The D.C. Circuit issued two orders and two opinions in administrative law cases last week. The court denied a stay of an injunction against DHS’s policy for congressional visits to detention facilities (and Judge Rao explored a broad theory of irreparable injury). The court denied an administrative stay of a permanent injunction to remove President Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center. The court upheld a workplace-safety citation on the merits. And the court remanded an IRS whistleblower case after appointing a team from Georgetown Law as amici.

First, a programming note. Although I’ll continue writing the Eleventh Circuit Review, this will be my last D.C. Circuit Review post. Alexis Abboud, a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago, will be joining the rotation next month.

Irreparable Injury and Immigration Detention Center Visits

On to the cases. First, in Neguse v. ICE, the court denied a stay of an injunction against the Department of Homeland Security’s policy requiring members of Congress to provide seven days’ notice before visiting immigration detention facilities. Judge Rao filed a concurrence explaining her view that the plaintiff members of Congress likely lacked standing. But with respect to irreparable harm, Judge Rao concluded that the government failed to show any inconvenience was caused by the lack of notice (as opposed to the visits themselves).

Judge Rao then suggested that the government might have a better (and quite broad) argument. She read Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Orr, and Trump v. Wilcox to “suggest the government suffers irreparable injury when a lower court blocks Executive Branch action in a manner that exceeds the court’s remedial powers or jurisdiction.” If accepted, that theory would allow the government to establish irreparable harm from an injunction whenever the plaintiff lacks standing. It will be interesting to see whether the government begins advancing that more aggressive argument in the D.C. Circuit.

The Kennedy Center

Second, in Beatty v. Trump, the court denied an administrative stay of the district court’s permanent injunction requiring the removal of President Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center. As in some other high-profile court filings, the stay motion features an introduction written in the style of President Trump’s public comments. The court did not explain its reasoning, and briefing on the stay motion is schedule to conclude on June 29.

Workplace Safety and Fair Notice

Third, in TCP Specialists, LLC v. Secretary of Labor, the court unanimously denied a petition for review in a workplace-safety case. Following a fatal accident at an oil well during the depressurization of equipment, the Department of Labor cited TCP for a violation of the General Duty Clause. That catch-all clause requires an employer to “furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1). An administrative law judge upheld the citation.

The D.C. Circuit found no fault with the ALJ’s definition of the underlying hazard and found substantial evidence to support the finding that TCP could have prevented the hazard. It also rejected TCP’s argument that the General Duty Clause was unconstitutionally vague as applied to it because the hazard was defined as “pressurized equipment.” Despite some references to pressurized equipment as the hazard in the citation and ALJ opinion, the court concluded that the hazard was adequately identified as depressurization of pressurized equipment.

IRS Whistleblower Remand

Finally, in Trongone v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the court unanimously reversed the Tax Court and remanded for further proceedings in a whistleblower case. The IRS denied the whistleblower application on the ground that the information was “tainted” (privileged or unlawfully obtained). The D.C. Circuit concluded that the IRS’s decision was inadequately supported by the record. Congratulations to the court-appointed amici from Georgetown Law, including student counsel Allemai Dagnatchew, who presented argument.