Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A group of environmental organizations challenged the decision by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) to grant a water quality certification for the Southgate Project, a proposed pipeline crossing parts of Virginia and North Carolina. The organizations argued that the certification was improperly issued because VDEQ failed to adequately address the pipeline developer’s past record of environmental violations and did not include all necessary conditions to ensure compliance with water quality standards. VDEQ had previously approved the developer’s erosion and sediment control plans, received public comments, and ultimately issued the certification after addressing those comments.After VDEQ issued the certification, the petitioners sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and filed a motion to stay the certification pending judicial review, pointing to the imminent start of pipeline construction. Their main contentions were that VDEQ did not rationally justify its prediction that the pipeline would not violate water quality standards, especially given the developer’s history of noncompliance, and that the certification failed to explicitly require compliance with certain state environmental plans and agreements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered the motion for a stay and denied it. The court found that the petitioners had not made a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The court noted that VDEQ provided a detailed explanation for its decision, including differences between the current project and past projects, and incorporated relevant environmental plans by reference in the certification. The court also determined that the remaining factors supporting a stay did not outweigh the petitioners’ failure to demonstrate likely success on the merits. The motion for a stay pending review was therefore denied. View "Dan River Basin Association v. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality" on Justia Law

A proposed pipeline project, known as the Southgate Project, is planned to traverse portions of North Carolina and Virginia. This project is an extension of an existing pipeline system, and its construction has generated substantial environmental and legal concerns. The Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, sought a water quality certification from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), which is required under the Clean Water Act for such projects. After considering public comments, a public hearing, and a report from its hearing officer, NCDEQ issued the necessary certification in November 2025, finding that the project, if conducted according to specified conditions, would comply with state water quality standards.Previously, in 2020, NCDEQ had denied a water quality certification for the project, but that decision was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2021. After the main pipeline was completed in 2024 and project plans were revised to reduce its length in North Carolina, NCDEQ reviewed and ultimately granted the new application. Environmental groups then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review of NCDEQ’s decision, and, as construction appeared imminent, sought a stay to prevent the project from proceeding while the case was pending.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the motion for a stay, applying the traditional four-factor test for such relief. The court held that the petitioners did not make a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their challenges to NCDEQ’s decision, particularly given the deference owed to the agency’s expertise under the Administrative Procedure Act. As a result, the motion for preliminary relief was denied, though the underlying merits of the challenge remain for later determination. View "Sierra Club v. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality" on Justia Law

After two employees and a former resident at a Medicare-participating nursing home in Maryland were diagnosed with active tuberculosis in 2015, county health officials determined that the facility was at high risk for transmission. The officials directed the facility’s staff to take responsibility for testing and follow-up for residents. The facility carried out skin tests and chest x-rays, identifying several residents with latent tuberculosis, but did not proceed to evaluate or treat those residents for latent TB, nor did it document reasons for not treating them. Over a year later, a state health agency investigated and concluded that the facility failed to ensure proper follow-up and documentation, violating federal infection control regulations. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed, found that the noncompliance created “immediate jeopardy,” and imposed a per-day civil monetary penalty.The facility challenged the findings and penalty before an administrative law judge, who rejected its arguments and upheld both the finding of noncompliance and the penalty. The Departmental Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered whether the Seventh Amendment entitled the facility to a jury trial in HHS’s administrative proceedings for monetary penalties. The court held that there is no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in this context because the enforcement action at issue involves “public rights,” not common law claims. The court reasoned that Congress created novel statutory obligations for Medicare-participating facilities, not merely reclassified common law causes of action, and that these obligations are enforced through an administrative scheme distinct from common law torts or contract actions. The court also found that HHS’s actions were neither arbitrary nor capricious and that its decision was supported by substantial evidence. The petition for review was denied. View "Sligo Creek Center v. Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

The case centers on the operations of a chemical manufacturing facility in Parkersburg, West Virginia, owned by The Chemours Company. Chemours used hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), a member of the PFAS class of chemicals, as a processing aid in polymer production. The company discharged wastewater containing HFPO-DA into the Ohio River under a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit that established specific effluent limits. However, from 2022 onward, Chemours exceeded these limits on multiple occasions. Local water testing showed that HFPO-DA concentrations sometimes surpassed newer, not-yet-enforceable federal health standards but did not exceed West Virginia’s own goals. Chemours entered into an administrative consent order with the EPA to address permit compliance.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia reviewed a citizen suit brought by West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Inc., seeking a preliminary injunction against Chemours for ongoing permit violations. The district court found that the Coalition had Article III associational standing through a member who avoided boating in the Ohio River due to Chemours’ discharges. The court granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining Chemours from exceeding permit limits and requiring remedial measures. Chemours appealed, challenging both the standing determination and the irreparable harm finding.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined both issues. The court agreed that the Coalition had established a substantial likelihood of standing at this stage. However, it found that the district court committed legal errors in its irreparable harm analysis, including incorrectly presuming harm from permit violations and conflating harm to the public with harm to the plaintiff. The Fourth Circuit also found clear error in the factual findings regarding irreparable harm. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction granted by the district court. View "West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Inc. v. The Chemours Company FC, LLC" on Justia Law

Maryland enacted legislation regulating how retail electricity suppliers may market “green power” to consumers, seeking to address concerns that consumers were misled by claims about renewable energy. The statute prohibits suppliers from using terms such as “clean,” “green,” or “100% renewable” unless at least 51% of the energy is backed by renewable energy credits (RECs) from within a specific regional grid (the PJM region). Additionally, suppliers are required to include disclosures explaining the nature of RECs and their relationship to renewable electricity, with the exact disclosure language later specified by the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC).Retail Energy Advancement League and Green Mountain Energy Company brought a facial First Amendment challenge against these provisions and sought a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The district court denied the injunction, applying intermediate scrutiny to the speech restriction and concluding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits. The court also found that the statute’s disclosure requirements likely survived constitutional review.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success in showing the speech restriction was unconstitutional even under intermediate scrutiny, because the restriction did not materially advance Maryland’s asserted interest in preventing consumer deception and was not adequately tailored. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction as to the speech restriction and ordered an injunction against enforcement of that provision. However, regarding the compelled disclosure requirement, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to review the constitutionality of the new PSC-promulgated disclosure language in the first instance. View "Retail Energy Advancement League v. Brown" on Justia Law

A woman sued a North Carolina town, alleging that a police officer employed by the town had sexually assaulted her while on duty. She claimed that the officer coerced her into sexual acts during visits to her home, sometimes in exchange for leniency regarding traffic violations. The officer had previously passed a background check, though some concerns were raised about his temperament and integrity, and a domestic violence complaint had been filed against him but was dismissed. The police department had no specific written policy prohibiting sexual misconduct, but did have general rules regarding officer conduct. During the officer’s employment, he was disciplined for minor infractions, but no complaints of sexual misconduct were received. The plaintiff reported the alleged assault more than a year after the officer resigned.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted summary judgment to the town. The court found there was insufficient evidence to show that the town’s police department was deliberately indifferent to the risk of sexual assault by its officers, or that any failure in its policies, training, or supervision caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The court also granted summary judgment on state law claims for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, concluding there was no evidence that the town knew or should have known that the officer was unfit for employment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to establish municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because there was no evidence of a pattern of similar constitutional violations or deliberate indifference by policymakers. The court also affirmed the dismissal of state law claims, finding no evidence that the town was negligent in hiring, supervising, or retaining the officer. View "Mullen v. Town of Sunset Beach" on Justia Law

A volunteer affiliated with a nonprofit focused on innovation requested documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The request sought information related to an adversary proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), particularly concerning the panel of judges assigned, changes to the panel, and drafts of the written decision. The proceeding involved a motion for recusal due to a judge’s stock ownership and subsequent reassignment of panel members. The FOIA request specifically targeted documents reflecting the identities and opinions of involved judges, membership of the Circulation Judge Pool, legal bases for judge participation, and information about stock holdings.The PTO produced about 1,500 pages of documents but withheld drafts of decisions and related communications, citing FOIA Exemption 5, which covers predecisional and deliberative documents. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment and ruled in favor of the PTO, finding that the withheld documents were both predecisional and deliberative. The court rejected arguments that the communications constituted unlawful ex parte communications or government misconduct, determining there was no basis under FOIA to compel disclosure. The court also concluded that the plaintiff’s broader claims were not appropriately raised in a FOIA action.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the PTO properly withheld the drafts and related communications under Exemption 5, finding them categorically predecisional and deliberative. The court further determined that intra-agency circulation of draft opinions among judges did not constitute ex parte communications and that FOIA does not provide a government misconduct exception for Exemption 5. View "Malone v. United States Patent & Trademark Office" on Justia Law

A federal prisoner was sentenced in December 2020 and, due to pending charges in another jurisdiction, was held at a detention center in Rhode Island rather than being promptly transferred to his designated Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility in South Carolina. During this period of post-sentencing detention, the prisoner claims to have participated in programs under the First Step Act (FSA), thereby accruing approximately 150 days of time credits, which could reduce his time in custody. However, the BOP did not recognize these credits because he had not undergone a formal risk and needs assessment—the BOP’s prerequisite for awarding such credits—until his eventual arrival at the designated facility in March 2022.After exhausting administrative remedies, the prisoner filed a pro se habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, seeking recognition of his alleged FSA credits. The magistrate judge, without briefing or discovery, recommended dismissal. The district court adopted this recommendation, concluding that the BOP’s regulation reasonably required an initial assessment before credits could be earned, and applied Chevron deference to uphold the agency's interpretation. The district court also found no evidence the prisoner had “successfully participated” in qualifying programs before arrival at the BOP facility and dismissed the petition without prejudice, refusing to require a government response.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded. The Fourth Circuit held that the case was not moot, as the prisoner could still benefit from the FSA credits if his risk status changed or a warden approved his release. The court further held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned Chevron deference, the district court must independently determine whether the BOP’s interpretation of “successful participation” aligns with the best reading of the statute. View "Benson v. Warden FCI Edgefield" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, three organizations representing millions of Americans, challenged the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) decision to grant personnel from the newly created U.S. DOGE Service access to non-anonymized, highly sensitive personal information held by the SSA. This access was authorized following an executive order charging DOGE with improving government technology. Career officials at the SSA resigned in protest, and a new acting administrator approved DOGE’s access. The plaintiffs argued that merely providing this access, regardless of actual misuse or disclosure, was itself unlawful and an intrusion upon the privacy of their members.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland conducted extensive hearings and granted a preliminary injunction blocking DOGE’s access to the data. The Supreme Court subsequently stayed this injunction, pending appellate and possible further Supreme Court review. The case came before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing, as the unauthorized access to their sensitive information closely resembled the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion. However, the Fourth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had not established that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, as required by the second factor of the Winter test for preliminary injunctions. The court reasoned that monetary damages and reparative permanent injunctions were potentially available remedies, and the record did not show that new or additional irreparable harm would occur during the litigation. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The main holding is that the preliminary injunction was vacated because the plaintiffs did not show likely irreparable harm. View "American Federation of State, County and Municipal v. Social Security Administration" on Justia Law

A group of pharmaceutical manufacturers that participate in the federal 340B drug pricing program challenged a new West Virginia law, S.B. 325, which imposed restrictions and penalties on manufacturers regarding the delivery of discounted drugs to contract pharmacies. The 340B program is a federal scheme where drug manufacturers provide discounts to designated health care providers (“covered entities”) in exchange for access to the Medicaid market. Dissatisfied with the federal program’s scope, West Virginia enacted S.B. 325, which specifically barred manufacturers from restricting delivery of 340B drugs to any location authorized by a covered entity (including contract pharmacies), and from requiring data submission as a condition for delivery, with significant penalties for violations.The manufacturers sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia seeking to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 325, arguing that it was preempted by federal law. The district court found that the manufacturers were likely to succeed on the merits of their preemption claim, that they faced irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief. The court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the statute.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed whether S.B. 325 was preempted by federal law. The Fourth Circuit held that S.B. 325 likely interferes with the federal 340B program by imposing additional conditions on manufacturers solely because of their participation in a federal program, thereby intruding into a domain reserved for federal regulation. The court found that Congress had struck a careful bargain in the 340B program and that West Virginia’s law sought to alter that bargain in a way that conflicted with federal objectives and the enforcement scheme administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of S.B. 325. View "Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America v. McCuskey" on Justia Law