Synopses of Reported Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in which Judge Robert Heron Bork Authorized a Signed Opinion or Other Statement: 1982-1987

CRS REPORT FOR CONGRESS SYNOPOSES OF REPORTED D E C I S I O N S OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D I S T R I C T O F COLUMBIA C I R C U I T I N WHICH JUDGE ROBERT HERON BORK AUTHORIZED A S I G N E D O P I N I O N OR OTHER STATEMENT 1982 - 1987 by P a u l L. M o r g a n A m e r i c a n Law D i v i s i o n Legislative Attorney A u g u s t 13, 1987 The Congressional Research Service works exclusively for the Congress. conducting research, analyzing legislation, and providing information at the request of committees, Members, and their staffs. The Service makes such research available, without partisan bias, in many forms including studies, reports, compilations, digests, and background briefings. Upon request, C R S assists committees in analyzing legislative proposals and issues, and in assessing the possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. The Service's senior specialists and subject analysts are also available for personal consultations in their respective fields of expertise. ABSTRACT During t h e p e r i o d h e h a s s e r v e d on t h e United S t a t e s Court of Appeals f o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia C i r c u i t , 1982 t o t h e p r e s e n t , Judge Bork h a s a u t h o r e d a s i g n e d o p i n i o n o r o t h e r s t a t e m e n t i n more t h a n 160 c a s e s . Those c a s e s have been summarized t o i n c l u d e t h e d e c i s i o n af t h e lower t r i b u n a l , t h e D i s t r i c t of Coltnnbia C i r c u i t r u l i n g and p r i n c i p a l i s s u e s upon which t h e r u l i n g was b a s e d . CITATION 682 F.2d 1018 (1982) White Smfth U.S. v. Lewis - Vander Jagt v. O'Neill Cosgrove v. ~ c ~ e h ev.e C.I.A. Devine v. McClam v. Barry Athens Community Hosp., Inc. v. Schweiker Richey Manor, Inc. v. Schweiker STYLE OF CASE x x MAJ I I I I x I I 1 I .OPINION CONC . --. -- - - I application of revised federal parole guidelines to male District of Columbia prisoners assigned to federal prisons. Remanded for resolution of factual matters. --Affirmance of dismissal of complaint brought by fourteen Republican members of the Rouse of Representatives a1,leging that the Houae Democratic leadership owed. While federal assigned them fewer committee seats than vroportionallv - . ]courts may declare rules constitutionally infirm, sep.-of powers precluded act. l~ffirmanceof conviction of possession of unregistered firearm. Government's evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for possession of sawed-off shotgun. IDiatrict court dismissed auit against District of Columbia, certain officials. and various police officers. Decision affirmed in part. reversed in part, and remanded based upon circuit court's interpretation of various statutes of llimitation. -Arbitrator's decision in adverse action case set aside upon petition by Office of Personnel Management. Under circumstances oE case, determination of stanldards to be followed by arbitrator, remand would do justice betqen parties without unduly burdenina arbitral process, Reversal of district court decision granting sumnary judgment to C.I.A. in journalist's action to compel Agency to respond to his reauest for certain records under the Freedom of Information Act. Remanded for determination of I Reversal and remand of dist. ct.orrler reauiring Medicare Provider Reimbr~rsement Review Board to review certain matters concerning medicare reauest fo reimbursement. Held: Judicial review available for final decision of Board but Board had no iurisdic&i~~t o r e v i e v timeuly_filed. Affirmance of district court which upheld decision of Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration to extend provisional listings of certain color additives. LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN CASE Affirmance of conviction for distribution of a controlled substance. Absent a 'demonstrable need, location of police surveillance post may be withheld. Grand supported by evidence. Failure of trial judge to reouested by defense, not plain -. decision disallowing medicare reimbursement for certain costs incurred in the purchase and operation of health care facility resulting in change of status of facility from for-profit to not-forLprofit. . CRS - 1 DIS SIGNED OPINIONS AUTliORED BY JUDGE BORK U.S. v. Exxon Core. ICBC Corp. v. F.C.C. Frantz v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Heckler _. 1 x x Ix I . MN v. Merit Systems protection1 v. C.I.A. 6 9 F.2d 95 (1983); re .n pt, af Cd in pt, 471 I.S. 159 (1985) York Loveday v. F.C.C. - '07 F.2d 1443 (1983) ; :ert. den. 464 U.S. 008 (1983) Iffice of Com. oE United Ch. of :hrist v. F.C.C. STYLE OF CASE :rowley v. Shultz OPINION CONC 1 . Affirming district court's summary judgment for Exxon which moved, &~ring plaintlf€'s pendency of appeal from felony conviction, to terminate his Exxon franchise pursuant to Petroleum Marketing Practices Act. Fact of convic t ion and lo? vsrncity of conviction held to be basis for statutory terminatiol. - -- Affirmance of district court injunction prohibiting enforcement of regulations issued by Department of Health and Human Services which were in excess of statutory authority. Inter alia, regulations renuired notification of parents or guardians when prescribing contraceptives to unemancipated minors. Supplem?rltal opinion to Frantz v. %,707 F.2d 582 (D.C.Clr 1983). Reverses district court dismissal of suit against administrators of federal witness program for interfering with child visitation rights of noncustodial parent whose children, with ex-wife are enrolled in program. Affirming omm mission's decision rejecting renuest for waiver u f rule designed to prevent interference anwng AM atations. Policy under whlch the black m m e d and oriented station's reouest was rejected was not arbitrary and capricious. -- LEGAL ISSUES I N V N E D IN C A S E i~ecisionreverses in part a n d f i r m s in pariaSstrict court's approval of special master's finding that attorney fees should be awarded in suit agalnst State DeparLment. Question was appealable and fees were barred by savings clause of Back Pay Act. Separate statement by Bork, J., clarifyingdecision. Orders of F.C.C. deregulating commercial radio industry affirmed in part and remanded in part. Commission imposition on licensees of obligation to provide programming responsive to community issues was reasonable as standard but reasoning behind elimination of p r o m a m Loas inadeouate. Affirmance of F.C.C. decision that California radio and television stations adequately discharged obligation to investigate and identify true sponsor of certain political advertisements. F.C.C. did not abuse discretion or act arhttrerilv or caori_ciouslv in decision. Affirming in part and vacating in part district court granting of preliminary injunctive relief to prevent city from cutting off funds for support of sheltet for homeless. Lower court properly found that due process renuirements met but ouestion of proper scope of judicial review not ripe for decision by-thgt court Reversal and remand of district court decision concerning what information Ager had to provide under Freedom of Information Act reouest for names of individual and institutions that conducted certain secret research. At issue was definition of term "intelligence source" and if info, available from u ~ sourceg, s Roard'sdecision upholding Postal Service dismissal of employee remanded so Board could formulate standards for its actions in granting petitions for reconsideration of earlier decisions. \ CRS - 2 DIS SIGNED OPINIONS AUTHORED BY JUDGE BORK Smith J a y v e e Brand, I n c . v . U.S. Yellow T a x i Co. Of M i n n e a p o l i s 121 F. 2d 366 (1983) v . N.L.R.B. C r o c k e t t v. Reagan 720 F.2d 1355 (1983); : e r t . d e n . 467 U.S. 1251 (1984) Garrett U.S. v . - Kansas S t a t e Network, I n c . v . F.C.C. Von Aulock v . B l a c k C i t i z e n s For A F a i r Media v . F.C.C. M o s r i e v . Rarry McBride v . M e r r e l l Dow and Pharmaceuticals Inc. STYLE OF CASE F r i e n d s For A11 C h i l d r e n v . Lockheed A i r c r a f t Corp. 720 F.2d 705 (1983) ; z e r t . den. 465 U.S. LO37 (1984) 719 F.2d 407 (1983); c e r t . den. 467 U.S. , 1255 (1984) CITATION 717 F.2d 602 (1983) CRS - 3 \ A f f i r m a n c e o f c o n v i c t i o n f o r a i d i n g and a b e t t i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f minor i n t e r s t a t e f o r purpose of p r o h i b i t e d sexual conduct f o r comnercial e x p l o i t a t i o n . Speedy T r i a l Act proper1.y a p p l i e d , e l e m e n t s o f o f f e n s e p r o v e n . Defendant f a i k t o p r o v e w i t h d r a w a l from c o n s p i r a c y . A f f i r m a n c e o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s a l o f s u i t by 29 members o f C o n g r e s s a g a i n s t t h e P r e s i d e n t and o t h e r o f f i c i a l s c h a l l e n g i n g l e g a l i t y o f U n i t e d S t a t e s p r e s e n c e i n , and m i l i t a r y a s s i s t a n c e t o , E l S a l v a d o r . N o n j u s t i c i a b l e p o l i t i c a question. p l a i n t i f f ' s dispute primarily with fellow l e g i s l a t o r s . R e v e r s a l o f B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n t h a t c a b d r i v e r s who d r o v e t a x i s under l e a s e whlcl e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e y were i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r s were n e v e r t h e l e s s employees w i t h i n meaning o f t h e Labor R e l a t i o n s A c t . No s i g n i f i c a n t company c o n t r o l o v e r d r i v e r s t o j u s t i f y employee s t a t u s . Affirming d i s t r i c t d i s m i s s a l o f s u i t a -g a i n s t U.S.. Consumer P r o d u c t S a f e t v Corm and f i v e former members o f C m . f o r l o s s e s c a u s e d by t h e b a n n i n g o f c e r t a i n f l a m e r e t a r d a n t compound. No j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r T o r t Claims Act f o r such a s u i t . Members of Comm. i m u n e from s u i t f o r o f f i c i a l a c t i o n s . -- LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN CASE A f f i r m i n g d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i a l o f m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s s u i t on forum non conveni e n s grounds. Claims b r o u g h t a g a i n s t Lockheed f o r I n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d i n c r a s h i n S a i g o n d u r i n g 1975 " O p e r a t i o n B a b y l i f t . " R e l a t i v e e a s e i n o b t a i n i n g proof and i n t e r e s t i n U.S. i n r e t a i n i n r r ~ q - d u ~ i n v o l v e m e u t ~ x a i h d - A f f i r m i n g i n p a r t and r e v e r s i n g i n p a r t d i s t r j c t c o u r t d i s m i s s a l o f l i b e l a c t i o n b r o u g h t by e x p e r t w i t n e s s a l l e g i n g d e f a m a t i o n i n magazine a r t i c l e a b o u t FDA h e a r i n g s i n which p l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d . P l a i n t i f f had a l s o t e s t i f i e d i n Florida kndectin birth defect trial. A f f i r m i n g d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n . D i s t r i c t o f Columbia p o l i c e o f f i c e r was n o t d e p r i v e d o f any l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t when h e was p u b l i c l y c r i t l c i z e d p r i o r t o h i s t r a n s f e r and t h u s was n o t e n t i t l e d t o due p r o c e s s p r o t e c t i o n !wfore transfer. A f f i r m a n c e o f F.C.C. o r d e r a d o p t i n g s i m p l i f i e d r e n e w a l a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n b r o a d c a s t l i c e n s e e s . New s y s t e m was a d e n u a t e t o p e r m i t F.C.C. t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t l i c e n s e renewal i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . Commission, i n makin^ d e c i g i o n . a d e a u a t e l y c o m ~ f i e dw i t h A d m i n ~ a t l v e U o a b u A r ~c t and Cprrm~_i A f f i r m a n c e o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s a l o f s u i t b r o u g h t by Cormer and c u r r e n t employees a l l e g i n g t h a t a n EEOC i n t e r p r e t a t i v e b u l l e t i n a u t h o r i z e d employers t d i s c r i m i n a t e o n b a s i s o f a g e when m a i n t a i n i n g p e n s i o n p l a n s . P l a i n t i f f s l a c k s t a n d i n p t o c h a l l e n g e b u l l e t i n where i n i u r y n o t f a i r l y t r a c e a b l e t o i t . A f f i r m i n g Commission's d e n i a l o f a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a t a x c e r t i f i c a t e e n t i t l i n s t a t i o n owners t o f a v o r a b l e t r e a t m e n t under t h e I . R . S . Code. F.C.C. d e c i s i o n was r a t i o n a l and w i t h i n s c o p e o f i t s a u t h o r i t y . SIGNED OPINIONS AUnlORED BY JUDGE BORK 144 F.2d 827 (1984) ; :ert. den. 470 U . S . loah (1985) 142 F.2d 1498 (1984); :ert. den. 471 U . S . lL17: (1985) OPINION I I x DIS - CRS - 5 I.- I !I I I ~ffirmanceof F.C.C. decisions revoking authorization to operate trunked radio comunications systems. No abuse of discretion as comply with conditions. C o m l s s i m did not abuse discretion Iby denying temporary waiver of rules. -IAffirmance in part and reversal in part of Occupational Safety and Health Revi Commission order relative to citatibns issued tb'contractor fbr safety violation hile working on Hart Office Building. Contractor failed to establish defense for exposing employees to fall hazards. Citation properly hpictr?d.as willful. of Cmmission decision to terminate special exemption gtuen statiqn since 1943 to eliminate its nighttime codhannel interference with a Minneapolis class-I clear-chhnnel station. Case pending at F.C.C. since 1954. Evldence supported declsion which wns not arhltrary. etc. or not 111 accordance with law. F Commission District court decision affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Minority shareholders' claims regarding breach of fiduciary duties'by majority must he brought derivatively. Pleadings supported claim for appointment of receiver. Reliance not a prerequisite to standing in case of-deceptive proxv solicitation Affirmed order by Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission which affirm ed administrative law judge's decision that employer's policy of giving fertile women working in conditions unsafe for women of childbearing age choice of bei sterilized or losing jobs not cognizable under Occupational Safetv an_d_He_alut. Affirmance of district court summary judgment for Navy in action by admitted homosexual seeking to enjoin his discharge. District court had subject matter jurisdiction. No constitutional right to engage in homosexual conduct. Policy of mandatory discharge justified by n u needs of military. En banc reversal and remand of district court. Noncompliance with notice of claims provision in D.C. Code does not bar federal claims. Enactments of Congress applicable only to D.C. are to be treated as local law interacting ! - with Ifederal-law as would the laws of the states. \ kffirming district court decision on rehearing. Provider Reimbursement Review oard lacks jurisdiction to consider costs fo; which medicare provider seeks eimbursement but had not included in original cost report. from hydroelectric licensing reauirments of the Federal Power Act. llacked authority to vacate exemptions it had previously issued. to conduct preliminary investigation under Ethics in Government Act into charges against vario:ls .Reversal of district court LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN CASE order requiring Attorney General 1 1 1 II ! . CONG ! I x MAJ City of New York Municiple Broad &I-kftirmance casting System v. F.C.C. Donovan v. Williams Enterprlaes, P & R Temmer v. F.C.C. Athens Community Hospital, Inc. v . Schweiker Dronenburg v. @ Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union v. American Cy anamid Company Cowin v. Bresler International Paper Co. v. F.E.R.C. STYLE OF CASE Nathan v. Smith SIGNED OPINIONS AU~IOKEDRY JUDGE RORK EDF.Zd970(1984); cert. den. 471 U.S. 1127 (1985) I I F.2d 893 (1984) 0llmanv.Evans tebron v. Washington Metropolitar~ x Area Transit Authority x American Employers Insurance Co. v. American Security Bank, N.A. '747 F.2d 1493 (1984) I x Middle South Energy, Inc., v. F.E.R.C. 747 F.2d 763 (1984); cert. diem. 473 U.S. Zech Dronenburg v. x 746 F.2d 1579 (1984) .-- Boston Carrier, Inc. v. I.C.C. Washington Ilospital Center v. Service Employees International Iunion. Local 722, AL 746 F.2d 1503 I National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. 746 F.2d 1492 (1984) x National Classification committe~ x and Development Authority v. F.E.R.C. 746 F.2d 886 (1984) LTATIQN- x x OPINION --- 'decision refusing to compel transit authority to display artist's poster critical of Reagbn administration. Refusal to display poster was a clear-cut and impermissible prior restraint and violation of right - c free speech. -- ~ ~ f i r m a n cof e district court decfsion in favor of two newspaper columnist's whom a political science professor alleged had defamed him with result that he was denied a nomination as department chairman at the University of Maryland. Stat ments were constitutionally protected expressio~sof opinlon. --- --- Federal Energy Regulatory ~omniesion's order suspending initial rqte schedule vacated and remanded. Commission does not have authority to suspend initial rate schedule. C w r t cannot legislate to remedy gap that language. legislativ history and longstanding interpretation establish as Dart of statutory schsme. Affirming district court decision in which a bank prevailed in suit seeking an accounting by borrower's surety of certain receipts and expenditures as required by a trust agreement. Bank's request for attorney fees denied. CRS - 6 - -. t public benefit corporation's application for a license for a hydroelectric project. Commissio~ acted arbitrarily and capriciously in applying new rule which took efCect while a ~ ~ l i c a t i owas n endi inn. Affirmance of 1.C.C order interpreting agreement between motor carriers providing for collective action in freight classification matters. Decision was supported by the record and was not arbitrary or capricious. Order did not operate retroactively to -xe t g - w I i ty fnr nlptAffirmance of Commission order prohibiting restrictions on the resale and sharing of all interstate WATS service used in exclusively interstate communications. Commission had authority, under the Comnunications Act, to regulate service and decision, relying on the record, was not arbitrary or capricious. Affirming in part and reversing in part district court order concerning arbttration of certain grievances. Refusal to arbitrate in one instance was sufficiently frivolous to justify awarding of attorney fees but employer had sufficient case authority to seek review of another decision so-no attorne~ceeaward Affirmance of Commission denial of application for motor carrier authority. Notices sent to carrier by Commission were sufficient. former employees were properly allowed to protest application, and evidence supported denial of --rehearing en b a n ~of decision in 741 F.2d 1388, aupra. SIGNED OPINIONS AUTIIORED BY JUDGE BORK I I I v . N.L.R.B. l s i e r r a Club v . U.S. Department Transportation 04I P a r a l y z e d V e t e r a n s o f America v . C.A.B. Farmers Export Company v . 759 F.2d 176 (1985) .-----, I v. Singleton 759 F.2d 21 (1985); v a c , B a r n e s v. 3ub nom v . Barnes i 5 U.S.L.W. 4103 (1987) 758 F.2d 733 (1985) U.S. 156 F.2d 1 8 1 (1985); C a t r e t t v . Johns-Manville S a l e s :ev. 54 U.S.L.W. 4775 Corporation (1986) [ S e e : No. 83[Aug. 7. 1 9 8 7 ) i n f r ; ] 757 F.2d 1297 (1985) Wilson v . Good Humor C o r p o r a t i o n 755 F.2d 941 (1985); : e r t . den. 54 U.S.L.W. 153 F.2d 1 2 0 (1985) F.2d 694 (1985) CKTATION E 0 P . 2 d 1039 (1984) x II OPINION x x x u p Remand f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f o r d e r o f N a t i o n a l Labor R e l a t i o n s Board which r e j e c t e d u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e c h a r g e by f i r e d employee. Truck d r i v e r a l l e g e d t h a t h e had been d i s c h a r g e d f o r r e f u s i n g t o d r i v e u n s a f e v e h i c l e and r e p o r t i n g c o n d i t i o n t o s t a t e a u t h o r i t i e s . Board d e c i e i o n l l a w . ~ l a c k _ o f r a t i o n a l e . R e v e r s a l and remand o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c i s i o n g r a n t i n g summary judgment t? a s b e s t o s m a n u f a c t u r e r i n wrongful d e a t h s u i t b r o u g h t by widow a l l e g i n g t h a t h u s b a n d ' s d e a t h r e s u l t e d from e x p o s u r e t o p r o d u c t . M a n u f a c t u r e r ' s moving paperr p a t e n t l y d e f e c t i v e on f a c e r e n d e r i n p . inappropriate t h e a.umm_~-e~L A f f i r m a n c e i n p a r t and r e v e r s a l and remand i n p a r t o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f company. T h r e e y e a r o l d k i l l e d by a u t o when r , ~ n n i n ga c r o s s s t r e e t t o i c e cream t r u c k . J u r y s h o u l d h a v e d e c i d e d whether company s h o u l d h a v known o f s p e c i a l r i s k s i t s opera tin^ p r o c e d u r e c o u l d c r e a t e f o w c h i l d r e n . A f f i r m a n c e o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c i s i o n c o n v i c t i n g d e f e n d a n t oE making f a l s e s t a t e m e n t on p a s s p o r t a p p l i c a t i o n . E x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e d i d n o t a p p l y t o s e a r c h and s e i z u r e made by B r i t i s h p o l i c e o f f i c e r s i n England a b s e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n \,y 1I.S. a u t h o r i t i e s . Evidence s u p p o r t e d c o n v i c t i o n . is missal i n p a r t and a f f i r m a n c e i n p a r t o f I n t e r s t a t e Comnerce Commission's r e f u s a l t o r e c o n s i d e r two d e c i s i o n s . One p e t i t i o n d i s m i s s e d a s d e c i s i o n o f I.C.C. n o t f i n a l . Second d e c i s l o n a f f i r m e d a s no e d e n u a t e showing made o f n a t e r i a l e r r o r , new e v i d e n c e o r s u b s t a n t i a l l y changed c i r c u m s t a ~ e s . R e v e r s a l and remand o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c i s i o n f o r d e f e n d a n t s i n s u i t by d i v 6 r s Yembers and O f f i c e r s o f Congress s e e k i n g n u l l i f i c a t i o n o f a p o c k e t v e t o . P l a i n t i f f s had s t a n d i n g ; d i s p u t e n o t beyond c o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y b e c a u s e p a r t i e s were l c o o r d i n a t e b r a n c h e s o f government. P o c k e t v e k i p v a l i d under c i r c u m s t a n c e s . IReversal and remand o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c i s i o n suppress in^ .. - evidence. Previous p a n e l o f C o u r t o f Appeals had h e l d t h a t c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e was r e l i a b l e and remended c a s e . T h i s d e c i s i o n p r e v e n t e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t from s u p p r e s s i n g t h a t evidence. I . L a A L ISSUES INVOLVED I N CASE \Affirmance o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s a l o f F e d e r a l T o r t Claims Act a c t i o n s due tc improper venue. R e v e r s a l o f d i s t r 4 c t c o u r t d i s m i s s a l o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and p e n d e n t s t a t e law c l a i m s a g a i n s t two c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t s . May b r i n g a c t i o n €01 upon v i o l a t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s r~nrlsrUivens p r t n c i p l s . _ Judge Bork n o t a member o f d e c i s i o n p a n e l . D i s s e n t i s t o d e n i a l o f a t r g g e s t i o n For r e h e a r i n g e n banc. D e c i s i o n a l l o w e d C.A.B. t o make r e g u l a t i o n s under t h e R e h a l t i l i t a t i o n Act o f 1973 p e r t a i n i n g t o a l l a i r l i n e s , n o t j u s t t h o s e r e c e i v i n g d i r e c t f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e . D i s s e n t suneested.a>nnt E n l b Federal Aviation Administration orders allowing use of J e t a i r p l a n e s a t a i r p o r t Located w i t h i n a n a t i o n a l p a r k . No v i o l a t i o n o f N a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y A c t . CRS - 7 I DIS SIGNED OPINIONS AL1TIIORED BY JUDGE BORK 768 F.2d 363 (1985); c e r t . d e n . 55 U.S.L.W 3257 (1986) Singleton U.S. James C i t i z e n s C o o r d i n a t i n g Committee on F r i e n d s h i p H e i g h t s , I n c . v . Washington M e t r o p o l i t a n Area Transit Authority N o r f o l k & Western Railway Co. v. U.S. t e e v. I.C.C. U.S. v . - Maryland Department o f lluman Resources v . Department o f H e a l t h and Human S e r v i c e s x x x T- Weisberg v . U.S. Department o f Just ice U.S. v . - F.C.C. STYLE OF CASE inson v. Taylor - X OPINION CONC - L A f f i r m a n c e o f I.C.C. a c t i o n r e v i s i n g t h e n a t i o n a l motor f r e i g h t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system. P r o c e d u r a l g u a r a n t e e s o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e Act met. Commissio a c t e d p r o p e r l y i n a d o p t i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o o l d classification system which va i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h new p o l i c y o f Motor C a r r i e r Act o f 1980. R e v e r s a l o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t award o f a t t o r n e y ' a f e e s and c o s t s t o p l a i n t i f f s a f t e r p a r t i e s had e n t e r e d i n t o a c o u r t - a p p r o v e d c o n s e n t d e c r e e . C o r p o r a t i o n , one o f t h e p a r t y p l a i n t i f f s , l a c k e d s t a n d i n g under t h e C l e a n Water Act t o complain o f c l a i m e d i n j u r y , t h u s , n o t e n t i t l e d t o o s t s . R e v e r s a l o f I.C.C. o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g s h i p p e r s t o s e e k r e d r l c t i o n s and r e f u n d s of c e r t a i n r a i l f r e i g h t r a t e s . P e t i t i o n f o r review not s t a t u t o r i l y barred Commission e r r e d i n c o n s t r u i n g s t a t u t e t o a u t h o r i z e d u a l r a t e r e d u c t i o n s . -- C h a l l e n g e s t o f o u r f i n a l o r d e r s o f t h e I.C.C. r e l a t i v e t o t h e N o r t h e a s t R a i l S e r v i c e s were w i t h i n t h e e x c l u s i v e J u r i s d i c t i o n o f S p e c i a l C o u r t , R e g i o n a l R a i l R e o r g a n i z a t i o n Act and were t r a n s f e r r e d t h e r e t o . -- F e d e r a l C o u r t s Improvement Act o f 1982 d i d n o t d i v e a t t h i s c o u r t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r Freedom o f I n f o r m a t i o n Act c a s e t h a t c o n t a i n e d a l e s s s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r a c t c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e Department o f J u s t i c e s i n c e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i n t h e c a s e was f i l e d p r i o r t o t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e l c t . -A f f i r m a n c e o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c i s i o n u p h o l d i n g HllS v i n d i n g t h a t Maryland had m i s s p e n t f e d e r a l g r a n t monies. D i s t r i c t c o u r t had f e d e r a l q u e s t i o n j u r i s d i c t i o n . HIIS d e t e r m i n a t i o n was n o t a r b i t r a r y o r c a p r i c i o u s and HHS had s t a t u t o r y r i g h t of recovery of misapplied funds. --.. -- - Affirmance of d i s t r i c t c o u r t conviction f o r p o s s e s s i o n of cocaine, marijuana, and p h e n c y c l i d i n e . P o l i c e p r o c e d u r e s s a t i s f i e d r e o u i r e m e n t s o f f e d e r a l knock and announce s t a t u t e . Evidence s u . p .p o r t e d c o n v i c t i o n . D e n i a l o f s u g g e s t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g e n banc o f 7 5 9 F.2d 176, supra. LECI\L I W Q W l E I L L N C A S E rudge - Bork n o t a member o f d e c i s i o n p a n e l . D i s s e n t i s t o d e n i a l o e s u g g e s t i o n ~ f r e h e a r i n g e n banc. O r i g i n a l c i r c u i t d e c i s i o n , 753 F.2d 141 (1985) a f f i r m e d tnd remanded, 54 U.S.L.W. 4703 (1986). Concerned s e x u a l h a r r a s s m e n t a l l e g a t i o n m d e r T i ~ l eV I I o f C i v i l R i g h t s Act o f 1964. A f f i r m a n c e o f Commission o r d e r e s t a b l i s h i n g a p r i v a t e cirrie;<aging system a s a new l i c e n s e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t o o p e r a t e w i t h i n t h e p r i v a t e l a n d mobile r a d i o services. SIGNED OPINIONS AUTHORED BY JUDGE BORK CITATION 768 F.2d 1500 (1985) - x - I I x Robbins v. Reagan CRS - 9 a tee v. U.S. - National Classification Comnit- King v. Palmer F.T.C. v. Brown & Williamson Corporation 1 U.S. v. Western Electric Compan 0 Meadows v. Palmer Alabama Power Company v. F.C.C. c P Inc. v. F.E.R.C. Detmarva Power & Light Company u F.E.R.C. Jersey Central Power & Light Company v. F.E.R.C. - OPINION ----- I I Judge Bork not a member ofpanelreversing and remanding district court decision relative to employment discrimination complaint. He filed a statement concurring in denial of rehearing en banc, joined by five judges, because the issue the United States wanted the rehearing on had not been b e f o r e a e an el. Affirming decision of Interstate Commerce Commission denying petitioner's reouest to amend provisions of rate bureau agreement. petitioner's right to hearing not dented. Denial of application was consistent with applicable law. Commission's departure from past practice adeauatply explained. Affirmance of district court decision granting government's motion for sumnary judgment in suit challenging closing of shelter for homeless in federally owned building. Dicltrict c o w t had jurisdiction over suit and decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Government and agency were not estopped from closing. -- Part IV of opinion written by Judge Bork. AfFirms district court decision that affirmed Civil Service Commission decision that the Conmission had no Jurisdiction over appeals by District of Columbia employee relative to detail --an "employment prece." and reassignment. No jurisdiction as "detail" not Dismissal of appeal of district court desicion setting forth four conditions that regional holding companies, created after reorganization of major telecommunications company, would have to meet to get a waiver of "line of business" restrictions to pursue other ventures. -District court injunction relative to cigarette advertising, &aught by F.T.C., affirmed in part and remanded. ~anufacturer's advertisements were misleading but the injunction was broader than reasonably necessary to prevent deception. I L E A L ISSUES INVOLVED IN CASE On petition for rehearing of 730 F.2d 816 (1m4j-,=r2, order of conmission modifying utility's rate schedule was remanded. Commission order reducing rates without a hearing was unreasonable. -Deciaion of Commission not to include annualized in utility's test period base vacated and remanded. In light of the Commission refusal to adopt a per se rule against selected annualization, Commission was to explain policy. Commission rule allowing electric utilities to include in rate bases amounts equal to 50% of investments in construction work in progress vacated and re1 manded. Pur oses for adopting rule were valid but reconsideration mandated by , effect of ru!e. Commission determination that pole attachment rates charged cable television operator by power company vacated and remanded. Commission errors made in calculations rendered the decision arbitrary and capricious. SIGNED OPINIONS AUTllORED BY JUDGE DORK 789 F.2d 26 (1986) ; c e r t . d e n . 55 U.S.L.W. 3278 (1986) 786 F.2d 1186 (1986) 785 F.2d 1043 (1986); c e r t . g r a n t e d , 55 U.S. L.W. 3424(U.S.Dec.15. 1986) (NO. 86-656) 786 F . 2d 424 (1986); c e r t . den. 55 U.S.L.W. 3201 (1986) - --- - - Meese Rothery S t o r a g e C Van Co. v . A t l a s Van L i n e s Meeropol v . San L u i s Obispo Mothers For Peace v . U.S. N u c l e a r R e g u l a t o r Comiss ion B e a u f o r t County B r o a d c a s t i n g Company v . F.C.C. Community For C r e a t i v e Non-Violence v. Pierce Rmerican Maritime A s s o c i a t i o n v Neumann v . R e i n f o r c e d E a r t h Company - Abourezk v . Reagan -__ M o r r i s v . Washington M e t r o p o l i t a n Area T r a n s i t A u t h o r i t y STYLE OF C M E B A L L Q N L OPINION - LEGAL ISSUES_IEOLVED I N CASE - -Af f l r m a n c e o f d i s t r i c t c o a l r t d i s m i s s a l , o n grounds o f s o v e r e i g n immunity, o f s u i t b r o u g h t a g a i n s t t h e ~ ~ a~ d ibs c hy a r g e d p o l i c e o f f i c e r . Congress and s t a t e s o f Maryland and V i r g i n i a v a l i d l y c o n f e r r e d imnunity upon t h e ~ ~ ~ a n d D . C---. ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n d i d n o t d e f e a t such E l e v e n t h Amendment immunity. -D e n i a l o f w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s , i n m e d i a t e h e a r i n g , and s t a y o f e x t r a d i t i o n warrant. P e t i t i o n e r f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t i n t e r n a t i o n a l convention concerni n g g e n o c i d e was i n e f f e c t i n United S t a t e s ; b u t , i f s o I t would n o t have p e r t a i n e d i n t h i s c a s e . P e t i t i o n e r f a i l e d t o shoy-lik%ood o f s u c c e s s on m e r i t s . D i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t o f summary judgment i n s u i t c h a l l e n g i n g r e f u s a l t o i s s u e v i s a s t o a l i e n s t o come t o s p e a k on i s s u e s o f p u b l i c c o n c e r n v a c a t e d and r e manded. May e x c l u s i o n b e b a s e d upon mere p r e s e n c e o r i s h i g h e r s t a n d a r d o f i n t - ~ ~ r~ ee ~nt W i n t e n t t o enfzage i n a c t i v i t i e s A f f i r m a n c e o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t judgment n . 0 . v . i n f a v o r o f p l a i n t i f f ' s c o m p e t i t o r i n a n t i t r u s t a c t i o n . D e s i g n e r o f r e t a i n i n g w a l l s used i n c o n i t r u c t i o n o f h i g h ways and b r i d g e s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r due t o f a i l u r e t o d e f i n e p r o p e r r e l evant market. Remand o f d i s t r i c t c e u r t sumnary judgment a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f i n c h a l l e n g e t o m a r i t i m e s u b s i d y b o a r d ' a d e c i a i o n t o amend o p e r a t i n g - d i f f e r e n t i a l s u b s i d y c o n t r a c t s with subsidized c a r r i e r e . Board's d e c i s i o n d i d n o t adeouately a s s e s s i m p a c t o n u n s u b s i d i z e d s h l p p e r s n e c e s s i t a t i n g remand. -- D e n i a l o f m o t i o n t o d i s a u a l i f y U.S. A t t o r n e y ' a officeas c o t ~ n s e lf o r S e c r e t a r y o f . Housing and Urban Development o n grounds o f c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t s i n c e same o f f i c e would have t o i n v e s t i g a t e a l l e g a t i o n s o f p e r j u r y on p a r t o f HUD o f f i c i a l Would b e i n t r u s i o n o f c o u r t i n t o p r o s e c u t o r i a l d i s c r e t i o n . m r m a n c e o f Commission d e c i s i o n w n g -ant p e r m i s s i o n h, c o n s t r u c t Ftd s t a t i o n i n community o f 8 , 6 0 0 w h i l e a p p r o v i n g a n o t h e r a p p l i c a n t ' s l i c e n s e t o c o n e t r u c t FM a t a t i o n i n n e i g h b o r i n g conmunity o f 3,000. Second a p p l i c a n t p r o p e r l y g i v e n p r e f e r e n c e under Conrmunications Act of 1934. / ~ bane n a f f i r m a n c e o f C o m m m0% i s s u a n c e o m e n s e s t o r n u c l e a r power p l a n t . h&lations d i d n o t r e a u i r e Commission t o c o n s i d e r p o t e n t i a l c o m p l i c a t i n g e f f e a o f e a r t h a u a k e a on emergency r e s p o n a e a and s u c h f a i l u r e was n o t c a p r i c i o u s o r l a r b i t r a r y . P e t i t i o n e r s n o t e n t i t l e d t o supplement r e c o r d . D i s t r i c t c o u r t summary judgment t o r government I n F r e e d o m ( 1 f l n t o r m a t i o n Act l c a a e a f f i r m e d i n p a r t and remanded i n p a r t . C o o p e r a t i o n o f F.B.I. was indicabet Iby a c t i o n s a s i t i s u n r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c t even t h e moat e x h a u s t i v e s e a r c h t o uncover e v e r y document. A t t i r m a n c e o t d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c i s i o n . Van l l n e r s d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e t h e c o n t r a c t o f any a g e n t w i t h i n t e r s t a t e a u t h o r i t y which r e f u s e d t o t r a n s f e r t h e a u t h o r i t y t o s e p a r a t e c o r p o r a t i o n d i d n o t v i o l a t e Sherman A n t i - T r u s t A c t . SIGNED OPINIONS AUnlORED BY JUDGE BORK c e r t . g r . sub nom Boos v . Darry, 55 U.S.L.W. 3569 U.S.14" Feb. 23 1 9 B u s i n e s s and P r o f e s s i o n a l P e o p l e For t h e P u b l i c I n t e r e s t v. N.R.C. a v . S e c r e t a r y o f t h e Nav f M x c Three Way C o r p o r a t i o n v . I.C.C. x x F i n z e r v . Barry I P i t t s b u r g h and Lake E r i e R a i l Road Company v . I .C .C. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Brotherhood o f E l e c t r i c a l Workers L o c a l 1 4 6 6 , AFL-CIO V . N.L.R.B. C a r t e r v . D i s t r i c t o f Columbia c i '" 792 F.2d 232 (1986); c e r t . den. 55 U.S.L.W. 3392 (1986) - p D i s t r i c t court decision r e l a t i v e t o c h a l l e n g e € - s t a t u t e s barring certain a c t i o n s w i t h i n 500 f e e t O F f o r e i g n e m b a s s i e s a f f i r m e d i n p a r t and remanded. S t a t u t e was p e r m i s s i b l e accomodation between n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s and F i r s t Amen dment. No l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e . - Not u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l yvague o r w ~ f r - -- - P e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w o f ~ & i s s i o n disrnfssrll o t c m n t n t c h a i e n g i n g a c a r r i e r c a n c e l l a t i o n o f j o i n t r a t e s . I.C.C. e x e r c i s e d r e a s o n a b l e d i s c r e t i o n under t h e applicable statutes. -- D i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c i s i o n i n s u i t a l l e g i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and common l& t o r t s a g a i n s t v a r i o ! ~ s p o l i c e o f f i c e r s and t h e c i t y a f f i r m e d i n p a r t and v a c a t e d and remanded i n p a r t . A r r e s t e e s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a p e r s i s t e n t and ~ e r v a s i v e p a t t e r n of conduct causing r i g h t d e p r i v a t i o n . E r r o r i n evidence presenLation. A f f i r m i n g- d e c i s i o n . o f Board d i s m i s s i n g Union c l a i m t h a t employer had connnitted By a g r e e i n g t o i n t e g r a u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e by e l i m k n a t i n g C h r i s t m a s bonus. t i o n c l a u s e o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g agreement, u n i o n l o s t f u r t h e r r i g h t t o b a r g a i n o v e r bonus. Denying i n p a r t and d i s m i s s i n g i n p r t a c h e l l e n g e t o Commission e l i m i n a t i o n o c a s e by c a s e r e v i e w o f f i n a n c i a l a u a l i f i c a t i o n a i n c e r t a i n l i c e n s e p r o c e e d i n g s Atomic Energy Act d i d n o t r e a u i r e o t h e r w i s e and r u l e was n o t a r b i t r a r y o r capricious. D i s m i s s a l o f r e v i e w o f F.A.A. & e c i s i o n s a u t h o r i z i n g p i l o t t o f l y commerciaa i r c r a f t a f t e r temporary s u s p e n s i o n f o r f l y i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d . A i r l i n e l a c k e d s t a n d i n g t o c h a l l e n g e a c t i o n t a k e n r e l a t i v e t o former employee. - -.-- LEGA I S UES INVOLV D I N CASE c k o + a p p van l i n e t o amend p o o i i n g agreement w i t h a g e n t s . H e a r i n g n o t r e w i r e d where r l a t t e r was n o t o f major t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i m p o r t a n c e w i t h l i t t l e l i k e l ~ b o o dt h a t c o m p e t i t i o n would b e r e s t r a i n e d . .D i s s e n t from d e n i a l o f s u g s e a t i o n of r e h e a r i n g e n banc. Judge Bork n o t on pane h e a r i n g c a s e , 782 F.2d 227 ( ~ . c . C i r . 1986) which was v a c a t e d and remanded 55 U.S.L.W. 4716 (1987) [ F e d e r a l C i r c u i t C o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r e a s e l . D e c i s i o n i n v o l v e d compensation f o r J a p a n e s e - & ~ y r i c a n s i n t e r n e d d ~ ~ r i u X l U L R e v e r s a l and remand o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c i s i o n r e l a t i v e t o m a r i n e c o r p o r a l ' s c h a l l e n g e o f h i s g e n e r a l c o u r t m a r t i a l c o n v i c t i o n Lor m u r d e r i n g h i s w i f e . A c t i o n s h o u l d be t r e a t e d a s a p e t i t i o n f o r h a b e a s c o r p u s ; t h u s , inasmuch a s Monk was i n c a r c e r a t e d i n Kansas, U.S. D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n D.C. had no j u r i s d i c t i C o r p o r a t i o n n o t e n t i t l e d t o f e e s and e x p e n s e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h i n t e r v e n t i o n i n p r o c e e d i n g funded, i n p a r t , by Energy and Water Development A p p r o p r i a t i o n s A c t . C o r m i s s i o n d e n i a l o f f e e s under E q u a l Access t o J u s t i c e Act tjpheld. SIGNED OPINIONS AUlllORED BY JlJDGE DORK E.T.C: v . PPG I n k s t r l e s , I n c . I -- OPINION , CONC . DLS 104 F.2d 710 (1986) ,03 F.2d 1213 (1986) 01F.2d390(1986) 01 F.2d 501 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; e r t . d e n . 55 U.S.L.W. 821 (1987) 0 0 F.2d 1187 (1986) 00 F.2d 1165 (1986) v. F.E.R.C. I I x Natural Resources Defense Counca x v . U.S. Environmental ~ r o t e c t i o n l v. Food and DrlJg Admin-1 RestaurantCorporationofAmerN.L.R.B. i c a v. - I1 ree en berg I e Lake d Band o f Chippewa ~ n d i a n s l x T e l e c o m u n i c a t L o n s R e s e a r c h and A c t i o n C e n t e r v. E.C.C. 1~ I N a t i o n a l T r e a s u r y Employees Union v . F e d e r a l Labor R e l a t i o n s Authorit I x -- - z . . en - A f f i r m a n c e o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c i s i o n s d i e m i s s i n e s u i t on b a s i s - o f r e s j u d i c a t a d e n y i n g m o t i o n t o c l a r i f y c o m p l a i n t by amendment, and imposing s a n c t i o n s f o r l i t i g a t i n g i n bad f a i t h . P r e c l u s i o n d o c t r i n e b a r r e d a t t o r n e y ' s s u i t f o r v i o l a t i o n o f r i g h t o f p r i v a c y and " d i s c o v e r y f r a u d " c o n s p i r a c y . S a n c t i o n s j u s t i f . R e v e r s a l o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t s r m a r y judgment f o r FDA and CAT s c a n n e r m a n u f a c t u r e i n s u i t by p u b l i c c i t i z e n group s t a f f a t t o r n e y t o compel d i s c l o s u r e o f f a c i l i t i e s owning CAT s c a n n e r s o f c e r t a i n m a n u f a c t u r e r . M a t e r i a l i s s u e s o f f a c t p r e c l u d e d summary judgment under exemption t o Freedom o f I n f-ormation Act. A f f i r m a n c e o f EPA d e c i s i o n w i t h d r a w i n g proposed r - i o n s g o v e r n i n g v i n y l c h l o r i d e e m l s a i o n s . EPA a c t e d r e a s o n a b l y under C l e a n A i r Act p r o v i s i o n s g o v e r n i n g h a z a r d o u s p o l l u t a n t s i n r e l v,i n n o n economic and t e c h n o l o n i c a l f a c t o r s i n Iwithdrawing r e g u l a t i o n s . En Bans d e c i s i o n , No. 85-1150 ( D . c . c ~ ~ J. u l y 28.1 987) Denial of suggestion of rehearing S n c . JUBork on m a j o r i t y below. !802 F.2d 498 (D.C.Cir. 19861 f O ~ i n i o nbv S c a l i a l . S u i t concluded b e f o r e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f E-ual Access t o J u s t i c e Act t h u s b a r r i n g award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s under Act. - - - -- - .-- _I LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN CASE d e c i s i o n on F.T.C. a c t i o n c o n t e s t i n g merger a s v i o l a t i o n o t ( C l a y t o n Act n f f i r m e d i n p a r t , r e v e r s e d i n p a r t and remanded. E v i d e n c e s u p p o r t d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a c n u i s i t i o n may b e f o r b i d d e n under C l a y t o n Act b u t p r e l i m i n a r y i n j ~ m c t i o ns h o u l d h a v e been e n t e r e d r a t h e r t h a n h o l d o r d e r . -- -R e v e r s a l o f o r d e r o f A u t h o r i t y h o l d i n g t h a t union c o m n i t t e d a n u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e by r e f ~ ~ s i nt go p r o v i d e a t t o r n e y s t o r e p r e s e n t nonunion employees i n a s t a t u t o r y a p p e a l . Unions d u t y i s same a s t h a t i n t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r s o no u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e where r e p r e s e n t a t i o n l i m c e d t o c o l l e c t i v e b a r n a i n i n n . 1 ) i s t r i c t c o u r t sumnary j u d p n e n t f o r U.S. i n F e d e r a l T o r t Claims Act s . ~ i tf o r p r o o e r t y damage on r e s e r v a t i o n a f f i r m e d i n p a r t , v a c a t e d i n p a r t and remanded. C e r t a i n FBI a c t i o n s i n h o s t a g e s i t u a t i o n were p r o t e c t e d From l i a b i l i t y under FTCA and c e r t a i n a c t i o n s were n o t . F a c t i s s u e s t o be d e c i d e d below. Commission o r d e r r e f u s i n g t o a p p l y t h r e e forms o f p o l i t i c a l b r o a d c a s t r e g u l a l i o l Ito t e l e t e x t , a new t e c h n o l o g y a f f i r m e d i n p a r t , r e v e r s e d i n p a r t and remanded. Commission d e c i s i o n was r e a s o n a b l e b u t e r r o r s made i n i n t e r p r e t i n g c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s o f C o m m ~ ~ n i c s t i o nAsc t . R a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n i n n o t a p p l y i n g F a i r n e s s Doct. 'Review o f Board d e c i s i o n t h a t employer v i o l a t e d N a t i o n a l ~ s b o rR e l a t i o n s Act by I d i s c h a r g i n g employees f o r union s o l i c i t a t i o n . P e t i t i o n f o r enforcement o f orded d e n i e d i n p a r t and ranted i n p a r t and c a s e remanded. Employer f a i l u r e t o t r e a 11 same a s u n i o n e o l i c i t a t i o n a is _nbt d l s c ~ i m i n g t ~ o ~ a p p l i c a t i o n , on j u r i s d i c t i o n a l g r o u n d s , f o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o abandon c e r t a i n p u r c h a s e s o f n a t u r a l g a s r e v e r s e d and c a s e remande N a t u r a l Gas Act g i v e s Commission j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r s u c h a c t i o n . .I D i s t r i c t c o u r t i I sntm- ASE SIGNED OPINIONS AUTllORED BY JUDGE DORK , I I I x x 8 1 0 F.2d 1168 (1987) J e r s e y C e n t r a l Power & L i g h t Company v . F.E.R.C. 1 DIS L E l i A k d S S U _ E E m O L U.SASE -- A f f i r m a n c e o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s a l o f l i b e l a c t i o n a g a i n s t newspaper publ i s h e r under t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia l o n g arm s t a t u t e . M a i l i n g o f p a p e r , c o n t a i n i n g a l l e g e d l y l i b e l o u s a r t i c l e , i n t o t h e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia was n o t &lent b a s i s f o r d i s t r i c t co-rrt i u r l s d i c t i o n . Reversal of d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e c i s i o n i n v a l i d a t i n g Board's o r d e r p e r m i t t i n g s t a t c h a r t e r e d c o m m ~ r c i a lbank t o p l a c e c o m n e r c i a l p a p e r i s s u e d by t h i r d p a r t y . G l a s s - S t e a g a l l Act d i d n o t p r e c l u d e bank Erom a c t i n g a s a d v i s o r and a g e n t t o --. -commercial p a p e r i s s u e r s . By o r d e r o f J u n e 24, 1987, a n o r d e r t o r e h e a r e n b a n c was v a c a t e d and Judge B o r k ' s d i s s e n t was a d o p t e d a s m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n . Commission r e a l l o c a t i o n o f c o s t s f o r n u c l e a r power p l a n e among a f f i l i a t e d o p e r a t i n g companies r e v e r s e d and remanded. Commission d e c lz!u a.lWL-Affirmance of d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s a l of a c t i o n brought t o c k l l e n g e p r o g r m o f i n t e r d i c t i n g undocumented a l i e n s o n t h e h i g h s e a s . C o r p o r a t i o n and members l a c k e d p r u d e n t i a l stand in^ a s t h e y w e r e n o t w i t h i n zone o f i n t e r e s t i n t e n d e d t b e p r o t k c t e d . I f n o F i r s ; Amendient c l a i m , n o i n j u r y , s o no A r t i c l e 111-s T r a n s p o r t a t i o n b e p a r t m e n t r u l e , a u s t a i n e d i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t , allowirlg s u b s i d i z e d v e s s e l s t o e n t e r d o m e s t i c s h i p p i n g m a r k e t upon repayment o f s u b s i d y v a c a t ed. R u l e a u t h o r i z e d under Merchant H a r i n e Act b u t s t a t e m e n t o f b a s i s and p u r p o s e i n a d e a u a t e a c c o u n t o f how A c t ' s p u r p o s e s e r v e d by r u l e . R e v e r s a l and remand o f d i s t r i c t c o u r t summary judgment f o r Lahor S e c r e t a r y w h c c e r t i f i e d c e r t a i n l a b o r p r o t e c t i v e a r r a n g e m e n t s a s " f a i r and e o u i t a b l e . " Case n o t moot. S e c r e t a r y c o u l d n o t c e r t i f y , u n d e r Urban Mass T r a n s i t Act o f 1 9 6 4 , s u c h a r r a n g e m e n t s b e f o r e d i s p u t e mechanism p r o v i s i o n i n p l a c e . Commission o r d e r m o d i f y i n g u t i l i t y r a t e B C h e d u l e t o e x c l u d e i n v e s tment i n c a n c e l l e d n u c l e a r power p l a n t v a c a t e d and remanded. U t i l i t y e n t i t l e d t o e v i d e n l i a r y h e a r i n g on whether r a t e s " j u s t and r e a s o n a b l e . " R e h e a r i n g e n banc . -F.2d 816 (1984) - . -and 768 F.2d 1500 (1985) 5 % ~ . o f i s s u e s r a i s e d i n 730 D e n i a l o f s u g g e s t i o n t h a t p a n e l d e c i s i o n , 8 0 1 F . 2 d 501 (D.C.Cir 1986) b e r e h e a r d e n banc. T h a t d e c i s i o n , = , w r i t t e n by Judge Bork. his o p i n i o n and judgment v a c a t e d F e b r u a r y 6 , 1987,when s u g g e s t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g e n banc g r a n t e d . C h a l l e n g e t o r u l e o f EPA d e s i g n e d t o compensate automobil n a n u f a c t u r e r s r e t r o a c t i v e l y f o r t e s t i n g p r o c e d u r e changes which n e g a t i v e l y e f f e c t e d f u e l economy c o m p a r a b i l i t y f o r model y e a r 1975. Affirmance o f d i s t r i c t c o r r t d i s m i s s a l . f o r l a c k o f s t a n d i n g , strit by n o n p r o f i a s s o c i a t i o n on b e h a l f o f members t o r e c o v e r damages a l l e g i n g i l l e g a l d u a l r a t e structure. ,?,,: 1 1 x x .S. f e b . 20. 1987)(Nos. H a i t i a n Refugee C e n t e r v . Gracey MAJ I ixl , 809 F.2d 847 (1987); I n d e p e n d e n t U.S. Tanker Owners pet. for cert. filed Committeev.55 U.S.L.W. 3794 (U.S. 1 5 . 1987) (No.86-18; 9 ) 8 0 9 F.2d 909 (1987) Amalgamated T r a n s i t Union, AFL- 809 F.2d 794 (1987) I n d u s t r i e s v. S e c u r i t i e s Industry Association v . Board o f Governors o f t h e F e d e r a l R e s e r v e System ( f o u r 807 F.2d 1052 (1986); c e r t . den. 55 U.S.L.W. 3853 (1987) 806 F.2d 1115 (1986) T e ~ e c o r m u n i c a t i o n sR e s e a r c h & A c t i o n C e n t e r o n Behalf o f R . Checknoff V . A l l n e t Communication Services. Jnc. Telecommunications Research and A c t i o n C e n t e r v . F.C.C. OF C e n t e r f 5 u t o S Z Y v. Thomas 806 F.2d 1093 (1986) map-1071 (1986) SIGNED OPINIONS AUTNORED RY JUDGE DORK -- Bartlett on behalf of Neuman v. National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO v. Commander, Military Sealift Comnand Bowen - Lo. 85-5984 (August 7, 1987) Save Our Cumberland Mountains, v. Hodel o. 83-1694 (August 7, Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation 987) No. 86-5210( July 31, 1987) 5-5233 (July 31, Natural Resources Defense Counci v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Inc. KO. 85-1150 (July 28, 1987) Carlin v. McKean International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Mine Safet and Health Administration (two cases) Zoelsch v. Arthur Anderson & Co. E ,Branch v. F.C.C. ' OF W v. Butler No. 86-1256 (July 21, 1987) I u No. 86-5510 (July 17, 1987) No. 86-5351 (July 17, 1987) 1987) IVo. 86-1239 (July 10, CXMION No. 86-3041 (July 7, 1987) x I I I x - Affirmance of district court dismissal of suit for lack of standing under the Service Contract I\ct.Union challenged cornand's contract to have private firms operate twelve government owned oceanographic ships. Union, representing civil service mariners who would be replaced, lacked causally traceable injury aee again before the same panel after reversal and remand for recqnsideratiin f earlier deciaion, 756 F.2d 181 (1985), supra. Defendant was not entitled tc umoarv... ludmnent as a matter of law in district court as the record contains Isufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact. kffirmance in part and reversal in part of district court award of attorney's fees and expenses under the surface-~iningControl and Reclamation Act of 1977. liatrict court largely succeeded in responsibly exercising discretion in settin attorney's fees but committed legal error in arriving at certain hoc~rlyrates. for injunctive relief including reinstatement as Postmaster General. Congress vested Board of Governors of the Postal Service with power of removal of Postmaster General without judicial review. ----Denial of petition for review of Commission decision that station which employs television reporter would be required to give "equal time" to opponents if he ran for public office, Time would be equal to his regular daily appearancec Decision constitutional and proper interpretation of statute. -- - En banc review of an order of EpA with remand to EPA for reconsideration. In -setting emission standards for hazardous pollutants, cost and technological feasibility cannot be considered in determining what ig safe. Determination must be based solely upon risk to health. Reconsideration of previous granting of suggestion of r e h e a r i ~en hanc and vacating order. Issues involved in decision not unique or important enough to (justify en banc consideration. for want of subject matter jurisdiction. F'ralulent misrepresentations in securities transaction were not ade within the United States; thus, courts have no Jurisdiction over suit LEGA ISSUES INVO V D IN CASE Affirmance of district court:ury verdictLiz case involving i&;;iracy-to violate the Truth in Lending Act and violations of the Travel Act in a scheme to defraud involving mortgage loans that caused many victims to lose homes. No reversible error in court below. -Administration's granting of indefinite interim relief from operation of mandatory safety standards pending decisions on petitions for modifications of the standards vacated. Such relief was contrary to clear congressional intent. SIGNED OPINIONS AUTIIORED R Y JUDGE BORK . . I August 1 3 , 1987 American Law Division ance Board decision Iietrict court exceeded its scope of review by interpreting travel regulations de nova to find hat foreign aervice officer, during change of station, violate as family transportation. -travel regs. by utilizing luxury riverboat -. SIGNED O P I N I O N S AUnlORED BY JUDGE BORK