Freedom Watch, Inc. v. OPEC: Freedom Watch brought suit against OPEC, claiming the organization coordinates price fixing efforts in the United States, thus violating the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. OPEC appealed, and district court affirmed appeal, on grounds that Freedom Watch did not validly serve process on OPEC under Rule 4, and declined to authorize alternative serving methods under 4(f)(3). Freedom Watch appealed this ruling to the circuit court, claiming that the service could be properly effectuated on OPEC through OPEC’s United States council.

Daniel, et al. v. Fulwood Jr., et al.: Plaintiffs are prisoners who violated D.C. criminal laws before March 1985. Plaintiffs file this suit contending that the Parole Commission infringed the ex post facto laws in the Constitution by applying parole guidelines it issued in 2000. The district court dismissed the suit, saying plaintiffs failed to state a claim. Plaintiff’s appeal this ruling.

Minisink Residents v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Minisink residents petitioned FERC over the approved construction of a natural gas compressor in the town of Minisink, NY. Petitioners argued that the site selection was arbitrary and capricious, especially because there was an adequate alternative location nearby with less population density. The court ruled that there was no basis to overturn the FERC decision, and the FERC acted within its authority under the Natural Gas Act of 1938, which gives FERC oversight on interstate natural gas facilities and regulates the transport and sale of natural gas in interstate commerce.

Aaron Schnitzler v. United States of America: Schnitzler, a South Dakota state prisoner, has requested multiple times that his US citizenship be renounced. The government has both avoided and given multiple reasons as to why this request cannot be fulfilled, denying the renouncement. Schnitzler filed suit against the government, claiming that his constitutional rights have been violated. The district court dismissed the suit, stating that Schnitzler’s complaint is moot and that he doesn’t have standing to sue because he has not come under any harm.

Stop This Insanity, et al. v. Federal Election Commission: Stop This Insanity and others filed suit against the FEC stating that its rules concerning corporations being involved in election financing are unconstitutional. According to the rules, a company has to establish a political action committee (PAC) and also make publicly accessible the amount of funds they use toward spreading their political messages to the general public. Stop This Insanity argues that they should not have to share expenses and that there should not be the requirement to set up a PAC. The district court dismissed the claims on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to establish a claim or argue adequate merits.

Sissel v. HHS, et al.: Sissel filed suit against the HHS on the basis that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s mandate that requires individuals to have health coverage, violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. The lower courts ruled that based on the precedents set by the Supreme Court in its previous rulings, the suit does not have adequate grounds and is thus dismissed.

Halbig v. Burwell: A group of individuals and employers residing in states that did not establish their own health insurance exchanges challenged the IRS’ interpretation of a section of the Affordable Care Act that makes them subject to certain penalties. The District Court ruled in favor of the government.

Klay, et al. v. Panetta, et al.: A number of current and former members of the armed services filed suit looking for monetary rewards against their supervisors in the Navy and Marines. They claim that their supervisors’ poor administrative skills, supervision, and management skills led to the plaintiffs’ rapes, sexual assaults, and sexual harassments.

Ralls Corp. v. Committee on Foreign Investments, et al.: Ralls is an American founded company, owned by Chinese nationals, that expanded by purchasing 4 wind-farm companies. The Committee restricted Ralls’ access to and prohibited construction on their new lands under the excuse of a potential national security threat. Ralls filed suit against the Committee on the grounds that the restrictions are unconstitutional and that Ralls did not receive adequate due process.

Mpoy v. Rhee, et al. Mpoy is a special education teacher who began filing complaints with the principal of his school concerning the actions of his teaching assistants. The complaints were ignored and Mpoy was told to falsify test results which showed that his students were not progressing. Upon these and many more issues, Mpoy filed a complaint with Chancellor Rhee concerning the principal’s conduct. Mpoy was then fired. Mpoy filed suit against Rhee and the principal on the grounds that his complaints were protected by the 1st Amendment.