Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Fox News Network, LLC v. Bd. of Gov'rs. of Fed. Reserve Sys., No. 09-3795, concerned an action brought to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information relating to lending conducted by the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, the court of appeals vacated summary judgment for defendant, holding that 1) Federal Reserve Board regulations provided that some records at the Federal Reserve Banks -- those kept at the Banks under certain conditions for "administrative reasons"--were records of the Board, and these were required to be searched under the FOIA request at issue; and 2) the district court did not reach the question of whether the Board misconstrued the scope of the request.
Bloomberg L.P. v. Bd. of Gov'rs. of Fed. Reserve Sys., No. 09-4083, involved another action seeking disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of information about loans made by the Federal Reserve Banks. The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for plaintiff, on the ground that the information at issue -- the identity of the borrowing bank, the dollar amount of the loans, the loan origination and maturity dates, and the collateral securing the loan -- was not "obtained from" the borrowing banks within the meaning of FOIA Exemption 4.
Kinneary v. N.Y., No. 08-1330, concerned an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to accommodate plaintiff's disability. The court of appeals reversed judgment for plaintiff, holding that 1) because plaintiff was offered, but failed to qualify for, his captain's license under the accommodation to which he claimed he was entitled, he became unqualified to perform the essential functions of his job; and 2) defendants did not violate state or local discrimination laws by implementing federal regulations.
Clark v. Astrue, No. 08-5801, concerned an action challenging the Social Security Administration's interpretation of two provisions of the Social Security Act, which permitted the Administration to suspend certain benefits of an individual who "is violating" the terms of her probation or parole. The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for defendants, holding that the Administration's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the Act.
Robinson Knife Mfg. Co. v. Comm'r. of Int'l. Rev., No. 09-1496, was an appeal from a judgment of the tax court holding that, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 263A and the corresponding Treasury regulations, petitioner could not immediately deduct its sales-based trademark royalty payments, but was instead required to capitalize such costs. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that if a producer's royalty payments 1) were calculated as a percentage of sales revenue from inventory and 2) were incurred only upon the sale of that inventory, they were immediately deductible as a matter of law because they were not "properly allocable to property produced" within the meaning of 26 C.F.R. section 1.263A-1(e).
In re: Johns-Manville Corp., No. 06-2103, involved an appeal from the district court's order affirming in part and vacating in part two 2004 bankruptcy court orders. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that objector-insurer was not given constitutionally sufficient notice of the bankruptcy court's 1986 orders, so that due process absolved it from following them, whatever their scope.
In US v. Bari, No. 09-1074, the court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgment revoking defendant's term of supervised release, imposed after an earlier conviction for bank robbery and, after revocation, sentencing him principally to a term of thirty-six months' imprisonment, on the grounds that 1) the Federal Rules of Evidence did not apply with their full force in supervised release revocation hearings, and 2) the district judge did not commit reversible error in conducting an Internet search to confirm his intuition regarding a matter of common knowledge.