This will be a quick post; I am traveling.*
Why am I writing a post about the Ninth Circuit? Isn’t that what Ninth Circuit Review — Reviewed is for? Because this isn’t really a Ninth Circuit case at all. This petition is about the en banc D.C. Circuit’s analysis in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. Don’t believe me? Here is a snippet from the Ninth Circuit’s opinion:
And then this:
If you want to get up to speed on the issue, here are some posts:
And to be fair …
* The D.C. Circuit decided one case this week: INEOS USA LLC v. FERC (that’s a lot of capital letters). It’s a very “D.C. Circuit” case. Here is the first sentence: “PER CURIAM: INEOS USA LLC (‘INEOS’), a chemical producer, petitions for review of the decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to accept tariff filings without an investigation pursuant to Section 15(7) of the Interstate Commerce Act (‘ICA’), 49 U.S.C. app. § 15(7) (1988).” Judges Wilkins and Randolph (and maybe Rogers), acting per curiam, concluded that INEOS lacks standing because “INEOS’ claim of competitive injury from denial of access to the South Eddy Lateral is too speculative.” Judge Rogers concurred: “Any concern that a dismissal for lack of Article III standing appears harsh in view of INEOS’ efforts to gain access to the South Eddy Lateral pipeline for over thirty months is eliminated here because Section 15(7) of the Interstate Commerce Act (‘ICA’) precludes judicial review of the decision INEOS seeks to challenge.”
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.