Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Basin Electric Power Cooperative is a not-for-profit, member-owned electric cooperative that sells wholesale electricity to its member systems, including Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association. Tri-State, in turn, provides power to its own members such as Northwest Rural Public Power District, which distributes electricity in Nebraska and accounts for a notable share of Tri-State’s Eastern Interconnection energy demands. Two contracts govern the parties’ relationships: one between Basin and Tri-State (the Basin/Tri-State Agreement) and another between Tri-State and Northwest Rural. In 2022, Northwest Rural notified Tri-State of its intent to withdraw from membership and terminate its agreement, prompting Basin to argue that such a withdrawal would breach its contract with Tri-State.Initially, Basin sought relief in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, but the court dismissed the case, deferring to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for primary jurisdiction. After further proceedings, FERC considered a complaint by Northwest Rural seeking confirmation that its withdrawal was permissible under the Basin/Tri-State Agreement. FERC found that the contract expressly contemplated such member withdrawals and provided a mechanism for Tri-State and Basin to address the implications, holding that Northwest Rural’s withdrawal would not constitute a breach by Tri-State. Basin’s subsequent motions for rehearing were denied, and it filed petitions for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the FERC orders. The court held that Section 9 of the Basin/Tri-State Agreement unambiguously permits Tri-State to transfer assets—such as allowing a member to withdraw—without Basin’s approval, provided certain conditions are met. The court found FERC’s interpretation neither arbitrary nor capricious and denied Basin’s petitions for review, affirming that Northwest Rural’s withdrawal does not breach the Basin/Tri-State Agreement. View "Basin Electric Power Cooperative v. FERC" on Justia Law

A technology company developed an artificial intelligence system and imposed contractual and technical restrictions to prevent its use for fully autonomous lethal military operations and mass domestic surveillance. The company had previously adapted its product to meet some government needs but refused to remove these two key restrictions when the Department of War (formerly the Department of Defense) sought contractual terms allowing all lawful uses of the AI system. This disagreement coincided with a dispute over the product’s use in a sensitive military operation and previous incidents where the AI’s restrictions prevented it from fulfilling government requests. As a result, the Secretary of War determined that continued use of the AI posed a national security risk and ordered its removal from the Department’s supply chain under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018.The Department promptly notified the company, offered an opportunity for reconsideration, and began implementing the exclusion. The company petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review and raised statutory and constitutional challenges, arguing that the exclusion was arbitrary, beyond statutory authority, and violated due process and First Amendment rights. The company also sought a stay, which was denied, and later requested rescission, which was also denied by the Secretary.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that it had jurisdiction under the statute to review the procurement action. The court found the Department’s determination reasonable, concluding that the company’s ability and willingness to restrict the AI’s use posed a covered “supply chain risk” under the statute, even without evidence of malicious intent. The court also held that less intrusive measures were not reasonably available, and that any procedural deficiencies in notice did not prejudice the company. The court further held that the exclusion did not violate the Fifth or First Amendments. The petitions for review were denied. View "Anthropic PBC v. United States Department of War" on Justia Law

A privately owned railroad company was engaged by the Nevada Department of Transportation to build a high-speed passenger rail line between Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada. To fund this $12 billion project, the company sought and received a $3 billion federal grant from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The Act contains a “Buy America” requirement, generally mandating that federally funded projects use goods produced in the United States, but it allows waivers if domestic goods are unavailable or unsatisfactory. The railroad company solicited bids for high-speed trains, and only two manufacturers responded: one offering to build most trains domestically but at a lower maximum speed, and another proposing to build the first two trains abroad to meet the project’s higher speed requirement, before shifting production to the U.S.After reviewing the bids, the FRA proposed to waive the Buy America requirement for either bid, but ultimately finalized a waiver only for the foreign-manufactured trains, based on its finding that no domestic manufacturer could produce trains at the required speed. The railroad company then contracted with the foreign manufacturer. The domestic manufacturer, having lost the contract, challenged the waiver in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing it was unlawful and arbitrary. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding the domestic manufacturer lacked standing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the domestic manufacturer had standing, as it suffered a concrete economic injury traceable to the waiver and redressable by court action. However, the court determined that the waiver was both lawful and reasonable under the statute, as the FRA correctly found no domestic producer could supply the required high-speed trains. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, converting it from a jurisdictional dismissal to a decision on the merits. View "Alstom Transportation, Inc. v. Federal Railroad Administration" on Justia Law

Cheryl Walker used her Uber account to order a guest ride for her husband, Carroll Walker. Carroll had never downloaded the Uber app or created an account, and he consistently stated that he does not read or reply to text messages. On the relevant occasion, Cheryl ordered a ride for Carroll, and Uber sent Carroll a text message with ride details and a hyperlink to its Terms of Use, which included an arbitration provision. Carroll did not see the message. During the ride, an accident occurred, allegedly due to the driver’s distraction by Uber’s app, resulting in severe injuries to Carroll.In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Cheryl Walker sued Uber on Carroll’s behalf, asserting negligence and products liability claims. Uber moved to compel arbitration, arguing Carroll was bound to arbitrate either because he had notice of the Terms via Uber’s text message or as a third-party beneficiary of Cheryl’s contract with Uber. The district court denied Uber’s motion, finding Uber failed to establish that Carroll was on inquiry notice of the Terms and concluding that Carroll was not bound as a third-party beneficiary or estopped from refusing arbitration.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of Uber’s motion to compel arbitration de novo, applying D.C. contract law. The Court held that Uber had not shown Carroll agreed to be bound by its Terms of Use, as Carroll lacked actual or inquiry notice of the Terms. The Court further determined that Carroll was not bound by Cheryl’s contract as a third-party beneficiary or by equitable estoppel, since Carroll was not seeking to enforce Cheryl’s contract and his claims were independent of it. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Walker v. Uber Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

Two investigative journalists, on assignment for a nonprofit media organization known for undercover reporting, infiltrated Democratic political consulting operations in 2016 using false identities. One reporter, posing as a philanthropist, met with a political consultant who then arranged for his colleague to hire the second reporter, also undercover, as an unpaid intern at the consultant's firm. The intern secretly recorded conversations and internal meetings over eight days, gaining access to nonpublic information. The media organization later published a video series alleging a conspiracy to incite violence at political events, using footage from both public interactions and the intern’s covert recordings.After the video’s release, major clients of the consulting firm terminated their contracts, citing concerns about scandal and the security breach. The consulting firm and its principals sued the journalists and their organizations in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and violations of federal and D.C. wiretapping laws. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on some claims but allowed others to proceed to trial. A jury found for the plaintiffs on the remaining claims and awarded damages for lost contracts and statutory damages for wiretapping.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the verdict. It held that the First Amendment barred damages based on losses caused by the publication’s protected speech, as the plaintiffs failed to prove that the unprotected conduct (the infiltration and covert recording) was the predominant cause of their damages. The court also held that the intern did not owe a fiduciary duty to the consulting firm under D.C. law, and therefore the wiretapping claims could not stand. The court reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and vacated the damages awards. View "Democracy Partners, LLC v. O'Keefe" on Justia Law

Two companies competed for a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) hardware contract related to air traffic control tower simulators. Adacel, having already secured a related software contract, knew that its own software would be used, giving it an informational advantage over Adsync, which was unaware of the software selection. Adacel’s bid was lower, and it initially won the hardware contract. Adsync protested, and the FAA’s Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition (ODRA) found Adacel’s advantage unfair. The FAA allowed Adsync to revise its bid with knowledge of the software, but restricted changes to those attributable to the new information and barred Adacel from revising its bid.After Adsync revised its proposal with significant price reductions, the FAA’s contracting team accepted most, but rejected about $734,000 in reductions pertaining to basic hardware, finding Adsync had failed to justify their connection to the software selection. As a result, Adacel’s bid remained lower, and it again won the contract. Adsync filed a second protest with ODRA, challenging the FAA’s rejection of some price reductions, the technical evaluation, and the best value determination. ODRA concluded that the FAA had a rational basis for its decisions and recommended denial of the protest. The FAA adopted ODRA’s recommendations.Adsync sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court held that the FAA did not violate its Acquisition Management System Guidance’s “price realism” provision, as it was not applicable to the remedial rebid context. The court further found substantial evidence supported the FAA’s rejection of certain price reductions and concluded that ODRA did not abuse its discretion in denying bid and proposal costs. Accordingly, the petition was denied. View "Adsync Technologies, Inc. v. FAA" on Justia Law

A Chinese drone manufacturer and its subsidiary challenged their designation by the U.S. Secretary of Defense as a “Chinese military company” under Section 1260H of the National Defense Authorization Act. The designation, which is published annually, restricts the company from contracting with certain government agencies and can damage its business reputation. DJI was added to the list in 2022 and again in 2024 and 2025 without prior notice. DJI petitioned for removal, which was denied, and subsequently received a report explaining the designation, though portions of the rationale were redacted.DJI filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. The company argued that it was denied due process, that there was insufficient evidence for the designation, that the agency failed to explain disparate treatment compared to other companies, and that the Secretary’s finding that DJI “contributes” to the Chinese defense industrial base was unsupported. The district court granted summary judgment against DJI, relying solely on the unclassified administrative record and declining to review the classified materials.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s rejection of DJI’s due process, evidentiary, and disparate treatment claims, holding that DJI failed to show deprivation of a protected liberty or property interest, and that sufficient evidence supported the finding that DJI received government assistance. However, the appellate court reversed the district court’s conclusion regarding DJI’s “contribution” to the Chinese defense industrial base, finding that the lower court improperly relied on post hoc agency arguments and failed to review the classified record. The case was remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. v. DOD" on Justia Law

A Slovenian businessman, who had served as a consultant to the government of Brunei, entered into an agreement to investigate corruption within the Bruneian government. He alleges that after delivering his findings—which implicated high-level officials in theft, money laundering, and terrorism financing—his contractual partners refused to pay him and conspired, along with three corporate entities, to ruin his reputation and business. The suit claims violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various common law contract and tort theories. The corporate defendants are Audley Property Management Company Limited, Seven Properties AG, and The Dorchester Group, LLC.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the claims against the corporate defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding neither general nor specific jurisdiction was established. It also denied the plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery, concluding that his allegations were speculative and that the proposed discovery would not show purposeful direction of activities toward the United States. Partial final judgment was entered in favor of the corporate defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and the denial of jurisdictional discovery for abuse of discretion. The appellate court assumed, based on the parties’ agreement and post-Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, that personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment required reasonableness and a meaningful nexus to the United States. The court found the plaintiff had not established any concrete interest in litigating in the U.S., nor had he identified any meaningful U.S. interest in the dispute. The burden on the foreign corporate defendants would be unjustified. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal and denial of jurisdictional discovery. View "Gligorov v. Nation of Brunei" on Justia Law

In the aftermath of the 2008 housing crisis, Congress created the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and authorized it to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. The FHFA and the U.S. Treasury entered into agreements whereby the Treasury would provide capital to these companies, initially in exchange for fixed-rate dividends. In 2012, these agreements were amended so that Fannie and Freddie were required to pay the Treasury dividends equal to their net worth above a specified reserve, a change known as the “Net Worth Sweep.” The announcement of this amendment caused the value of Fannie and Freddie shares to drop significantly, and shareholders, including those holding both common and junior preferred shares, filed suit alleging various statutory and contract violations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially dismissed most claims, but after appellate review and remand, permitted the shareholders’ implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim to proceed to trial. The jury found the FHFA had violated this implied covenant by adopting the Net Worth Sweep, awarding over $612 million in damages, which the district court increased to $812 million with prejudgment interest. The district court denied the FHFA’s post-trial motions and rejected shareholders’ attempts to seek restitution or reliance damages beyond expectation damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the implied covenant claim was not foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent or by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, that the claim was available against the FHFA as conservator, and that the Net Worth Sweep violated the reasonable expectations of shareholders. The court also determined that post-Net Worth Sweep purchasers of shares could pursue the claim, and that the denial of restitution and reliance damages was proper. Accordingly, the award of expectation damages was affirmed. View "Fairholme Funds, Inc v. FHFA" on Justia Law

Zia Chishti, formerly CEO of a technology company, and his wife brought claims against Tatiana Spottiswoode, her attorneys, and related parties. Chishti and Spottiswoode had a prior romantic relationship, and Spottiswoode was later employed by Chishti’s company under an arbitration agreement. In 2017, Spottiswoode accused Chishti of harassment and assault, leading to confidential arbitration, which resulted in an arbitral award in her favor. Years later, Spottiswoode was subpoenaed to testify before Congress about forced arbitration in sexual assault cases, where she recounted her experiences involving Chishti. After her testimony, Spottiswoode and her attorney made public statements to the media and on social media regarding the matter. Chishti alleged these statements were defamatory and part of a campaign to damage his reputation, causing him to resign from his executive roles. His wife also claimed loss of consortium.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court found that Spottiswoode’s statements before Congress were protected by legislative privilege under District of Columbia law, and that the post-hearing public statements were protected opinions or shielded by the fair reporting privilege and the First Amendment. The court also concluded that the other tort claims were duplicative of defamation, that the conspiracy and loss of consortium claims failed without a viable underlying tort, and that the breach of contract claims were barred by privilege or insufficiently pleaded.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. The appellate court held that witness statements to Congress and related communications were absolutely privileged under District of Columbia law. It further held that post-hearing statements were protected as opinion or by fair reporting, and that related tort and contract claims failed for lack of an actionable underlying claim. The dismissal with prejudice was affirmed. View "Chishti v. Spottiswoode" on Justia Law