Ctr. for Food Saf. v. Jewell, 803 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
Ctr. for Food Saf. v. Jewell, 803 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
280 citation events (280 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Payne v. Biden, 602 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D.D.C. 2022)
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2015 2020 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 23 Determining if claims are intertwined with agency enforcement17 citing casesinternal quotation marks and citation omitted4 citing courts put it this way · 13 listed here
  • Axon Enter. Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, No. 2:20-cv-00014 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2020). 3 cites
    (Here, [plaintiff’s] constitutional and APA claims 8 do not arise ‘outside’ the SEC administrative enforcement scheme—they arise from actions 9 the Commission took in the course of that scheme. And they are the ‘vehicle…)
  • Gunay Miriyeva v. USCIS, No. 20-5032 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 17, 2021).published 2 cites
    Id. at 23 (cleaned up).
  • Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. United States Postal Serv., 496 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020).published 2 cites
    Cir. 2019) (quoting Jarskey, 803 F.3d at 22.) The question to ask is “whether the plaintiffs ‘aimed to obtain the same relief they could seek in the agency proceeding.’” Id. at 758-60 (quoting Jarskey, 803 F.3d at 23).
  • State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, 490 F. Supp. 3d 225 (D.D.C. 2020).published 3 cites
    Cir. 2019) (quoting Jarskey, 803 F.3d at 22).
  • Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. United States of Am., 443 F. Supp. 3d 198 (D.D.C. 2020).published 7 cites
    See, e.g., Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 208 (noting the relevant statute’s language that the jurisdiction of the appropriate court of appeals “shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final” (quoting 30 U.S.C. § 816 (a)(1)) (e…
  • Miriyeva v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 436 F. Supp. 3d 170 (D.D.C. 2019).published 3 cites
    Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Not “Collateral” One of the most important factors that courts consider in deciding whether a statutory review scheme precludes a litigant’s claims is whether those claims are “wholly collateral to a statute’s review…
  • Bank of Louisiana v. F.D.I.C., 919 F.3d 916 (5th Cir. 2019).published 7 cites
    See Elgin , 567 U.S. at 17 , 132 S.Ct. 2126 (concluding the Civil Service Reform Act afforded meaningful review by "provid[ing] review in the Federal Circuit, an Article III court fully competent to adjudicate petitioners' [constitutional]…
  • Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. Trump, 318 F. Supp. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2018).published 7 cites
    In short, Congress intended for the "mine-run of cases" involving the FSLMRS to come before the FLRA- not the federal district courts-because "Congress create[d] procedures designed to permit agency expertise to be brought to bear on parti…
  • Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, Afl-Cio v. Trump, No. 2018-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2018).published 8 cites
    Comm’n, 803 F.3d 9, 15 (D.C.
  • Jalbert v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, No. 1:17-cv-12103 (D. Mass. Aug. 22, 2018).
    Lower courts have largely concluded that a claim is “not wholly collateral if it has been raised in response to, and so is procedurally intertwined with, an administrative proceeding—regardless of the claim’s substantive connection to the…
Show 3 more citing cases
  • Tilton v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 824 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2016).published 8 cites
    They argue, however, that their Appointments Clause challenge is a distinct type of claim: “a threshold constitutional challenge to agency practice.” Id. at 12.
  • Bennett v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 151 F. Supp. 3d 632 (D. Md. 2015).published 14 cites
    Circuit affirmed, id. on the basis that all three Thunder Basin factors indicated, that Jarkesy’s. constitutional claims against the Commission did not “fall outside an overarching congressional design.” Id. at 17-18, 22.
  • Chau v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 665 F. App'x 67 (2d Cir. 2016).unpublished
    (finding that the plaintiffs Equal Protection claim was not wholly collateral in part because it “ar[o]se from actions the Commission took in due course” of the administrative enforcement scheme, which the claim was an a…)
At page 16 Interpreting statutory exclusivity of agency review jurisdiction10 citing casesinternal quotation marks and citation omitted4 citing courts put it this way · 7 listed here
  • Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. United States of Am., 443 F. Supp. 3d 198 (D.D.C. 2020).published 7 cites
    See, e.g., Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 208 (noting the relevant statute’s language that the jurisdiction of the appropriate court of appeals “shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final” (quoting 30 U.S.C. § 816 (a)(1)) (e…
  • Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. Trump, 318 F. Supp. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2018).published 7 cites
    In short, Congress intended for the "mine-run of cases" involving the FSLMRS to come before the FLRA- not the federal district courts-because "Congress create[d] procedures designed to permit agency expertise to be brought to bear on parti…
  • Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, Afl-Cio v. Trump, No. 2018-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2018).published 8 cites
    Comm’n, 803 F.3d 9, 15 (D.C.
  • Vetcher v. Sessions, No. 2017-1743 (D.D.C. June 11, 2018).published
    (stating legal material is “necessary . . . for categorical approach)
  • Vetcher v. Sessions, 316 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.C. Cir. 2018).published
    (stating legal material is "necessary ... for categorical approach)
  • Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta, 888 F.3d 493 (D.C. Cir. 2018).published 3 cites
    Under Thunder Basin 's framework, courts determine that Congress intended that a litigant proceed exclusively through a statutory scheme of administrative and judicial review when (i) such intent is fairly discernible in the statutory sche…
  • Tilton v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 824 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2016).published 8 cites
    They argue, however, that their Appointments Clause challenge is a distinct type of claim: “a threshold constitutional challenge to agency practice.” Id. at 12.
At page 15 Determining exclusive statutory review for judicial claims11 citing casessecond alteration in original1 citing court put it this way · 6 listed here
  • Gunay Miriyeva v. USCIS, No. 20-5032 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 17, 2021).published 2 cites
    Id. at 23 (cleaned up).
  • Hemp Indus. Ass'n v. United States Drug Enf't Admin., No. 2020-2921 (D.D.C. May 3, 2021).published
    Sept. 28, 2018), and provides the “exclusive means of obtaining judicial review in those cases to which it applies.” Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 15 (citation omitted); see also City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320, 336 (1958) (expl…
  • Bohon v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, No. 2020-0006 (D.D.C. May 6, 2020).published 2 cites
    (second alteration in original)
  • Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. Trump, 318 F. Supp. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2018).published 7 cites
    In short, Congress intended for the "mine-run of cases" involving the FSLMRS to come before the FLRA- not the federal district courts-because "Congress create[d] procedures designed to permit agency expertise to be brought to bear on parti…
  • Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, Afl-Cio v. Trump, No. 2018-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2018).published 8 cites
    Comm’n, 803 F.3d 9, 15 (D.C.
  • Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta, 888 F.3d 493 (D.C. Cir. 2018).published 3 cites
    (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)
At page 20 Analyzing administrative review and judicial challenges to agency actions6 citing casesThe oddities that led the Supreme Court [in Free Enterprise] to believe that Congress could not possibly have intended the accounting firm to proceed through the administrative route are not present in this case.1 citing court put it this way · 5 listed here
  • Payne v. Biden, 602 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D.D.C. 2022).published 2 cites
    (The oddities that led the Supreme Court [in Free Enterprise] to believe that Congress could not possibly have intended the accounting firm to proceed through the administrative route are not present in this case.)
  • Axon Enter. Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, No. 2:20-cv-00014 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2020). 3 cites
    Bennett, 844 F.3d at 187 4 (“However, we think the second reading is more faithful to the more recent Supreme Court 5 precedent . . . .”); Tilton, 824 F.3d at 288 (“The appellants’ Appointments Clause claim 6 arose directly from that enfor…
  • Gray Fin. Grp., Inc. v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 825 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2016).published
    (Jarkesy is already properly before the Commission by virtue of his alleged violations of those laws. Indeed, the existence of the enforcement proceedings gave rise to Jarkesy’s challenges.)
  • Bank of Louisiana v. F.D.I.C., 919 F.3d 916 (5th Cir. 2019).published 7 cites
    (observing that "the SEC scheme presents an entirely meaningful avenue of relief" given that "a court of appeals is available to hear ... challenges" to the Commission's final order)
  • Bennett v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 151 F. Supp. 3d 632 (D. Md. 2015).published 14 cites
    Circuit affirmed, id. on the basis that all three Thunder Basin factors indicated, that Jarkesy’s. constitutional claims against the Commission did not “fall outside an overarching congressional design.” Id. at 17-18, 22.
At page 28 Agency expertise and constitutional claims in agency review10 citing casesnoting the wide array of constitutional and statutory claims that come before the SEC4 citing courts put it this way · 5 listed here
  • Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. United States of Am., 443 F. Supp. 3d 198 (D.D.C. 2020).published 7 cites
    See, e.g., Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 208 (noting the relevant statute’s language that the jurisdiction of the appropriate court of appeals “shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final” (quoting 30 U.S.C. § 816 (a)(1)) (e…
  • Bank of Louisiana v. F.D.I.C., 919 F.3d 916 (5th Cir. 2019).published 7 cites
    See Elgin , 567 U.S. at 17 , 132 S.Ct. 2126 (concluding the Civil Service Reform Act afforded meaningful review by "provid[ing] review in the Federal Circuit, an Article III court fully competent to adjudicate petitioners' [constitutional]…
  • Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps. v. Trump, 318 F. Supp. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2018).published 7 cites
    In short, Congress intended for the "mine-run of cases" involving the FSLMRS to come before the FLRA- not the federal district courts-because "Congress create[d] procedures designed to permit agency expertise to be brought to bear on parti…
  • Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, Afl-Cio v. Trump, No. 2018-1261 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2018).published 8 cites
    Comm’n, 803 F.3d 9, 15 (D.C.
  • Tilton v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 824 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2016).published 8 cites
    They argue, however, that their Appointments Clause challenge is a distinct type of claim: “a threshold constitutional challenge to agency practice.” Id. at 12.
At page 17 Analyzing collateral claims under statutory review scheme8 citing casesinternal quotations omitted1 citing court put it this way · 4 listed here
  • State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, 490 F. Supp. 3d 225 (D.D.C. 2020).published 3 cites
    Cir. 2019) (quoting Jarskey, 803 F.3d at 22).
  • Miriyeva v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 436 F. Supp. 3d 170 (D.D.C. 2019).published 3 cites
    Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Not “Collateral” One of the most important factors that courts consider in deciding whether a statutory review scheme precludes a litigant’s claims is whether those claims are “wholly collateral to a statute’s review…
  • Tilton v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 824 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2016).published 8 cites
    They argue, however, that their Appointments Clause challenge is a distinct type of claim: “a threshold constitutional challenge to agency practice.” Id. at 12.
  • Bennett v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 151 F. Supp. 3d 632 (D. Md. 2015).published 14 cites
    Circuit affirmed, id. on the basis that all three Thunder Basin factors indicated, that Jarkesy’s. constitutional claims against the Commission did not “fall outside an overarching congressional design.” Id. at 17-18, 22.
At page 22 Remanding for factual development and holistic analysis7 citing casescitation and internal quotation marks omitted1 citing court put it this way · 4 listed here
  • Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. United States Postal Serv., 496 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2020).published 2 cites
    Cir. 2019) (quoting Jarskey, 803 F.3d at 22.) The question to ask is “whether the plaintiffs ‘aimed to obtain the same relief they could seek in the agency proceeding.’” Id. at 758-60 (quoting Jarskey, 803 F.3d at 23).
  • State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, 490 F. Supp. 3d 225 (D.D.C. 2020).published 3 cites
    Cir. 2019) (quoting Jarskey, 803 F.3d at 22).
  • Bank of Louisiana v. F.D.I.C., 919 F.3d 916 (5th Cir. 2019).published 7 cites
    See Elgin , 567 U.S. at 17 , 132 S.Ct. 2126 (concluding the Civil Service Reform Act afforded meaningful review by "provid[ing] review in the Federal Circuit, an Article III court fully competent to adjudicate petitioners' [constitutional]…
  • Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta, 888 F.3d 493 (D.C. Cir. 2018).published 3 cites
    Under Thunder Basin 's framework, courts determine that Congress intended that a litigant proceed exclusively through a statutory scheme of administrative and judicial review when (i) such intent is fairly discernible in the statutory sche…
At page 13 Failure to post notice regarding miners' representatives5 citing casessecurities law violations4 citing courts put it this way · 3 listed here
At page 14 [T]he statute grants the SEC the power to institute and resolve [an enforcement proceeding] as an initial matter.3 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Scottsdale Capital Advisors Corp. v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., No. 2018-2973 (D.D.C. July 16, 2019).published
    ([T]he statute grants the SEC the power to institute and resolve [an enforcement proceeding] as an initial matter.)
  • Bank of Louisiana v. F.D.I.C., 919 F.3d 916 (5th Cir. 2019).published 7 cites
    See Elgin , 567 U.S. at 17 , 132 S.Ct. 2126 (concluding the Civil Service Reform Act afforded meaningful review by "provid[ing] review in the Federal Circuit, an Article III court fully competent to adjudicate petitioners' [constitutional]…
  • Arch Coal, Inc. v. Hugler, 242 F. Supp. 3d 13 (D.D.C. 2017).published 2 cites
    See Jarkesy, 803 F.3d at 16 .
At page 25 Determining jurisdiction based on alleged statutory violations4 citing cases3 listed here
  • Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. United States of Am., 443 F. Supp. 3d 198 (D.D.C. 2020).published 7 cites
    See, e.g., Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 208 (noting the relevant statute’s language that the jurisdiction of the appropriate court of appeals “shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final” (quoting 30 U.S.C. § 816 (a)(1)) (e…
  • Morris & Dickson Co. v. Whitaker, 360 F. Supp. 3d 434 (W.D. La. 2018).published 4 cites
    Cf. Jarkesy , 803 F.3d at 25 ("Yet an exception to an otherwise exclusive scheme for constitutional challenges in general, or facial attacks on a statute in particular, or some other as-yet-undefined category of constitutional claims, woul…
  • Bennett v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 151 F. Supp. 3d 632 (D. Md. 2015).published 14 cites
    Circuit affirmed, id. on the basis that all three Thunder Basin factors indicated, that Jarkesy’s. constitutional claims against the Commission did not “fall outside an overarching congressional design.” Id. at 17-18, 22.
At page 18 appellate review meaningful where administrative proceeding already underway2 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. United States of Am., 443 F. Supp. 3d 198 (D.D.C. 2020).published 7 cites
    See, e.g., Thunder Basin, 510 U.S. at 208 (noting the relevant statute’s language that the jurisdiction of the appropriate court of appeals “shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final” (quoting 30 U.S.C. § 816 (a)(1)) (e…
  • Bennett v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 151 F. Supp. 3d 632 (D. Md. 2015).published 14 cites
    Circuit affirmed, id. on the basis that all three Thunder Basin factors indicated, that Jarkesy’s. constitutional claims against the Commission did not “fall outside an overarching congressional design.” Id. at 17-18, 22.
At page 12 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Tilton v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 824 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2016).published 8 cites
    They argue, however, that their Appointments Clause challenge is a distinct type of claim: “a threshold constitutional challenge to agency practice.” Id. at 12.
At page 26 Denial of pretrial motion not immediately appealable5 citing cases1 listed here
Other citing cases3 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY
v.
Sally JEWELL, Secretary of United States of Department of the Interior
No. 15-5177.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Sep 14, 2015.
Published opinion
803 F.3d 9
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17879
2015 WL 5927292
Paula N. Dinerstein, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Washington, DC, for Appellees., Vivian Huei-Wen Wang, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellants.
Published
3 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #33,221 of 633,719
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1) · N.D. Illinois (1) · W.D. Louisiana (1)

ORDER

Upon consideration of appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal, it is

ORDERED that the motion be granted, and this case is hereby dismissed.

The Clerk is directed to transmit forthwith to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia a certified copy of this order in lieu of formal mandate.