Notice & Comment

D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: 20 Thoughts from Maryland

I’m in Maryland today — to learn about the D.C. Circuit. Cambridge, Maryland is home to the 2019 D.C. Circuit Judicial Conference.* Because I’m rushing to catch a flight home, this will be a post filled with a hodgepodge of thoughts.

(1) If you’re wondering whether we should have Judicial Conferences, here are some thoughts from last time.

(2) Congratulations Judge Randolph:

(3) Here is a cert petition with obvious significance for the D.C. Circuit:

(4) On the subject of the Census, the D.C. Circuit had its own case. In Electronic Privacy Information Center v. US Department of Commerce, Judge Sentelle (joined by Judges Millett and Henderson) dismissed a “Privacy Impact Assessment” challenge to the citizenship question. No standing.

(5) Should it be Kisor Deference or Kaiser Deference? It certainly shouldn’t be called Auer or Seminole Rock anymore!

(6) Two interesting opinions this week involving redactions. The first is In re Sealed Case:

(7) The second is a case from last year, which now has some of the redactions removed:

(8) On the subject of John Doe v. XYZ, here are some important thoughts from Judge Williams (from last week):

(9) Note to the Supreme Court: there is no need to rush to finish all of the cases in June.

(10) Here is a great opening by Judge Srinivasan (in Valero Energy Corporation v. EPA, joined by Judges Henderson and Rogers):

(11) If I had more time this week, I’d spend it on Valero Energy Corporation. Fascinating case. Whether something has binding effect is a really hard, really important question, especially because “guidance” can be abused if we aren’t careful:

(12) The D.C. Circuit decided two cases against the District of Columbia this week, including one involving Colorado River abstention!

(13) Chief Judge Garland is having a fun term with relatively obscure “Fed Courts” doctrines.

(14) The second opinion involving the District of Columbia opens as follows:

(15) The Supreme Court’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott contains a lot of discussion about the Tucker Act. Here is a sample:

(16) I try to keep my opinion of D.C. Circuit opinions to myself. But that doesn’t extend to Supreme Court opinions! So I’ll say this: Williamson County was a puzzling doctrine.

(17) How is the new clerkship hiring plan working out? I’ve heard a number of folks — including judges — complain about it this week. But I’m curious what students have to say. How’d it go?

(18) Congratulations A.J. Kramer. Lots of very kind words sent his direction last night by Chief Judge Garland. Kramer — the federal public defender — received an award for his decades of service, and the entire room acknowledged he earned it.

(19) The D.C. Circuit had one more case this week: Mayorga v. Merdon. Judge Ginsburg (joined by Judges Srinivasan and Wilkins) concluded a jury should hear an antidiscrimination case.

(20) What do we make of these two sections in Kisor?

I suppose we’ll find out soon enough. And with that: Good-bye, Maryland!

* The D.C. Circuit doesn’t publicize where the event will be in advance; I imagine that is for security reasons. But it was a nice venue.

D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed is designed to help you keep track of the nation’s “second most important court” in just five minutes a week.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email