Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note, (Oct 10, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

A roundup of recent federal appeals court decisions of interest to the labor and employment law community.

D.C. Cir.: Injuries alleged in FOIA enforcement suit for DOJ employee emails were insufficient to confer standing. A legal advocacy organization sought emails from the Department of Justice (DOJ) related to judicial recusals. The DOJ denied the request on the grounds that “it does not search employee emails for responsive records without the employee’s consent.” The organization subsequently sued the DOJ under FOIA, and separately petitioned the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to investigate the DOJ’s alleged policy. When OSC declined to investigate, the organization filed suit to compel OSC to act under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 1216(a)(3), which mandates investigations into “arbitrary FOIA withholdings.” The district court found OSC’s refusal legally erroneous but ultimately dismissed the case, holding that OSC retained discretion under Section 1216(c). On appeal, the D.C. Circuit held that the organization lacked Article III standing. The court found that neither of the organization’s asserted injuries—its inability to obtain FOIA records from DOJ due to OSC’s failure to investigate, and the lack of investigative disclosures from OSC—were sufficient to confer standing, and that they were not redressable. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded “with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction” (America First Legal Foundation v. Greer, No. 24-5168 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025)).

6th Cir.: Court’s sua sponte transfer of case challenging sorority’s admission of transgender individuals was ‘clear case of judicial overstep.’ Alumnae and former members of a national sorority headquartered in Ohio filed suit against the sorority in the Southern District of Ohio over the sorority’s membership policies, specifically the admission of “individuals who identify as transgender.” The court, sua sponte, transferred it to the District of Wyoming—“on its own motion and without briefing from the parties”—citing its “inherent power” under the “first-to-file rule,” due to a similar case having been filed earlier in Wyoming. The alumnae moved for reconsideration, arguing that the transfer was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) since Wyoming was not a district “where [the case] might have been brought.” However, as the case had already been transferred, the court denied the motion due to lack of jurisdiction. The alumnae filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Sixth Circuit “directing the district court to vacate its order transferring their diversity suit to the District of Wyoming.” The Sixth Circuit determined that the district court’s view that it had the “inherent authority to transfer under the first-to-file rule. qualified as legal error,” and that the district court had “elevated its inherent authority above Congress’s limits in § 1404(a).” Adding that the district court’s “sua sponte actions” showed that it “committed a ‘clear case of judicial overstep,’” the writ of mandamus was granted (In re Levang, No. 25-3045 (6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2025)).

7th Cir.: Visa revocation findings were not final agency actions. Five Indian nationals, each holding F-1 student visas—and who subsequently enrolled in Optional Practical Training (OPT) programs after their studies were completed—returned to India. They then sought reentry into the United States. U.S. immigration officials revoked their visas and ordered expedited removal at various airports. The individuals allege they were defrauded by OPT providers who failed to deliver promised training or employment, and claim they were unaware of any impropriety. They filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asserting that the visa revocations stemmed from flawed administrative findings regarding their OPT participation, and that they were denied notice and opportunity to respond. After the district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the individuals appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(i) bars judicial review of claims arising from or relating to the implementation of expedited removal orders under Section 1225(b)(1), including challenges to the underlying administrative findings. The court emphasized that allowing review of the antecedent visa revocation findings would effectively nullify the jurisdictional bar, as “[e]very order of removal under §1225(b)(1) has a justification.” Additionally, the court found that the administrative determinations regarding the individuals’ OPT programs were not “final agency actions” under the APA, as they did not themselves revoke the visas but were intermediate steps leading to removal (Dubey v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 25-1207 (7th Cir. Sept. 26, 2025)).

9th Cir.: En banc court holds that orders denying anti-SLAPP motions under California’s statute are not immediately appealable. In a case in which a media business owner sued a purveyor of uncooked pizzas for harassment and unfair competition, among other claims—and the pizza purveyor counter-sued alleging the media owner paid his employees to leave over 100 negative reviews of the pizza company on websites such as Yelp.com and Google.com—an en banc Ninth Circuit overruled Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003), and held that a district court’s denial of a motion to strike under the California anti-SLAPP statute does not satisfy the requirements for an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine. Orders denying these motions are not immediately appealable because such orders do not resolve issues “completely separate from the merits of the action” and do not render the decision “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment,” the federal appeals court found. Judge Bennett, joined by Judge Callahan, concurred, and Judge Bress, joined by Judges Collins, Lee, and Bumatay, concurred in the judgment (Gopher Media LLC v. Melone, No. 24-2626 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2025)).

Cases: Procedure EvidenceDiscovery Immigration TortClaims SexDiscrimination Discrimination IndividualRights CaliforniaNews