3F.2d 294, 297-98 (D.C. Cir. 1987). The Government’s Motion falls far short of meeting its heavy burden and should be denied.
I. Summary Disposition Is Inappropriate Because Appellants PresentIssues of First Impression for This Court.
This case does not qualify for summary disposition. Issues of firstimpression are “not appropriate for summary disposition.”
Am. Petroleum Inst. v.U.S. E.P.A.
, 72 F.3d 907, 914 (D.C. Cir. 1996);
D.C. Cir. Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 36 (2011) (“Parties should avoid requestingsummary disposition of issues of first impression for the Court.”). Even theDistrict Court recognized that Appellants’ claims present “truly novel, interestingand difficult questions.” Oral Arg. Tr. (Dec. 17, 2012) at 50:12,
Tuaua v. United States
, No. 12-CV-1143 (D.D.C.) (“Tr.”) (excerpts attached hereto as Exhibit A).In response to the Government’s argument that Appellants’ claims wereunprecedented, the District Court stated, “Well, we get a lot of cases of first impression around here.”
at 6:13-14.At each opportunity, the District Court invited additional briefing andconsideration, not less. Although the District Court does not “hear arguments onmuch more than 10 percent of the motions [it] get[s] in this court,” Tr. at 50:10-11,here it entertained 70 minutes of oral argument, including 30 minutes for each of the parties and 10 minutes for
. The District Court even took theunusual step of inviting
to file a reply brief. Far from supporting truncating
USCA Case #13-5272 Document #1467627 Filed: 11/22/2013 Page 3 of 19
(Page 3 of Total)