Notice & Comment

Author: Bernard Bell

Notice & Comment

Retreating on Affirmative Disclosure: The Case of APHIS’s Publicly-Available Enforcement Databases

Summary:  This post chronicles a story of enforcement failure, shaming remedies, and replacement of proactive disclosure with reactive disclosure.  In February 2017, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) “took down” publicly-available databases and re-populated them with significant redactions.  The D.C. Circuit recently opined on APHIS’s action in PETA v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. […]

Notice & Comment

Chevron and FOIA Exemption 3 Statutes

Summary:  Recently, in Wolk Law Firm v. U.S., — F.Supp.3d —, 2019 WL 1528433 (E.D. Pa. April 9, 2019), a federal district judge held that a passenger cell phone recording of a cockpit was a “cockpit voice and video recorder recording” that the NTSB could withhold from a FOIA requester.  In doing so, the judge […]

Notice & Comment

Unblocking the Path for Abused, Neglected, and Abandoned Juvenile Immigrants: R.F.M. v. Nielsen

Immigration law provides a path to lawful permanent residence for abused, neglected, or abandoned juveniles, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(27)(J),[1] who are accorded Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status, see R.F.M. v. Nielsen, 2019 WL 1219425 *1 (S.D.N.Y. March 15, 2019).  To establish eligibility, the juvenile must secure a state court special finding order specifying that […]

Notice & Comment

Temporal Changes in Informational Privacy Rights

Summary: California’s SB 1421 withdrew peace officers’ right of informational privacy in government files relating to officer-involved shootings and other alleged officer misconduct.  Does a presumption against retroactivity apply to the withdrawal of informational privacy rights such that SB 1421 presumptively applies only to investigative files regarding future alleged officer misconduct?  This post discusses the […]

Notice & Comment

Sierra Club v. U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service: The Deliberative Process Privilege in Multi-Agency Deliberations

In Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997), the Supreme Court held a final biological opinion reviewable because it marked the consummation of the agency process and was an action “from which rights and obligations flow,” even though the opinion was merely delivered to another agency for use in considering its proposed action.   Id. at […]

Notice & Comment

Day v. Johns Hopkins: Hard Cases Make Bad Law, or Good Law

Dr. Paul Wheeler, and his unit within Johns Hopkins Medical Center engaged in a pattern of false medical assessments of claimants seeking benefits under the Federal Black Lung Program.[1]  In Day v. John Hopkins Health System Corp., 907 F.3d 766 (4th Cir. October 26, 2018), a divided Fourth Circuit panel held that the witness litigation […]

Notice & Comment

A Regulatory Compliance Defense for Data Breach Actions

Typically, compliance with statute, regulation, or industry custom does not provide a complete defense to tort liability.  The State of Ohio recently adopted legislation, Ohio Substitute Senate Bill 220 (“S.B. 220”)(codified at Ohio Rev. Stat. §§1354.01-.05), to establish a regulatory compliance defense for tort actions seeking recompense for data breaches.  The enrolled legislation and the […]

Notice & Comment

When Chevron Meets the Hobbs Act: PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. (Part I)

  “When Chevron meets Hobbs, consideration of the merits must yield to jurisdictional constraints.” Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, 883 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2018) The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., Dkt No. 17-1705, (Order List Nov. 13, 2018).  The Court framed […]

Notice & Comment

Guido v. Mt. Lemmon School District: The Supreme Court Decides

Yesterday, the Court decided Mount Lemon First District v. Guido, Dkt No. 17-587, 2018 WL 5794639 (Nov. 6, 2018), its first merits opinion of the October 2018 term.  The question presented was whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) applied to political subdivisions regardless of whether they employed 20 or more employees.  […]