Justia Military Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants, as representatives of the estates of their deceased sons, brought this action against federal officials and employees in district court seeking money damages relating to the alleged mistreatment and eventual death of those sons while they were detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. The district court granted the motion of the United States to be substituted as defendant and the motion of the United States for dismissal of the claims. Because the court was satisfied that neither the district court nor this court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action due to the jurisdictional bar created by section 7(a) of the Military Commissions Act (MCA), 28 U.S.C. 2241(e), the court affirmed the judgment of dismissal, although on different grounds than those relied upon by the district court. The court held that the Supreme Court did not declare section 2241(e)(2) unconstitutional under Boumediene v. Bush and that provision retained vitality to bar those claims. Therefore, the decision of the district court dismissing the claims should be affirmed, although for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) rather than for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Al-Zahrani v. Rodriquez" on Justia Law

A widow alleged that her husband developed cancer due to exposure to radiation while he was serving on active duty. Based on regulations that presume causation for certain diseases, the Board of Veterans' Appeals awarded service connection with an effective date of 1988. The Board did not determine whether she established a direct service connection that was not based on the presumptions. The Veterans Court remanded for such findings. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting the widow's argument that the evidence in the record supported reversal and an earlier effective date. View "Byron v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

More than 7,000 named plaintiffs brought suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2680, asserting injuries because of the U.S. Navy's alleged negligence in emitting pollutants during military exercises (which ended in 2003) at the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico. The district court dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed. The limited abrogation of sovereign immunity in the FTCA does not extend to these claims because of the discretionary function exception, which precludes FTCA actions against government conduct which is both within the discretion of the relevant government party and susceptible to policy-related judgments. The court rejected arguments that the Navy acted beyond its discretion because it allegedly violated mandatory directives concerning water pollution issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1389; violated a pair of permits that purportedly forbid firing depleted uranium bullets on Vieques; violated unidentified internal regulations, policies, directives, and orders; and failed to comply with a purported duty to warn. View "Sanchez v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2009, plaintiff applied for an IT specialist position with the Miami VA Healthcare System. He did not get the job and, after exhausting rights before the Department of Labor, filed an appeal, asserting that the VA violated his rights relating to veteran's preference. The AJ concluded that the Merit Systems Protection Board had no authority to review the merits of the VA’s non-selection of plaintiff. The Board agreed. The Federal Circuit vacated. There is no way to determine whether the Veterans' Preference Act (58 Stat. 390) has been violated without examining the grounds for non-selection. The Board has jurisdiction to determine whether the VA properly afforded plaintiff the right to compete for the job and properly determined, in accordance with 5 C.F.R. § 302.302(d), that he was not qualified for the position View "Lazaro v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

Appellant Rick Strandlof was charged under the Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S.C. 704(b)) which makes it illegal to falsely claim to have received a military award or honor. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether the Act is constitutional. Despite never having served in the armed forces, Appellant founded the Colorado Veterans Alliance, and frequently told veterans he graduated from the United States Naval Academy, was a former U.S. Marine Corps Captain, and had been wounded in combat in Iraq. He bragged of receiving a Purple Heart, and he boasted that he had been awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in battle. A number of local veterans found Appellant to be an unconvincing imposter. Angered by Appellant's lies, they contacted the FBI and reported their suspicion that Appellant was a phony. After military officials confirmed Appellant never attended the Naval Academy or served in the military, the government filed a criminal complaint in the District of Colorado charging him with making false claims about receipt of military decorations or medals, in violation of the Act. Reasoning that false statements are generally protected by the First Amendment, the district court declared the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional and dismissed the charges against Appellant. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with that reading of Supreme Court precedent and reversed: "[a]s the Supreme Court has observed time and again, false statements of fact do not enjoy constitutional protection, except to the extent necessary to protect more valuable speech. Under this principle, the Stolen Valor Act does not impinge on or chill protected speech, and therefore does not offend the First Amendment." View "United States v. Strandlof" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, presently incarcerated due to his conviction after trial for federal crimes of terrorism, and his mother, sued for legal and equitable relief based on plaintiff's prior military detention as an "enemy combatant." Plaintiff sought a declaration that defendants' policies were unconstitutional, an order enjoining his future designation as an enemy combatant, and nominal damages of one dollar from each defendant. The court affirmed the district court's refusal to imply a new cause of action for money damages against top Defense Department officials for a range of policy judgments pertaining to the designation and treatment of enemy combatants. The court also held that defendants have asserted a valid qualified immunity defense to defendant's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., claim. The court further held that the district court did not err in concluding that defendant lacked standing to seek an order enjoining the government from designating him as an enemy combatant. Therefore, finding plaintiff's claims to be without merit, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Lebron, et al. v. Rumsfeld, et al." on Justia Law

Organizations challenged a rule issued by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (amending 38 C.F.R 3.304(f)) with respect to claims for service-connected disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder. The new rule: allows a veteran to establish PTSD without supporting evidence; applies the lower evidentiary standard only if a VA psychologist or psychiatrist, or one contracted with the VA, confirms the claimed-stressor supports the diagnosis; and defines the veteran’s "fear of hostile military or terrorist activity" as involving a response characterized by "a psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror." The Federal Circuit upheld the rule as not violating the statutory requirement that the Secretary consider all medical evidence and give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant when there is an approximate balance of evidence. There is a rational basis for the distinction between private practitioners and VA associated practitioners. View "Nat'l Org. of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. v. Sec'y Veterans Affairs." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's decision to abstain, on the basis of Schlesinger v. Councilman, and dismiss without prejudice his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the U.S. Army's exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over him. The court held that the district court was well within its discretion in applying Councilman abstention and dismissing without prejudice petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court remanded, however, for correction of an error in the judgment because, although the district court applied Councilman abstention and dismissed the petition without prejudice, the judgment erroneously indicated that the district court granted the Army's summary judgment motion on the merits. View "Hennis v. Hemlick, et al." on Justia Law

In the mid-1990's, the Navy began providing employees with bottled water after an EPA report indicated that water fountains in some Navy buildings in Newport contained components manufactured with lead. Beginning in 2005, the Navy replaced the problematic water fountains, tested the tap water, and determined it safe to drink. The Navy then stopped providing bottled water; it did not negotiate with employee unions before removing the bottled water. The unions objected to the removal of the bottled water. Funds appropriated for agency operations could be used for "necessary expenses" but not for employees' "personal expenses." As the Comptroller General has long determined, when safe and drinkable tap water was available in the workplace, bottled water constituted a personal expense for which appropriated funds could not be expended. Under federal collective bargaining law, moreover, an agency had not duty or authority to bargain over or grant benefits that were "inconsistent with any Federal law." Therefore, if safe and drinkable tap water was available at the Newport facilities, the Navy had no authority or duty to bargain before removing the bottled water. View "US Dept. of the Navy v. FLRA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a veteran with a service-connected disability rated at 80 percent, which makes him a "preference eligible" veteran, 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(C). He applied for attorney positions at the Social Security Administration and at the U.S. Attorney's Office, informing both that he was a preference eligible veteran. Both agencies selected other applicants, at least one of whom was not preference eligible. He filed complaints with the Department of Labor. The agencies concluded that 5 U.S.C. 3320 did not apply to require that agencies "file written reasons" and receive permission from the Office of Personnel Management if they pass over a preference eligible who is among the highest three eligibles available for appointment on a certificate furnished by OPM. The Board agreed that attorneys are exempt from any examination or rating requirements. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board properly concluding that the agencies were exempt from the procedures and were not required to file written reasons with OPM and seek permission before selecting other candidates. View "Jarrard v. Dep't of Justice" on Justia Law