthly pension contributions and remittance reports owed under collective bargaining agreements covering employees at the New Vista nursing facility from 2012 through 2024, plus liability for an earlier judgment against predecessor TNUZEG Holdings, in violation of ERISA. After one defendant briefly entered bankruptcy (leading to a temporary stay) and the other defaulted, the court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and default judgment. It held both LLCs jointly and severally liable for the delinquent amounts and missing reports because of their ownership ties, operational continuity with New Vista, and failure to contest the obligations. The court denied the request for a permanent injunction compelling future compliance, finding insufficient grounds shown for that equitable relief.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

U.S. Inventor, Inc. sued the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under FOIA seeking records of all individual bonus payments made to Administrative Patent Judges from 2011 onward, including amounts, dates, and the judges’ names and salaries. The PTO released a spreadsheet covering 3,690 awards but withheld the rows for year-end performance bonuses and gainsharing awards under FOIA Exemption 6, citing the judges’ privacy interest in information tied to their performance ratings. The court held that Exemption 6 properly protected the judges’ identities in connection with those performance-based awards, as disclosure would reveal sensitive performance information. However, it ruled that the agency could reasonably segregate and release the remaining data in those rows—such as award amounts and dates—by redacting only the judges’ names and producing the relevant rows in a separate spreadsheet that prevents inferences from row order or adjacency to unredacted entries. The court therefore granted partial summary judgment to each side and ordered the PTO to produce a revised version of the spreadsheet by February 4, 2026.

procedurefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns ownership of the submerged riverbed of the Missouri River within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota, an area rich in oil and gas. The Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation sued the Department of the Interior after a 2020 Solicitor opinion transferred claimed title to the State, while the federal government later withdrew that opinion and asserted it holds the land in trust for the Tribes; North Dakota intervened to claim ownership under the Equal Footing Doctrine upon statehood in 1889. The court denied the Tribes’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and the federal government’s motion for summary judgment on the crossclaim to quiet title. It found that determining whether the reservation’s establishing documents intended to include the riverbed requires resolving genuine disputes of material fact, including conflicting expert interpretations of treaties, executive orders, and historical evidence, which cannot be decided without a trial featuring live testimony and cross-examination.

propertyfederal powercivil rights

Plaintiff Desharne Wooderts sued Mars Inc. and related entities, alleging that as a child she sent the company an unsolicited letter proposing a candy that combined two Starburst flavors in one piece, and that Mars later misappropriated her idea by developing and marketing “Starburst Duos.” She asserted claims for misappropriation of designs, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, seeking damages and other relief including placing the company in receivership. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied her motion to remand the case to Superior Court and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The court held that the claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations, as the product was publicly announced in February 2019 and the action was not properly initiated until 2022. It further ruled that the complaint failed to state viable claims because an unsolicited idea submitted without a binding confidentiality agreement does not create protectable rights, and the alleged conduct did not meet the legal standards for emotional-distress claims.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liabilityprocedure

Jesse Michael Wall sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that U.S. Marshals assaulted him in December 2023 in a hate crime motivated by his race and sexual orientation, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted constitutional provisions, and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and seeking millions in damages. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part without prejudice. It dismissed the constitutional tort claims on the ground that sovereign immunity bars suits against the United States for such claims and the FTCA does not waive that immunity. It also dismissed the claim under 18 U.S.C. § 249 because that criminal statute does not create a private right of action. The court allowed the remaining FTCA claims alleging intentional torts by federal officers to proceed.

civil rightstorts & liabilitycriminal lawfederal power

DesignwarePro, LLC filed a petition in federal court to confirm an arbitral award it obtained against Retail Pro Software Pty Ltd under the Federal Arbitration Act, after Retail Pro allegedly breached a 2017 license agreement by rebranding and selling the software in unauthorized markets and misusing source code and customer lists. The underlying arbitration, which Retail Pro participated in but later tried to delay, resulted in an award of money damages, fees, an accounting, and injunctive relief. Retail Pro did not respond to the confirmation petition or the subsequent motion for default judgment. The court granted default judgment and confirmed the award, finding that no grounds for refusal under the New York Convention applied, as the respondent had not carried its burden to establish any defense and U.S. law supports arbitral resolution of the claims at issue.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Doe v. District of Columbia, a homeless single woman sued the District of Columbia alleging that it failed to provide her with suitable shelter outside of hypothermia season, offered only unisex cots during that period, and gave preferential treatment to non-citizens with children under its sanctuary policies, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and other rights. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the District’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). The court held that the complaint and subsequent filings failed to state a plausible claim, as the allegations were largely conclusory and did not identify similarly situated individuals who were treated differently. It further reasoned that the District had a rational basis for distinguishing between single adults and families with children due to the latter’s greater vulnerability, and that references to sanctuary policies or the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision did not support a viable cause of action.

civil rightsimmigrationprocedurefamily law