Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A former federal employee retired before age sixty-two and began receiving an annuity supplement under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act (FERS). Years earlier, a Colorado state court had issued a divorce decree awarding his ex-wife a pro rata share of his “gross monthly annuity” and any benefit earned from his special service, but the decree did not specifically mention the annuity supplement. For nearly thirty years, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) only divided the annuity supplement between former spouses if a court order expressly required it. In 2016, OPM changed its policy, deciding that if a court order divided the basic annuity, the annuity supplement would also be divided in the same way, even if the order was silent on the supplement. OPM applied this new interpretation retroactively, resulting in a demand that the retiree pay his ex-wife nearly $25,000.The retiree challenged OPM’s decision before the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board’s administrative judge found that OPM could only divide the annuity supplement if a court order expressly provided for such division. The Board affirmed this decision, rejecting OPM’s new interpretation. OPM then sought review from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, under 5 U.S.C. §§ 8421(c) and 8467(a), OPM may apportion a federal retiree’s annuity supplement to a former spouse only when a court order expressly provides for such division. The court reasoned that the statutory text, structure, and history require the annuity supplement to be treated in the same way as the basic annuity, which is only divided if expressly ordered by a court. The court affirmed the Board’s decision. View "OPM v. MOULTON " on Justia Law

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., an Indian manufacturer, was subject to a countervailing duty investigation initiated by the U.S. Department of Commerce after Daikin America, Inc., a U.S. producer, filed petitions regarding imports of granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India and Russia. During the period of investigation, Gujarat purchased wind energy from Inox Wind Limited, a cross-owned Indian company that had received a subsidized land lease from the Indian government. Inox sold all its wind energy to Gujarat, which was used at Gujarat’s production facility to manufacture PTFE resin and other products. The wind energy from Inox represented a small fraction of the total energy consumed at the facility.Commerce determined that the subsidy received by Inox should be attributed to Gujarat under the cross-ownership regulation at 19 C.F.R. § 351.525(b)(6)(iv), resulting in a significant portion of the countervailing duty rate assessed against Gujarat. Commerce reasoned that because all of Inox’s wind energy was supplied to Gujarat, the input was “primarily dedicated” to Gujarat’s downstream production. Gujarat challenged this determination before the United States Court of International Trade, arguing that Commerce misapplied the “primarily dedicated” standard. The Trade Court agreed, finding that the regulation required more than mere consumption of the input by the downstream producer and that the facts did not support attributing the subsidy under the cross-ownership provision. The Trade Court ordered Commerce to remove the portion of the duty rate based on this attribution, and Commerce complied under protest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court’s judgment. The Federal Circuit held that the cross-ownership regulation does not apply solely because the downstream producer is the sole consumer of the input. Instead, the regulation requires a fact-specific inquiry into whether the input’s production is primarily dedicated to the downstream product, as reflected in the regulatory history and examples. The court affirmed the removal of the subsidy attribution and the adjusted duty rate. View "GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. v. US " on Justia Law

Two advocacy organizations submitted a petition to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) seeking a rule that would limit the PTO’s discretion to institute inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings under the America Invents Act. Their proposed rule would have prevented institution of such proceedings in certain circumstances when the patent owner objected and met specific criteria, such as being the original applicant and having small entity status. The PTO denied the petition, stating that the issues overlapped with topics already under consideration in a separate request for public comment and that the suggestions would be considered in any future rulemaking.After the denial, the organizations filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the PTO’s denial violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the America Invents Act. They argued that the PTO failed to act within a reasonable time, did not provide adequate reasons for denial, and was required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking. The PTO moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing. The district court granted the motion, finding that the organizations lacked both organizational and associational standing because they failed to show that any member faced a concrete, non-speculative injury as a result of the PTO’s denial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the organizations lacked associational standing because they did not demonstrate that any member suffered an actual or imminent injury traceable to the PTO’s denial of the petition. The court found the alleged injury too speculative, relying on a chain of uncertain future events involving third-party actions. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing. View "US INVENTOR, INC. v. PTO " on Justia Law

Several U.S. companies that import products from China challenged the imposition of tariffs on certain Chinese goods, known as List 3 and List 4A tariffs. These tariffs were implemented by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) after an investigation found that China engaged in unreasonable or discriminatory practices that burdened U.S. commerce. The initial tariffs, covering $50 billion in imports (Lists 1 and 2), were not contested. However, after China retaliated with its own tariffs, USTR expanded the tariffs to cover an additional $200 billion (List 3) and later $120 billion (List 4A) in Chinese imports. The plaintiffs argued that these expanded tariffs exceeded USTR’s statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to properly consider public comments.The United States Court of International Trade reviewed the case first. It found that USTR acted within its authority under Section 307(a)(1)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows modification of trade actions when the burden on U.S. commerce increases or decreases. However, the court also determined that USTR had not adequately responded to significant public comments as required by the APA. The court ordered a limited remand for USTR to further explain its reasoning and how it considered public input. After USTR provided a more detailed explanation, the trial court sustained the List 3 and List 4A tariffs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Section 307(a)(1)(C) independently authorized USTR’s modifications, allowing escalatory trade actions when the original action was no longer appropriate. The court also found that USTR’s remand redetermination satisfied the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed and sustained the challenged tariffs. View "HMTX Industries LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

Several small businesses and a coalition of states challenged a series of executive orders issued by the President that imposed new tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all goods imported from most countries. These tariffs, referred to as the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs, were imposed in response to declared national emergencies related to drug trafficking and trade imbalances. The executive orders directed changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, resulting in significant increases in import duties on products from Canada, Mexico, China, and other major trading partners.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT), arguing that the President exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing these tariffs. The CIT granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose the challenged tariffs and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The government appealed, and the Federal Circuit consolidated the cases, stayed the injunction pending appeal, and heard the matter en banc.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, holding that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate” importation does not include the power to impose tariffs of the type and scope at issue. The court found that IEEPA does not mention tariffs, duties, or taxes, and contrasted it with other statutes where Congress has explicitly delegated tariff authority to the President with clear limitations. The court also concluded that the government’s interpretation would raise serious constitutional concerns under the major questions and non-delegation doctrines. The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s declaratory judgment that the executive orders were invalid, but vacated the universal injunction and remanded for the CIT to reconsider the scope of injunctive relief in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump" on Justia Law

Shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, acting derivatively on behalf of these entities, challenged the federal government’s actions following the 2008 financial crisis. After the housing market collapse, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and authorizing it to act as conservator for the Enterprises. The FHFA placed both entities into conservatorship, and the U.S. Treasury entered into agreements to provide financial support in exchange for senior preferred stock and other rights. In 2012, a “net worth sweep” was implemented, redirecting nearly all profits from the Enterprises to the Treasury, effectively eliminating dividends for other shareholders. The plaintiffs, as preferred shareholders, alleged that this arrangement constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.The United States Court of Federal Claims previously reviewed the case and granted the government’s motion to dismiss. The Claims Court relied on the Federal Circuit’s prior decision in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, which held that, under HERA, the Enterprises lost any cognizable property interest necessary to support a takings claim because the FHFA, as conservator, had broad authority over the Enterprises’ assets. The Claims Court found the plaintiffs’ claims indistinguishable from those in Fairholme and dismissed them accordingly.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court affirmed the Claims Court’s decision, holding that claim preclusion barred the plaintiffs’ derivative takings claims because the issues had already been litigated in Fairholme. The court rejected arguments that the prior representation was inadequate or that the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County fundamentally changed takings law. The Federal Circuit concluded that Fairholme remained binding precedent and affirmed the dismissal. View "FISHER v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves Tau-Ken Temir LLP, JSC NMC Tau-Ken Samruk, and the Ministry of Trade and Integration of the Republic of Kazakhstan (collectively, "Tau-Ken") appealing a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade. The U.S. Department of Commerce had determined that the Republic of Kazakhstan subsidized Tau-Ken’s production of silicon metal, warranting a countervailable subsidy rate of 160%. This determination was based on Commerce rejecting a Tau-Ken submission that was filed 1 hour and 41 minutes past the deadline.The U.S. Court of International Trade sustained Commerce’s decision, finding that Commerce did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the late submission and applying an adverse inference when selecting from facts otherwise available. The Trade Court likened the case to Dongtai Peak Honey Industries Co. v. United States, where Commerce had similarly rejected untimely submissions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and found that Commerce abused its discretion in rejecting Tau-Ken’s submission. The court noted that the rejection significantly impeded the goal of determining an accurate countervailable subsidy rate and that accepting the late submission would not have burdened Commerce or implicated finality concerns. The court also found that Tau-Ken had made diligent efforts to comply with the deadlines and that the technical issues encountered were legitimate.The Federal Circuit vacated the Trade Court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions for Commerce to accept the September 16 submission and proceed with the countervailing duty investigation accordingly. The court emphasized the importance of determining subsidy rates as accurately as possible and found that Commerce’s rejection of the submission was a clear error of judgment. View "TAU-KEN TEMIR LLP v. US " on Justia Law

Rodney Wright, a totally disabled veteran, sought additional compensation for his adult daughter, B.W., under 38 U.S.C. § 1115(1)(F) after she elected to receive benefits from the Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance (DEA) program. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ceased paying Wright additional compensation for B.W. once she began receiving DEA benefits, citing 38 U.S.C. § 3562(2), which bars increased rates or additional amounts of compensation when a dependent elects DEA benefits.The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied Wright’s request for additional compensation, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board’s decision. The Veterans Court held that section 3562 permanently barred Wright from receiving additional compensation under section 1115 once B.W. elected to receive DEA benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Veterans Court’s decision. The Federal Circuit held that the nonduplication provision of section 3562 bars a disabled veteran from receiving additional compensation under section 1115(1)(F) once the veteran’s child begins receiving DEA benefits. The court also determined that this bar is permanent and does not lift after the exhaustion of DEA benefits. The court rejected Wright’s argument that the bar should only apply to concurrent receipt of benefits, finding no statutory basis for such an interpretation. The court concluded that section 3562 imposes a permanent bar on a veteran’s receipt of additional compensation under section 1115(1)(F) once the veteran’s child elects to receive DEA benefits. View "WRIGHT v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants, owners of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA), sued the United States, alleging a taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment due to the enactment of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). They claimed that the restructuring of COFINA's debts under PROMESA resulted in a significant loss of the principal and interest value of their bonds and their security interest.The United States Court of Federal Claims determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over the case but dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The court found that the enactment of PROMESA by Congress did not constitute sufficient federal government action to support a takings claim. The court reasoned that the actions of the Puerto Rico Oversight Board, which was created by PROMESA and acted autonomously, could not be attributed to the United States as coercive or as an agency relationship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Claims Court. The Federal Circuit held that PROMESA did not displace Tucker Act jurisdiction, as there was no clear congressional intent to withdraw the Tucker Act remedy. The court also agreed with the Claims Court that the United States did not exert coercive control over the Oversight Board's actions, which were necessary to establish a taking. The court concluded that the plaintiffs could not establish that the United States was liable for the alleged taking of their property. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Claims Court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint. View "DINH v. US " on Justia Law

Nikko Cerrone, a sixteen-year-old, received the Gardasil HPV vaccine, Flumist influenza vaccine, and Hepatitis A vaccine on October 7, 2015. He later reported decreased stamina and blood in his stools, leading to a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (UC) in March 2016. He received a second HPV vaccine dose in February 2016 and a third in June 2016, with no documented reaction to the third dose.Cerrone filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, claiming the vaccines caused his UC. The Chief Special Master of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program denied his claim, finding that Cerrone failed to prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court of Federal Claims upheld this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that Cerrone did not meet the burden of proof required under the Vaccine Act. The court found that the special master correctly applied the legal standards and that the findings were not arbitrary or capricious. The court noted that the special master found the respondent's experts more credible and persuasive than Cerrone's experts. The court also upheld the special master's conclusion that the evidence did not support a proximate temporal relationship between the vaccinations and the onset of UC. The decision of the Court of Federal Claims was affirmed. View "CERRONE v. HHS " on Justia Law