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

Prairie County, Montana, and Greenlee County, Arizona sought additional payments under the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act (PILT), 31 U.S.C. 6901–6907. PILT was enacted to “compensate[ ] local governments for the loss of tax revenues resulting from the tax-immune status of federal lands located in their jurisdictions, and for the cost of providing services related to these lands” and directs the Department of the Interior to “make a payment for each fiscal year to each unit of general local government in which entitlement land is located.” PILT provides two alternative formulas for calculating the amount of payment, but provides that “[n]ecessary amounts may be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to carry out this chapter. Amounts are available only as provided in appropriation laws.” During the years at issue, Congress did not appropriate sufficient funds to provide for full payments to all eligible local governments according to PILT formulas. Interior followed the relevant regulation and proportionally reduced PILT payments to each local government. The Claims Court dismissed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The statute limits the government’s liability under PILT to the amount appropriated by Congress. View "Prairie Cnty, v. United States" on Justia Law

The Tribe filed suit against the government seeking damages to cover the cost of providing safe drinking water on the northeastern Arizona Hopi Reservation. The reservation’s public water systems rely on groundwater drawn from subsurface layers of water-bearing rock. The Tribe alleges that the systems serving five communities on the eastern portion of the reservation contain unsafe levels of arsenic that exceed the federally allowed maximum. The Tribe alleges the United States funded and provided technical assistance for the construction of many of those wells. The Tribe owns and operates the public water systems serving four of the communities; the Bureau of Indian Affairs owns and operates the system serving the fifth. To invoke the court’s jurisdiction under the Indian Tucker Act, the Tribe must identify a statute or regulation imposing a specific obligation on the government to provide adequate drinking water that would give rise to a claim for money damages. The Court of Federal Claims concluded that the Tribe failed to do so. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The sources of law relied on by the Tribe do not establish a specific fiduciary obligation on the United States to ensure adequate water quality on the Reservation. View "Hopi Tribe v. United States" on Justia Law

Exela petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office to “reconsider and withdraw” its revival of the national stage application and to cancel the 218 patent, assigned to SCR Pharmatop. The PTO declined to consider Exela’s petition, stating that no law or regulation authorizes non-party challenge to a PTO ruling to accept a tardy filing. Exela then brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the PTO’s action was ultra vires and that Exela’s petition should have been considered and favorably decided. The district court, on reconsideration and in view of new Fourth Circuit precedent, dismissed Exela’s complaint for failing to meet the statute of limitations for claims filed against the United States, including APA claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal, on the ground that PTO revival rulings are not subject to third party collateral challenge, thereby precluding review regardless of whether Exela’s claims were time-barred. View "Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC v. Lee" on Justia Law

Wingard, a 20-year veteran, died in 2005, from causes unrelated to his military service. His daughter sought a burial-plot or interment allowance (38 U.S.C. 2303) and burial benefits (38 U.S.C. 2302(a)(1)), which provides for burial benefits only in the case of a deceased veteran “who at the time of death was in receipt of compensation . . . or was in receipt of pension.”. The Board of Veterans Appeals granted an interment allowance, but denied burial benefits. In 1989, the Department had assigned Wingard a 0% disability rating for a service-connected hernia that had been treated and showed no sign of recurrence. Wingard’s disability rating remained at 0%l. He never received disability compensation, had no claims pending, and never received a Veterans-related pension. The Veterans Court held that 8 U.S.C. 7252(b) did not preclude review and that sections 1110 and 1155 allowed the Department to find some disabilities noncompensable and assign a 0% rating. The court did not address whether “in receipt of compensation,” included “entitled to receive compensation.” The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that Congress has barred the Veterans Court and Federal Circuit from conducting such review, which must be conducted through a direct review of rulemaking determinations under 38 U.S.C. 502. View "Wingard v. McDonald" on Justia Law

In 2012, the Federal Circuit ruled that the U.S. Border Patrol’s placement of motion sensors on five separate parcels of land owned by Otay Mesa adjacent to the Mexican border in Southern California constituted the taking of permanent easements over the parcels. On remand, the Court of Federal Claims held that Otay was entitled to no damages for the taking of an easement over land that could be developed for industrial use; that it was entitled to damages of $455,520 for the taking of an easement over land that could be used for environmental mitigation purposes; and that interest on the $455,520 damages award should run from August 28, 2008, the date Otay became aware of the taking as a result of the filing of a stipulation of liability by the government. The Federal Circuit then affirmed the denial of damages with respect to the industrial development property and the award of $455,520 with respect to the mitigation property. The court vacated the computation of interest; Otay is entitled to interest computed from when sensors were first placed on its property. View "Otay Mesa Prop., L.P. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2010, while Kerner was an Evidence Custodian, GS-05, with the Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service, he applied for two vacancies: Wildlife Inspector, GS-09/11, and Wildlife Inspector, GS-11/11. Both positions were merit-promotion vacancies. Each required federal employee applicants to meet a time-in-grade requirement. A federal civil service applicant must have completed at least 52 weeks of experience equivalent to GS-07 to be qualified for the GS- 09 position, and at least 52 weeks of experience equivalent to GS-09 to be qualified for the GS-11 position. The vacancies also required one year of specialized experience in the federal civil service equivalent to GS-07 or GS-09, respectively. Kerner had no federal civil service experience at the GS-07 or GS-09 level and, therefore, did not meet the time-in-grade requirements. The Department determined that he did not qualify for either vacancy. Kerner then filed a Veterans Employment Opportunity Act claim with the Department of Labor, alleging that the Department violated his VEOA rights. The Department of Labor and Merit Systems Protection Board rejected the claim. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The provisions cited by Kerner only apply to preference-eligible veterans not already employed in federal civil service, not to current federal employees seeking merit promotions. View "Kerner v. Dep't of the Interior" on Justia Law

The Forest Service awarded EM Logging a timber sale contract for the Kootenai National Forest in Montana. The contract’s load limit clause states that “[a]ll vehicles shall comply with statutory load limits unless a permit from the Forest Service and any necessary State permits are obtained,” the haul route clause states that “[a]ll products removed from Sale Area shall be transported over the designated routes of haul” and a notification clause requires that “Purchaser shall notify Forest Service when a load of products … will be delayed for more than 12 hours in reaching weighing location.” The provision under which the Forest Service terminated the contract refers to: “a pattern of activity that demonstrates flagrant disregard for the terms of this contract.” The Forest Service issued multiple notifications of breach with respect to the clauses, suspended operations, and terminated the contract. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that one instance of route deviation necessitated by illness, one load limit violation, and two instances of delayed notifications. None of the alleged violations independently substantiated the finding of flagrant disregard. Even together, the violations were not substantial evidence of a pattern of activity demonstrating that EM’s actions were in flagrant disregard of the contract. View "EM Logging v. Dep't of Agric." on Justia Law

In March 2010, Herring was removed from her position as a cytotechnologist with the Department of the Navy. The Office of Personnel Management denied her application for disability retirement benefits. Herring received the relevant OPM denial letter on July 14, 2012. The deadline to file an appeal of the denial was August 13, 2012. However, because her attorney’s law office negligently failed to transmit to her attorney the documents submitted by Herring (while confirming to Herring that the necessary documents and payment had been received), Herring did not file the appeal until August 23. An administrative judge dismissed the appeal as untimely filed without good cause, and the Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed. The Board’s failure to consider a factor it has previously treated as significant to “good cause” indicates that the MSPB abused its discretion in its disposition of Herring’s petition. View "Herring v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

Best, a Hong Kong manufacturer, produces Metalized Yarn from polyester chips melted with metal nanopowders to form monofilament yarns. Best sought a pre-importation ruling concerning proper tariff classification in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS), attaching a laboratory report describing the yarn as having a fiber content of 100% polyester, with 0.7%- 0.74% metal by weight. Customs classified the yarn as metalized yarn, HTSUS 5605.00.90, dutiable at 13.2%, stating “yarn combined with metal in the form of powder is considered a metalized yarn.” Best then sought a ruing regarding a “Johnny Collar” garment made of its yarn, asserting the garment was classifiable under HTSUS 6105.90.8030 as a shirt of other textile materials (duty rate 5.6%), not HTSUS 6110.30.3053 for polyester shirts (duty rate 32%). Based on trace amounts of metal and a label that stated “100% polyester,” Customs classified the sample as man-made non-metalized fibers under HTSUS 6110.30.3053. Customs subsequently revoked the Yarn Ruling, reclassifying the yarn as a polyester yarn under HTSUS 5402.47.90 (duty rate 8%). Customs also revoked the Johnny Collar Ruling as conflicting with the Yarn Ruling, but continued to classify the garment under 6110.30.30. Best challenged the Yarn Ruling Revocation, but not the Johnny Collar revocation. The Trade Court sustained the Revocation. The Federal Circuit vacated with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Best sought reversal of a Revocation, the effect of which would be to increase Best ’s own duty rate while benefiting manufacturers of products made from its yarn. The statute does not provide jurisdiction over such requests View "Best Key Textiles Co., Ltd. v. United States" on Justia Law

Higbie, a Criminal Investigator for the U.S. State Department, contacted equal employment opportunity (EEO) counsel to complain of alleged reprisal by the Department for his activities, which he claimed were protected under the Civil Rights Act. Higbie successfully requested that his complaint be processed through the Department’s alternative dispute resolution program. Higbie repeatedly inquired whether the mediation proceedings would be confidential. State Department representatives confirmed that they would be. Higbie’s supervisors, including Cotter and Thomas, signed the mediation agreement, which included a confidentiality provision. The parties did not resolve their dispute through mediation. Cotter and Thomas provided affidavits to the EEO investigator that discussed Higbie’s statements in the mediation and cast his participation in a negative light. Higbie filed suit, claiming retaliation, discrimination, and violation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act. The district court dismissed the ADRA claim. Amending his complaint, Higbie alleged a claim sounding in contract for breach of the confidentiality provision. The Court of Federal Claims concluded that Higbie had not established that the agreement could be fairly read to contemplate money damages, and dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Higbie v. United States" on Justia Law