People and Events News - DC Circuit
DC Circuit - The FindLaw DC Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in People and Events Category

In case you haven't been paying attention, here's the dirt on Sri Srinivasan, a newer arrival to the D.C. Circuit, but widely considered a rising legal star and potential future SCOTUS nominee. A native of India, he grew up in Kansas, graduated from Stanford, and clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Srinivasan gained notice as a private litigator and government lawyer before joining the D.C. Circuit.

Four of the nine Justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court came through the D.C. Circuit. Will Srinivasan be next?

District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser told the D.C. Circuit that the dispute between the mayor's office and city council over the District's Budget Autonomy Act is now moot. The Act, a local law, grants D.C. autonomy over its locally raised funds, contrary to the dictates of the federal Home Rule Act which requires that local tax dollars be spent by the District only through congressional appropriations.

Vincent Gray, Bowser's predecessor, had refused to implement the bill, leading to the current litigation. Unlike Gray, Bowser believes the Act is valid. She will likely now move to have the existing suit dismissed.

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America's self-styled "toughest sheriff," isn't taking "no" for an answer. Just two weeks after the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed his lawsuit against the Obama Administration and its nascent immigration policy, Arpaio is urging the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to expedite the briefing schedule for this all-important appeal.

What could possibly be so urgent that one of the nation's most important appellate courts has to speed up the calendar for Arpaio's lawsuit?

Whenever something goes wrong with our nation's governance, the D.C. Circuit is the first to hear about it. (Well, really, it's the second -- after the D.C. District Court.) From lawsuits against the president to immigration challenges, the D.C. Circuit has seen it all.

So what did you, dear readers, find the most interesting in 2014? Take a look out our Top 10 D.C. Circuit Posts of 2014:

In 2005, Harry Barko, an employee of government contractor Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), filed a False Claims Act complaint. KBR, which at the time was a subsidiary of Halliburton, provided military support services in Iraq. Barko alleged that KBR was inflating costs and receiving kickbacks.

This case, for which Barko filed a cert. petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, isn't even about all that yet. This is a case about the limits of attorney-client privilege.

As we noted last month, Washington, D.C.'s voter-approved recreational marijuana law is subject to a veto by Congress, which has the last word in administration over the District. Well, it looks like Congress is going to severely harsh people's mellows.

Buried in a 2015 appropriations bill -- on pages 213 to 214, to be exact -- is a paragraph noting that "none of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used" by any of the states or jurisdictions that legalize marijuana in any form to implement those laws. (We should note that the text of this bill only seems to affect "medical marijuana," but an appropriations committee flyer suggests that forthcoming legislation will apply to any kind of marijuana.)

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear three cases, consolidated into one argument, on the issue of EPA regulation of electric utilities. Michigan v. EPA, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, and National Mining Association v. EPA all seek to address whether it was unreasonable for the EPA to refuse to consider cost when determining whether to regulate air pollutants emitted by electric utilities under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

The cases have nationwide importance, as indicated by the gazillions of states that are petitioners and respondents in this case.

Even though the District of Columbia overwhelmingly voted to legalize marijuana earlier this month, Washington, D.C. is no normal place, as its residents know all too well. Though the District does have a city council, acts of the council are subject to approval by Congress, with whom the buck stops when it comes to governing D.C.

So the question remains: Will a Congress that still considers marijuana as deadly as heroin be amenable to approving it for recreational use?

Because the D.C. Circuit is the go-to circuit for questions involving the powers of the branches of government, the cases that come from this circuit, predictably, involve government authority.

So far this term, the Supreme Court has found at least one extremely polemical issue among other more prosaic questions of agency authority.

The D.C. Circuit Court has been quiet this week, but an opinion from the D.C. District Court is set to create a rumbling that no amount of Tums can abate.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 struck down limitations on campaign spending by corporations. That same year in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the D.C. Circuit expanded that to include spending by PACs not affiliated with candidates. In this last term, McCutcheon v. FEC expanded the flip side of Citizens United by striking down limitations on aggregate contributions to candidates and PACs.

Steel yourself for the next exciting episode. The Republican and Libertarian Parties asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to strike down limitations on contributions to their parties' non-coordinated campaign funds. In an opinion issued Tuesday, the court agreed that there was something there worth adjudicating.