This week is Court Week at the Federal Circuit. In total, the court will convene twelve panels to consider 52 cases this week. Of these 52 cases, the court will hear oral arguments in 35. The Federal Circuit is providing access to live audio of these arguments via the Federal Circuit’s YouTube channel. Of the argued cases, five cases attracted amicus briefs. Here’s what you need to know about these five cases.
Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States
As explained in our argument preview, in this case the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the Court of International Trade that the “President’s authority to modify a safeguard measure under 19 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B) is limited solely to ‘trade-liberalizing’ modifications, and that Proclamation 10101 thus went beyond the President’s statutory authority.”
The government argues the Federal Circuit “should reverse the trial court’s erroneous ruling that section 2254(b)(1)(B) limits the President’s authority to make a ‘modification’ to a safeguard measure solely to ‘trade-liberalizing’ actions.” According to the government, “[t]he statute’s text, structure, purpose, and history all indicate that Congress did not intend such a restrictive reading of the President’s authority to implement a ‘modification.’” Moreover, the government asserts, “despite the trial court’s focus on the statutory scheme, the court’s interpretation conflicts with multiple aspects of the safeguard statute indicating that Congress did not restrict the President’s ability to make limited adjustments to a safeguard measure under section 2254(b)(1)(B).”
In response, SEIA argues “all the tools of statutory construction—text, context, structure, purpose, and history—show that section 204(b)(1)(B) unambiguously precludes trade-restrictive changes to safeguard measures.” Furthermore, it contends, “because section 204(b)(1)(B) permits modifications only after the domestic industry ‘has made’ a positive adjustment to competition, it logically follows that this provision cannot be grounds to further restrict trade.” Finally, SEIA maintains, “Proclamation 10101 is independently unlawful.”
One amicus brief was filed by The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the American Clean Power Association in favor of SEIA.
Joshua Kurland will argue for the government.
Matthew Nicely will argue for SEIA.
This argument is scheduled to take place today, Monday, April 3 in Courtroom 402 at 10:00 AM Eastern.
Gorge Design Group LLC v. Xuansheng
As explained in our argument preview, in this patent case the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Gorge’s claims against NeoMagic were not frivolous and NeoMagic was not entitled to attorneys’ fees.
NeoMagic argues “that each of Gorge’s four claims for relief are facially frivolous” and “that Gorge engaged in bad faith litigation, vexatious litigation, and litigation misconduct.” Moreover, it asserts, Gorge’s litigation was “designed to create a pattern of oppression to force defendants to pay extortionate settlement demands rather than litigate.”
In response, Gorge contends “NeoMagic asserted its claim under at least nine different statutes or sources of authority” and these “statutes and sources of authority vest almost unbridled discretion in the district court to determine whether sanctions are warranted.” Further, it argues, “Gorge Design was more than justified in suing NeoMagic” because “it does not deny that that it sold counterfeit products using images it copied from Gorge Design’s website.”
One amicus brief was filed by Professor Lorianne Updike Toler in favor of neither party.
Andrew Oliver will argue for NeoMagic.
Stanley Ference will argue for Gorge.
This argument is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, April 4 in Courtroom 402 at 10:00 AM Eastern.
Dixon v. United States
As explained in our argument preview, in this case the Federal Circuit will review a decision of the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss Dixon’s “assessed additional income tax claim” for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and in the alternative for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Dixon argues the Court of Federal Claims incorrectly applied the law governing informal claims. Further, Dixon contends, he “cured the informalities,” notably his lack of signature, “by resubmitting the amended claims for” the relevant year “with his original signature.” Furthermore, he argues, the lower court’s “holding contradicts the premise of the informal claim doctrine.” He asserts the Court of Federal Claims “failed to realize the distinction between two separate judicial doctrines and incorrectly found that Dixon did not submit ‘duly filed’ returns.”
In response, the government argues the Court of Federal Claims correctly rejected Mr. Dixon’s contention that tax forms signed by Dixon’s tax preparer and not Dixon “are informal refund claims that were ‘perfected’ when Mr. Dixon filed untimely signed forms.” Moreover, it asserts, “[t]he informal-claim-doctrine argument fails for four reasons.” For example, the government contends “the out-of-time filing that ‘perfects’ the initial deficient refund claim must be filed while the IRS still has jurisdiction over the claim.”
One amicus brief was filed by The Center for Taxpayer Rights in favor of Dixon.
Tiffany Hunt will argue for Dixon.
Isaac Rosenberg will argue for the government.
This argument is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, April 4 in Courtroom 402 at 10:00 AM Eastern.
Jenkins v. United States
As explained in this taking case’s argument preview, the Federal Circuit will review a determination by a district court that Jenkins was not entitled to compensation for the loss of his vehicles seized during a criminal investigation.
Jenkins argues “neither this Court—nor the Supreme Court—has ever held that th[e] limited police-power exception displaces the federal government’s categorical just compensation obligation when [an] investigation ends and no forfeiture proceeding begins.” Moreover, he asserts, the Federal Circuit “cannot affirm without creating a new exception that directly contradicts the plain text of the Constitution, as well as binding precedent.” In the alternative, Jenkins contends, if he “did not state a takings claim, then his claims had to sound in due process.”
The government asserts “[t]here is no waiver of sovereign immunity under the Little Tucker Act for any claims arising from a constitutional right, statute, or regulation that is not ‘money mandating.’” Further, the government maintains, the “United States can only be sued under the terms Congress has set forth, and the Little Tucker Act creates no separate, substantive right for recovery for alleged due process violations.” The government also contends the Federal Circuit “should . . . affirm the district court’s determination that Jenkins cannot establish relief under a Fifth Amendment Takings Clause violation.”
Two amicus briefs were filed, both in favor of Jenkins, by the Human Rights Defense Center and Professors Julia D. Mahoney and Ilya Somin.
Hampton Bruton will argue for Jenkins.
Melissa Burkland will argue for the government.
This argument is scheduled to take place on Friday, April 7 in Courtroom 402 at 10:00 AM Eastern.
City of Wilmington, Delaware v. United States
As explained in our argument preview, in this government contract case the Federal Circuit will review a determination by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that Wilmington was not entitled to recover “the payment of reasonable service charges” assessed for “the control and abatement of water pollution” and interest pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1323.
Wilmington argues the Federal Circuit “should vacate the judgment; reverse the grant of the United States’ motion for judgment based on partial findings and denials of Wilmington’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, motion in limine, and motion to reconsider; remand for further proceedings, including completion of trial; and deem inadmissible any evidence the United States could have presented in Wilmington’s appeal process.” Wilmington goes on to argue that, “[s]hould the United States have evidence tending to show the stormwater charges assessed on the Properties are not ‘reasonable service charges,’ the United States should not be permitted to use it because it failed to exhaust Wilmington’s administrative remedies—unless the United States proves that available remedies (a) involved only matters of legal interpretation and required no particular expertise, (b) involved no discretion, and (c) would have been futile at all times in establishing ‘reasonable service charges’ if pursued.”
In response, the government argues that, “[a]t trial, Wilmington failed to provide any evidence concerning the Properties’ relative contribution to total stormwater pollution.” It also argues “the trial court correctly held that the statute does not mandate the Government to exhaust the City’s limited appeal process” because “Wilmington’s permissive fee adjustment process is not a ‘requirement’ under section 1323(a) of the Clean Water Act.”
One amicus brief was filed by The National Association of Clean Water Agencies in favor of Wilmington.
Paul Nyffeler will argue for Wilmington.
P. Davis Oliver will argue for the government.
This argument is scheduled to take place on Friday, April 7 in Courtroom 201 at 10:00 AM Eastern.