Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case involved an experimental forest thinning, fuels reduction, and research project (the Project) in the Deschutes National Forest in central Oregon. The Project allowed logging and controlled burning on 2,500 acres of the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. The League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project (the League) filed suit against the U.S. Forest Service and Service officials, alleging that the agency's environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Project failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The district court granted summary judgment to the Service, relying in part on the fact that the Project involved research in an experimental forest. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the EIS was adequately supported by scientific data and took a hard look at the significant impacts of the Project, and therefore, the EIS complied with NEPA. View "League of Wilderness Defenders v. USFS" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services denied Medicare coverage of the BIO-1000, a piece of durable medical equipment used to treat osteoarthritis of the knee. In four decisions, the Medicare appeals counsel, the highest level of agency adjudication, ruled that the BIO-1000 had not been shown to be reasonable and necessary for the treatment at issue. The supplier of the device challenged those decisions. The district court granted summary judgment for the BIO-1000 supplier. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment and joined the Fourth Circuit in holding that the appeals council's coverage denials for the BIO-1000 were not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence, as (1) the appeals council adequately explained its reasons for denying coverage; and (2) the coverage denials were supported by substantial evidence. Remanded. View "Int'l Rehab. Scis. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former employee of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) who suffered from multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus, filed an administrative complaint based on alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The complaint was adjudicated by an ALJ, who denied relief in part. Plaintiff then filed an optional administrative appeal with the EEOC. Plaintiff withdrew her appeal without waiting 180 days as specified in 29 C.F.R. 1614.407(d) and filed suit in district court based on the same claims she asserted in her administrative complaint. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, holding that under Rivera v. USPS, it lacked jurisdiction because Plaintiff had not waited 180 days after filing her administrative appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that based on Bankston v. White and on post-Rivera regulation, Bullock had exhausted her administrative remedies. Remanded. View "Bullock v. Berrien" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were United States citizens or legal permanent residents who had good reason to believe they were on the Terrorist Screening Center's (TSC) no-fly list (List). They initially submitted grievances through the redress program run by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), but the government refused to confirm or deny their inclusion on the List. Rather than continuing to pursue their administrative grievances with the TSA, Plaintiffs filed this action against the directors of the TSC and FBI and the attorney general, challenging the TSA's grievance procedures. The district court dismissed the case, holding that TSA was a necessary party to the litigation but that TSA could not feasibly be joined in the district court due to 49 U.S.C. 46110, which grants federal courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review TSA's final orders. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) section 46110 does not strip the district court of federal question jurisdiction over substantive challenges to the inclusion of one's name on the List; and (2) the district court's determination that TSA was a necessary party was not an abuse of discretion, but the court erred in holding that joinder of TSA was infeasible in light of section 46110. View "Latif v. Holder" on Justia Law

Two environmental groups (Petitioners) petitioned for review of a final rulemaking by the EPA that approved a revision to a California state plan to implement national ambient air quality standards for air pollutants. The revision required the South Coast Air Quality Management District to transfer credits to a soon-to-be-completed power plant named Sentinel. Petitioners alleged that the EPA committed procedural errors during the rulemaking process and that the substance of the revised state plan violated the Clean Air Act. Petitioners and the EPA agreed this case should be remanded because the EPA's final rule was invalid, so the only dispute was whether vacatur was appropriate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded without vacatur so the construction of the power plant could proceed without delay, as the power supply would otherwise be interrupted and the plant's operation was not authorized to commence without a new and valid EPA rule in place. View "Ca. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. EPA" on Justia Law

Deborah Benge, a former employee of Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication, filed a disability claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act seeking compensation for her work-related injury. The ALJ found that Benge's disability at the time was permanent. The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) made partial permanent disability payments to Benge until Benge underwent surgery. An ALJ subsequently determined that Benge's nine-month total disability immediately following the surgery was temporary in nature. This determination absolved the OWCP from making disability payments during this time period. Instead, Pacific was liable for the payments. The Department of Labor's Benefits Review Board affirmed the ALJ, concluding that even if a disability is declared permanent, it may be later re-characterized as temporary when the underlying condition worsens and re-stabilizes following a surgical procedure. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) under the Longshore Act, a prior finding of partial permanent disability does not preclude a later finding of temporary disability for the same underlying injury during a period of recovery following surgery; and (2) because Benge's partial disability could be re-characterized as a temporary total disability in accord with changed circumstances, Pacific was responsible for the temporary total disability payments. View "Pac. Ship Repair & Fabrication, Inc. v. Office of Worker Comp. Programs" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether the renewal of forty-one water supply contracts by the United States Bureau of Reclamation violated section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and illegally threatened the existence of the delta smelt. The contracts at issue fell into two groups: (1) users who obtained water from the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC contracts), and (2) parties who claimed to hold water rights senior to those held by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation with regard to a Central Valley Project and who previously entered into settlement contracts with the Bureau (settlement contractors). The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the DMC contracts and that Plaintiffs' claims against the settlement contractors failed because the contracts were not discretionary and were thus exempted from section 7(a)(2) compliance. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing with regard to the contracts and that section 7(a)(2) of the ESA did not apply to the settlement contracts. View "Natural Res. Defense Council v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Howard Back filed this suit alleging that Secretary of Heath and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius violated her duties under the Medicare Act and the Due Process Clause by failing to provide an administrative process for beneficiaries of hospice care to appeal a hospice provider's refusal to provide a drug prescribed by their attending physician. The district court granted the Secretary's motion for judgment on the pleadings because Back had not exhausted his administrative remedies. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and dismissed the appeal as moot, holding that although the government led Back to believe there was no appeal process, such a process did exist. Accordingly, no controversy existed and the appeal was moot. View "Back v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Puget Sound Energy (PSE) maintains and operates a hydroelectric power plant at Snoqualmie Falls in Washington state. PSE sought verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that it could proceed with upgrading and modifying its plant under a series of general nationwide permits (NWPs) authorizing certain discharges rather than applying to the Corps for an individual permit. PSE had already obtained a license for the project from FERC. The Corps verified that it could. Downstream property owners formed the Snoqualmie Valley Preservation Alliance (Alliance) to challenge this decision. The district court granted summary judgment for the Corps. The Ninth Circuit court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) this suit was not an improper collateral attack against the FERC license and amendment; (2) NWP 17, the only nationwide permit which specifically references hydropower projects, is not exclusively applicable to hydropower projects; (3) the Corps did not err in verifying that NWPs 3 and 39 authorize the project; and (4) the Corps' verification letter contained a sufficient articulation of the basis for its decision. View "Snoqualmie Valley Pres. Alliance v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court seeking damages for the 31 months during which they were barred from improving their shoreline property by the moratorium imposed by local officials on new projects. Plaintiffs asserted that the moratorium violated their substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and sought damages against the city under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court concluded that the moratorium ordinances were validly enacted, nonarbitrary, and manifestly related to the city's legitimate municipal interests. Accordingly, the court held that the city did not violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights. View "Samson, et al. v. City of Bainbridge Island" on Justia Law