The case involved Edward Maddox's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after the D.C. Board of Parole revoked his parole based on 1996 firearm possession charges, even though he was acquitted following three trials. Maddox claimed that the same Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the criminal case improperly acted as prosecutor at the revocation hearing, engaged in ex parte contacts with the Board, and influenced its decision in a vindictive manner, violating due process under the Fifth Amendment. The court found that the AUSA lacked any legal authority to prosecute parole revocation matters, that his role exceeded that of an advocate or witness, and that this unauthorized participation tainted the hearing. The core reasoning focused on the absence of statutory authorization for U.S. Attorneys in parole proceedings, the improper blending of prosecutorial functions, and the resulting deprivation of a fair process.
In United States v. Jones, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of possession with intent to distribute heroin, based in part on testimony from a police detective offered as a narcotics expert who described typical drug distribution practices, including the use of stashes and brand names. After the verdict, it was revealed that the detective had lied about his credentials in other proceedings by falsely claiming to hold advanced degrees in pharmacology. The court granted the defendant's motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, finding that the newly discovered evidence of the expert's fabricated qualifications was material because his testimony was central to proving intent to distribute and would not have been presented had the facts been known at trial. The court noted that this expert testimony had been the key difference from an earlier trial that ended in a hung jury, while denying an earlier motion raising other grounds.
This case concerns class counsel from a long-resolved employment discrimination class action seeking to enjoin five former class members from pursuing a malpractice lawsuit against them in D.C. Superior Court. The underlying 1986 class action by African-American Foreign Service Officers against the State Department resulted in a 1996 court-approved consent decree that included injunctive relief, monetary damages, and promotions; some class members objected, sought opt-out rights, and later filed the malpractice suit alleging inadequate representation. The court granted permanent injunctive relief barring the dissident plaintiffs from prosecuting the state court action. The core reasoning was that the malpractice claims would collaterally attack the federal court's prior findings on the settlement's fairness and class counsel's adequacy under Rule 23, and that federal courts may issue such injunctions to protect their judgments and manage comity issues with state courts.
This case involved plaintiffs Augustine David Henderson and Gregory Francis Phillips, evangelical Christians who sell message-bearing t-shirts on the National Mall to fund and promote their religious outreach activities, challenging a National Park Service regulation that restricts commercial sales on federal parkland in the National Capital Region to only books, newspapers, leaflets, pamphlets, buttons, and bumper stickers. The plaintiffs claimed the regulation violated the First and Fifth Amendments, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Following the D.C. Circuit's decision in a related case upholding the regulation as constitutional, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs' free speech and free exercise claims were foreclosed by the appellate precedent, their RFRA claim failed because the regulation did not substantially burden religious exercise or was justified by the government's interest in curbing excessive commercialization on parkland, and their other claims lacked merit.
This case involved a dispute between the District of Columbia Hospital Association and its member hospitals and the District of Columbia over the calculation of Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments. The hospitals challenged the District's policy of excluding Medicaid managed care services from the base amount used in DSH adjustments, arguing it breached representations made in prior 1994 litigation and violated the Medicaid statute. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, considering issues including res judicata, subject matter jurisdiction, and the District's change in position after earlier assurances that managed care costs would be included. It reasoned that the statute requires inclusion of such services in the base amount and that the District's new formula led to absurd results, such as zero payments for hospitals serving only managed care patients. The opinion also initiated proceedings for potential Rule 11 sanctions against the District.
In this case, news organization A.H. Belo Corporation sought access to 26 tapes and transcripts that the Office of Independent Counsel had identified as potential evidence in its prosecution of former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros. The materials had been reviewed in camera by the court during a public suppression hearing but were never admitted into evidence, and the case concluded when Cisneros entered a guilty plea. Belo argued for access under both the common law right to judicial records and the First Amendment right of the press. The court denied the application, holding that the materials were not judicial records because they played no definitive role in an adjudicatory decision and that the First Amendment did not require disclosure given the strong privacy interests of Cisneros and third parties after the case ended without a trial.