William Thomas Sweigert

This case is a civil suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act by former Army member Charles Targett against the United States, alleging personal injuries from radiation exposure during military service at Camp Desert Rock in 1954-1955 and from the government's post-discharge failure to warn him of radiation risks, conduct medical surveillance, or inform him of warning signs like hair loss. The government moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction under the Feres doctrine (barring claims for injuries incident to service) and the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations. The court denied the motion, holding that Feres does not bar claims based on post-discharge negligent acts or omissions (citing Brown v. United States and Broudy v. United States), and that the limitations period did not begin until Targett discovered the causal link in 1981, as shown by his uncontroverted affidavit.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case is a citizen suit under the Clean Air Act in which the Sierra Club and individual plaintiffs alleged that the EPA failed to publish proposed national emission standards for radionuclides, a hazardous air pollutant listed by the agency in 1979, within the 180-day statutory deadline. After previously granting partial summary judgment finding the EPA had violated its mandatory duty, the court addressed the plaintiffs' motion to set a compliance schedule and rejected the EPA's request for an extension as late as 1989. The court ordered the EPA to issue the proposed regulations within 180 days, holding that the agency had not met its heavy burden of proving impossibility or infeasibility from resource constraints or the need for further study, that such an open-ended delay would effectively repeal Congress's mandate to accelerate hazardous air pollutant controls, and that any relief from the statutory timeline must come from Congress rather than the courts.

environment

This case concerns a civil action by Indian residents of the Table Bluff Ranchería against federal officials and a county tax collector, alleging that the termination of federal trust status over ranchería lands under the 1958 California Ranchería Act (as amended) was wrongful and breached trust and contractual obligations, while also challenging local property taxation of the lands. Plaintiffs sought class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, rescission or damages, and an order barring further taxation. The federal defendants conceded that the termination was improper, that trust duties continue, and that distributees should have the option to reconvey lands to the United States. The court reviewed the Act's requirements for a majority-approved distribution plan and undisputed evidence showing the trust lands could not be taxed or alienated without termination, finding no material factual disputes on liability issues aside from damages amounts.

civil rightsfederal powerpropertytaxes

This case is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by a California state prisoner against prison officials, alleging that assignment of female corrections officers to posts permitting periodic viewing of him while showering, using the toilet, or sleeping violates his constitutional right to privacy and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The court recognized that prisoners retain a privacy interest in their unclothed bodies that is consistent with their status and penological interests, and found that the existing cell design, viewing windows, and officer rotation practices cause repeated invasions of that interest. It denied the requested preliminary injunction that would have barred female officers from those assignments, reasoning that privacy could be preserved through other means without unduly burdening equal employment opportunities, and directed defendants to submit proposed procedures balancing both interests while retaining jurisdiction to review them.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves challenges by Indian people of the Hopland Ranchería to the termination of their lands under the California Rancheria Act, claiming the United States failed to fulfill its duties to provide sanitation and irrigation facilities before distributing the property. On motions for partial summary judgment, the court examined the record showing that no agreements were reached with the Secretaries of the Interior and Health, Education, and Welfare as mandated by Section 3(c) of the Act. The federal defendants agreed that the termination was unlawful and that the trust relationship remains in effect, allowing distributees to reconvey lands if not sold to good-faith purchasers. The court determined that summary judgment was appropriate on these issues due to the absence of genuine factual disputes.

federal powercivil rightsproperty

This case involved merchant seamen who obtained unsatisfied default judgments in California state court against their insolvent employer, Amercargo, for personal injuries sustained aboard its vessels, and who then sued the employer's marine insurer directly to recover on those judgments. The policies at issue were indemnity contracts requiring the insured to actually pay losses before seeking reimbursement from the insurer. The court held that New York law governed the contracts because they were negotiated, issued, and to be performed in New York by New York corporations, and that under New York precedent such as Cucurillo, an injured party cannot recover directly from an insurer under an indemnity policy when the insured has not paid the underlying claim. The court therefore entered judgment for the defendant Association.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenged California Welfare and Institutions Code § 14005.6(a)(3), which restricted Medi-Cal eligibility to U.S. citizens, long-term legal residents, or citizenship applicants, alleging that the alienage-based criteria violated equal protection. After the court's initial 1972 ruling finding the provision unconstitutional, the California Legislature repealed the statute entirely in 1976, eliminating the discriminatory requirements. On remand, the court denied rehearing on the merits as moot due to repeal, granted rehearing on retroactive relief, and held that the Eleventh Amendment barred any order for retroactive monetary payments from the state treasury despite the prior constitutional violation, as no waiver or abrogation applied. The court therefore dismissed the entire action as moot, noting that only prospective injunctive relief would have remained available.

civil rightshealthcarefederal powerimmigration

This case involves Philippine Airlines challenging the National Mediation Board's certification of the International Association of Machinists as the bargaining representative for certain PAL employees following a representation election under the Railway Labor Act. PAL alleged that the NMB violated its own procedures by certifying the union without a proper majority and improperly allowed one employee to vote in the election. The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the NMB's actions. Drawing on Supreme Court precedents such as Switchmen's Union v. National Mediation Board and Railway Clerks v. Non-Contract Employees, the court reasoned that NMB determinations on union representation and election rules are committed to the agency's discretion and are not subject to judicial review absent a clear violation of specific statutory language. The court therefore granted the NMB's motion to dismiss.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

This case involved an SEC enforcement action against Jack Burke, his controlled companies, and Arthur Young & Company arising from multiple oil and gas investment programs in the 1960s and early 1970s, including joint ventures and limited partnerships sold to the public. The SEC alleged inadequate disclosures in offering documents about Burke's prior business affiliations and improper handling of funds and accounting entries by the operators and auditors. After a bench trial, the court ruled against the Jack Burke defendants on some claims and in their favor on others, while finding for the Arthur Young defendants on all issues. The core reasoning rested on the court's review of the prospectuses, financial statements, and transactions, determining that the accountants had not violated securities laws but that certain Burke-related disclosures and dealings fell short in specific respects.

business & regulatory

This case concerned whether the Department of the Interior had fulfilled its statutory duties under the National Park System Act and Redwood National Park Act to protect Redwood National Park from the effects of logging on adjacent private lands. Following an earlier order directing Interior to take reasonable protective steps (including possible land acquisition or cooperative agreements), the court reviewed Interior's progress reports and found that it had pursued available options such as reporting to Congress, proposing legislation, and seeking cooperative measures, but lacked funds or independent authority for further actions like major acquisitions. The court concluded that additional protection would require new legislation, appropriations, or regulatory powers, which Interior could not obtain without presidential approval through OMB and which the judiciary could not order. It therefore held that Interior had complied with existing law to the extent possible, purged Interior of its prior noncompliance, and declined to mandate further steps or join OMB as a party, citing separation of powers. The topics are environment and federal power.

environmentfederal power

This case involves consolidated actions between conservation groups, Leslie Salt Co., and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Corps' regulatory authority over diked lands used for salt production along San Francisco Bay under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The court addressed whether the Corps' jurisdiction extends to the mean higher high water (MHHW) line rather than just the mean high water (MHW) line, whether the properties fall within that jurisdiction, and whether the Corps is estopped from asserting jurisdiction over long-existing dikes. The court decided that the Corps has jurisdiction up to the MHHW line for requiring permits on new construction or discharges, but is estopped from requiring permits for the maintenance of dikes that have been in place for decades without prior objection. The reasoning centered on the statutory definitions of navigable waters, the natural state of the bay, and equitable principles preventing retroactive enforcement on existing structures.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case concerns a lawsuit by the Sierra Club against the Department of the Interior alleging that the Secretary failed to fulfill statutory and fiduciary duties under the Redwood National Park Act to protect the park from erosion and damage caused by logging on surrounding private lands. After an earlier ruling that the Secretary held such duties and that the complaint stated a claim, the court heard evidence and found that the Sierra Club had standing due to its organizational purpose and the recreational interests of its members. On the merits, the court determined that the Secretary had not taken reasonable steps, such as acquiring protective interests in land or negotiating adequate cooperative agreements with the logging companies, despite the Act's explicit grants of authority to address threats from the compromised park boundaries. The court therefore ordered the Secretary to exercise these powers within a defined reasonable time and retained jurisdiction for further orders as needed.

environmentfederal power

Joe Kapp, a professional quarterback, sued the NFL, Commissioner Pete Rozelle, and member clubs alleging that league rules on player selection, drafts, reserve lists, and tampering created an antitrust conspiracy and monopoly under Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 that caused his discharge by the New England Patriots and exclusion from U.S. professional football. He also brought pendent breach-of-contract and tortious-inducement claims arising from an alleged 1970 contract. On Kapp's motion for summary judgment, the court reviewed undisputed facts concerning the NFL Constitution's draft and tampering provisions, Kapp's negotiations across leagues, and the sequence of his contracts with Canadian teams, the Vikings, and the Patriots. The court concluded that the record did not present a genuine issue of material fact on the contract-formation question under Rule 56 and proceeded to analyze the antitrust claims against the league's player-transfer rules.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

Leslie Salt Co. brought suit against the Army Corps of Engineers seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the Corps unlawfully asserted regulatory jurisdiction over the company's reclaimed shoreline property in San Francisco Bay beyond the mean high water line up to the mean higher high water line and could not require permits for ongoing salt production and related work under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The case reached the court on the Corps' motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the FWPCA authorizes the Corps to regulate discharges of dredged or fill material into areas up to the MHHW line on the Pacific Coast, as the statutory definition of navigable waters of the United States extends jurisdiction to such tidal areas, making it unnecessary to resolve the scope of authority under the earlier Rivers and Harbors Act. Partial summary judgment was therefore entered for the Corps on the jurisdictional question.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case concerns a dispute over which party has superior rights to $3,427.28 in withheld payments due to a contractor under a California public works contract for bridge painting. The surety company claimed the funds based on subrogation to stop-notice claimants and an assignment from the contractor after default, while the United States asserted priority through multiple federal tax liens assessed against the contractor. The court granted summary judgment to the United States and the State, holding that the contractor had property rights in the contract balance under state law to which the tax liens attached. The core reasoning was that the surety's assignment did not qualify as a security interest protected against subsequent judgment liens under federal law because no financing statement had been filed as required by the California Commercial Code.

taxespropertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Sierra Club suing the Department of the Interior and its officials to compel them to exercise statutory powers under the National Park System Act and Redwood National Park Act to protect Redwood National Park from alleged damage to trees, soil, streams, and scenery caused by logging operations on surrounding privately owned lands. The matter came before the court on the government's motion to dismiss the Second Claim of the amended complaint or for summary judgment, primarily arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief. The court ruled that it had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and that the plaintiff had standing consistent with Sierra Club v. Morton; it further determined that the statutes created judicially enforceable duties for the Secretary to conserve park resources, including by negotiating protective agreements or acquiring interests in adjacent lands, such that the claim could proceed under the Administrative Procedure Act or Mandamus Act. The core reasoning rested on the plain language of 16 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 79a et seq., legislative history emphasizing protection from external watershed damage, and the Secretary's fiduciary role over public lands.

environmentfederal power

The case was a Title VII lawsuit by a former female Xerox employee alleging sex discrimination through unequal pay, higher performance demands than male colleagues, and termination based on sex. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, which had argued that state statutes of limitations barred the claims and that the suit improperly sought equitable relief. The core reasoning was that Title VII supplies its own jurisdictional time limits—filing a charge with the EEOC and then suing within 90 days of a right-to-sue letter—so no state limitation period applies, and monetary relief forms part of the equitable remedy available under the statute.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved several former untenured faculty members at California State University Fresno who sued university trustees and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that their teaching contracts were not renewed because of their exercise of First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly during a faculty senate meeting and that the subsequent grievance process under Executive Order 112 violated due process. The court considered the defendants' motion to dismiss on abstention, laches, and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds, along with the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and reinstatement. It affirmed jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act, rejected abstention and laches, and noted that the plaintiffs lacked a sufficient expectancy of reappointment to require a pre-nonrenewal hearing, while directing further inquiry into whether the stated reason of departmental overstaffing was pretextual for protected conduct.

free speechcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves challenges to San Francisco's Civil Service written examinations for Fireman H-2 positions, which plaintiffs claimed disproportionately excluded minority applicants. The court found that the San Francisco Civil Service Commission had three times failed to demonstrate the tests were job-related as required by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, rendering them presumptively unlawful when they adversely affected minority groups. The opinion notes that the law does not require proportional racial representation in employment but permits affirmative remedies to eliminate discriminatory practices and their effects when tests lack validation. Due to the Commission's ongoing non-compliance with prior court orders to validate tests or use alternative hiring methods, resulting in over 200 vacancies, the court discusses the potential need for further remedies beyond enjoining the tests.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved twenty-five individual Karuk Indians, an unorganized band without a recognized governing body, suing the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior over ancestral lands in what became the Klamath and Six Rivers National Forests. Plaintiffs alleged that an 1851 treaty negotiated with the United States was never ratified, that the government induced them to leave their lands without establishing a reservation, and that this violated due process, the free exercise of their religion at sacred sites, and the federal government's fiduciary duties as trustee for Indians. They sought a declaratory judgment and injunction ordering the reservation of lands, including exclusive use of specific sites, for Karuk cultural and religious practices. The court addressed motions to dismiss, concluding it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361 because the suit was effectively against the sovereign United States without consent, raised non-justiciable political questions regarding Indian title extinguishment, and was barred by sovereign immunity and prior Court of Claims judgments under specific Indian claims statutes.

civil rightsreligious libertyfederal powerproperty