Kornitzky Group, LLC v. Daniel Elwell, No. 18-1160 (D.C. Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 12, 2019.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals )25 7+( ',675,&7 2) &2/80%,$ &,5&8,7 BBBBBBB ),/(' -DQXDU\ 1R .251,7=.< *5283 //& ' % $ $(52%($5,1*6 //& 3(7,7,21(5 Y '$1,(/ . (/:(// $&7,1* $'0,1,675$725 )('(5$/ $9,$7,21 $'0,1,675$7,21 $1' 1$7,21$/ 75$163257$7,21 6$)(7< %2$5' 5(6321'(176 BBBBBBB 2Q 0RWLRQ IRU 6WD\ RI 2UDO $UJXPHQW 'XH WR /DSVH LQ $SSURSULDWLRQV DQG 0RWLRQ IRU ([SHGLWHG &RQVLGHUDWLRQ BBBBBBB %HIRUH 65,1,9$6$1 Circuit Judge DQG (':$5'6 DQG 5$1'2/3+ Senior Circuit Judges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ircuit Judge DQG (':$5'6 Senior Circuit Judge FRQFXUULQJ LQ WKH GHQLDO RI WKH PRWLRQ 7KH $QWLGHILFLHQF\ $FW SURYLGHV WKDW ³>D@Q RIILFHU RU HPSOR\HH RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV *RYHUQPHQW RU RI WKH 'LVWULFW RI &ROXPELD JRYHUQPHQW PD\ QRW DFFHSW YROXQWDU\ VHUYLFHV IRU HLWKHU JRYHUQPHQW RU HPSOR\ SHUVRQDO VHUYLFHV H[FHHGLQJ WKDW DXWKRUL]HG E\ ODZ H[FHSW IRU HPHUJHQFLHV LQYROYLQJ WKH VDIHW\ RI KXPDQ OLIH RU WKH SURWHFWLRQ RI SURSHUW\ ´ 8 6 & 7KH 'HSDUWPHQW RI -XVWLFH KDV LVVXHG D FRQWLQJHQF\ SODQ VHWWLQJ IRUWK WKH 'HSDUWPHQW¶V SODQQHG RSHUDWLRQV GXULQJ D ODSVH LQ DSSURSULDWLRQV LQ )LVFDO <HDU 8 6 'HS¶W RI -XVWLFH )< &RQWLQJHQF\ 3ODQ 6HSW KWWSV ZZZ MXVWLFH JRY MPG SDJH ILOH GRZQORDG 7KH 'HSDUWPHQW¶V SODQ ³DVVXPHV WKDW WKH -XGLFLDO %UDQFK ZLOO FRQWLQXH WR RSHUDWH WKURXJK WKH IXUORXJK ´ Id. DW )RU FLYLO OLWLJDWLRQ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW LQVWUXFWV JRYHUQPHQW DWWRUQH\V WR UHTXHVW WKDW DFWLYH FDVHV EH SRVWSRQHG XQWLO IXQGLQJ LV DYDLODEOH Id. ,I D FRXUW GHQLHV WKH UHTXHVW DQG DGKHUHV WR LWV H[LVWLQJ VFKHGXOH ³WKH *RYHUQPHQW ZLOO FRPSO\ ZLWK WKH FRXUW¶V RUGHU ZKLFK ZRXOG FRQVWLWXWH H[SUHVV OHJDO DXWKRUL]DWLRQ IRU WKH DFWLYLW\ WR FRQWLQXH´ ZLWKLQ WKH PHDQLQJ RI Id. 7KDW XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH VWDWXWH SUHVXPDEO\ JRYHUQV WKH )HGHUDO $YLDWLRQ $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ¶V SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKLV FDVH 3HWLWLRQHU IRU LWV SDUW ZLVKHV WR FRQWLQXH ZLWK RUDO DUJXPHQW DV VFKHGXOHG 7KHUH LV WKXV QR GLVSXWH WKDW FRQGXFWLQJ DUJXPHQW DV VFKHGXOHG LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK 2XU GLVSRVLWLRQ RI WKLV PRWLRQ LV SHUIHFWO\ FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKLV FRXUW¶V DSSOLFDWLRQ RI LQ SULRU FDVHV )RU H[DPSOH ZKHQ IHGHUDO DSSURSULDWLRQV ODSVHG LQ UHVXOWLQJ LQ D ³VKXWGRZQ´ IURP 2FWREHU WR 2FWREHU WKH FRXUW UHFHLYHG *RYHUQPHQW PRWLRQV WR VWD\ RUDO DUJXPHQW LQ DW OHDVW VL[WHHQ FDVHV (YHU\ RQH RI WKHVH PRWLRQV ZDV GHQLHG DQG HYHU\ WLPH WKH *RYHUQPHQW WKHQ SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ RUDO DUJXPHQW See 2UGHU Wilson v. Cox 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Am. Tort Reform Ass’n v. OSHA 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Janko v. Gates 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Mittleman v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Roane v. Leonhart 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU United States v. Regenerative Sciences, LLC 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Aamer v. Obama 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Daimler Trucks N. Am. LLC v. EPA 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Howard R.L. Cook & Tommy Shaw Found. for Black Emps. of the Library of Cong. v. Billington 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Section, Int’l Boundary & Water Comm’n, U.S.-Mex. 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Sledge v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Town of Barnstable, Mass. v. FAA 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU Adirondack Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius 1R ' & &LU 2FW 2UGHU McKinley v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency 1R ' & &LU 2FW ,Q HYHU\ RQH RI WKHVH PRWLRQV *RYHUQPHQW FRXQVHO VSHFLILFDOO\ FLWHG WKH VWDWXWH DW LVVXH KHUH 8 6 & See, e.g. $SSHOOHHV¶ 8QRSSRVHG 0RWLRQ WR 3RVWSRQH 2UDO $UJXPHQW LQ /LJKW RI /DSVH RI $SSURSULDWLRQV DW Wilson v. Cox 1R ' & &LU 2FW 8QRSSRVHG 0RWLRQ IRU D 6WD\ RI 2UDO $UJXPHQW LQ /LJKW RI /DSVH RI $SSURSULDWLRQV DW ± Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA 1R ' & &LU 2FW )HGHUDO $SSHOOHH¶V 0RWLRQ WR 3RVWSRQH 2UDO $UJXPHQW LQ /LJKW RI /DSVH RI $SSURSULDWLRQV DW ± McKinley v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency 1R ' & &LU 2FW $SSHOOHH¶V 0RWLRQ WR 3RVWSRQH 2UDO $UJXPHQW LQ /LJKW RI /DSVH RI $SSURSULDWLRQV DW ± Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. U.S. Section, Int’l Boundary & Water Comm’n, U.S.-Mex. 1R ' & &LU 2FW 6R IDU DV ZH KDYH EHHQ DEOH WR GHWHUPLQH QRW D VLQJOH PRWLRQ VHHNLQJ D VWD\ ZDV JUDQWHG GXULQJ WKH VKXWGRZQ )LQDOO\ GXULQJ WKH FXUUHQW *RYHUQPHQW VKXWGRZQ RXU SUDFWLFH KDV EHHQ WKH VDPH See, e.g. 2UGHU Leader Commc’ns, Inc. v. FAA 1R ' & &LU -DQ GHQ\LQJ PRWLRQ WR VWD\ EULHILQJ 2UGHU Figueroa v. Pompeo 1R ' & &LU -DQ GHQ\LQJ PRWLRQ WR VWD\ RUDO DUJXPHQW 7KH GLVVHQW FLWHV DQ RUGHU LVVXHG LQ Estate of Klieman v. Palestinian Authority LQ VXSSRUW RI LWV SRVLWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH PHDQLQJ RI 8 6 & See 2UGHU Estate of Klieman v. Palestinian Auth. 1R ' & &LU -DQ 7KH RUGHU LQ WKDW FDVH LV LQDSSRVLWH Klieman LV D FDVH LQ ZKLFK WKH *RYHUQPHQW LV QRW D SDUW\ 7KH *RYHUQPHQW¶V PRWLRQ LQ Klieman ZDV WR H[WHQG WKH WLPH WR ILOH DQ DPLFXV EULHI WKDW WKH FRXUW KDG LQYLWHG sua sponte 7KH *RYHUQPHQW ZDV QRW HYHQ UHTXLUHG WR UHVSRQG WR WKH LQYLWDWLRQ DQG XQOLNH LQ WKLV FDVH QHLWKHU RI WKH OLWLJDQWV RSSRVHG WKH *RYHUQPHQW¶V PRWLRQ +HQFH WKH Klieman RUGHU LV QRW D SUHFHGHQW IRU KRZ SDQHOV VKRXOG UHVSRQG WR PRWLRQV LQ FDVHV LQ ZKLFK WKH *RYHUQPHQW LV D SDUW\ DQG LV FRPSHOOHG E\ WKH FRXUW WR DGKHUH WR ILOLQJ UHTXLUHPHQWV 7KH UHTXHVW IRU DQ H[WHQVLRQ LQ D FDVH LQ ZKLFK WKH *RYHUQPHQW KDV EHHQ LQYLWHG WR ILOH DQ DPLFXV EULHI LV TXLWH GLIIHUHQW IURP D UHTXHVW LQ D FDVH LQ ZKLFK WKH *RYHUQPHQW LV D SDUW\ Randolph, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting: The Constitution states that “no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7. The treasury is also protected by the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits employing federal personnel in advance of appropriations except in emergencies, unless otherwise authorized by law. In light of the current government “shutdown,” the Federal Aviation Administration moved for a stay of the oral argument scheduled for January 11, 2019. The FAA explained that under 31 U.S.C. § 1342,1 its attorneys “are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.’” Mot. Stay Oral Arg. 2 (quoting id.). What then is the rationale for denying the FAA’s motion? It cannot be that having oral argument in this case on January 11, 2019, will avert some emergency within the meaning of § 1342. An opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel concludes, correctly I believe, that “the emergencies exception applies only to cases of threat to human life or property where the threat can be reasonably said to be near at hand and demanding of immediate response.” Government Operations in the Event of a Lapse in Appropriations, 1995 WL 17216091, at *7 (O.L.C. Aug. 16, 1995). Holding oral argument January 11 is not a necessary response to some imminent threat to human life or property. (There may have been an emergency at the 1 Section 1342 states, in relevant part: “An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.” 2 administrative stage of this case regarding the safety of equipment petitioner repaired, but that emergency passed when the FAA revoked petitioner’s certificate.) Perhaps the idea is that the Judiciary is free to disregard the restrictions of § 1342. But it seems to me that a federal court may refuse to comply with this statute only if it is unconstitutional. Given the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, the constitutionality of § 1342 is beyond doubt. Or perhaps the idea is that because § 1342 contains the clause “exceeding that authorized by law,” judges may circumvent the statutory restriction by authorizing federal officers and employees to show up in court. This, of course, is blatant bootstrapping. A court order requiring or authorizing a government attorney’s presence may immunize the attorney from the sanctions for violating § 1342. See 31 U.S.C. § 1349. But it does not relieve the court from its responsibility to comply with the law. The “authorized-by-law” clause has been on the statute books for nearly 200 years, and it has a settled meaning. Authority for the Continuance of Government Functions During a Temporary Lapse in Appropriations, 43 U.S. Op. Att’y Gen. 293, 296 & n.5 (1981). It does not confer a license on the Judiciary. Instead, the clause requires legal authority for the obligation of public funds, either from appropriations or other relevant statutes, or – in the case of Executive authority – from the Constitution itself. Id. at 295–301.2 2 The Department of Justice “construe[d] the ‘authorized by law’ exception contained within 31 U.S.C. § [1342] as exempting from the prohibition enacted by the second clause of that section not only those obligations in advance of appropriations for which express or implied authority may be found in the enactments of Congress, but also those obligations necessarily incident to presidential intiatives [sic] undertaken within his constitutional powers.” Id. at 301. 3 The majority opinion, which itself contains no legal analysis, relies on orders denying stays during shutdowns.3 But those orders also contain no legal analysis. The majority’s argument must be that because we have denied these stay motions in the past we should do so again. Charles Dickens had a few words about this form of argumentation: “‘Whatever is is right’; an aphorism that would be as final as it is lazy, did it not include the troublesome consequence, that nothing that ever was, was wrong.” Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities 65 (Signet Classics) (1859). 3 On the other hand, the Administrative Office of United States Courts, in a press release on January 7, 2019, reported that federal courts, in response to motions of the Department of Justice, “have issued orders suspending, postponing, or holding in abeyance civil cases in which the government is a party for a limited period, subject to further consideration, or until appropriated funds become available.” Press Release, United States Courts, Judiciary Operating on Limited Funds During Shutdown (Jan. 7, 2019). See also Estate of Klieman v. Palestinian Authority, No. 15-7034 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 3, 2019) (per curiam order), granting the Justice Department’s § 1342 motion for a stay of a briefing deadline in light of the government shutdown.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.