Michael Crooks v. Raymond Mabus, Jr.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23180
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Crooks retired as a Marine Corps Major in 1994; Navy certified him as a NJROTC instructor before retirement.
- From 1995 to 2008 Crooks served as SNSI at Pearl River High School’s NJROTC program.
- Nov. 16, 2007: Certification was revoked due to unsatisfactory evaluations.
- April 23, 2008: NJROTC Certification Board affirmed decertification; a second Board again denied reinstatement Sept. 14, 2008.
- Oct. 22, 2013: Crooks sued in district court challenging decertification; May 20, 2015: district court granted Navy summary judgment; Crooks appeals to the D.C. Circuit.
- Dec. 23, 2016: D.C. Circuit affirms district court’s judgment in favor of Navy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CNETINST 1533.9K, Art. 404(e)(5) is void-for-vagueness. | Crooks contends the standard is impermissibly vague. | Navy argues the standard provides context and is not vague in all applications. | Not void-for-vagueness; regulation not impermissibly vague. |
| Whether due process was violated by the decertification proceedings. | Crooks claims inadequate notice/interviews and potential liberty/property interests. | Navy provided multiple review steps and opportunities to submit evidence; no due process violation. | Procedural due process satisfied; no violation found. |
| Whether Crooks had a protected property interest in NJROTC certification. | Certification constitutes a protected entitlement. | Agency retains broad discretion to revoke certification; no entitlement. | No cognizable property interest in NJROTC certification. |
| Whether the Navy’s decertification was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence. | Navy allegedly ignored mitigating evidence and deference to Board findings. | Boards reasonably considered evidence; record supports decision. | Decision not arbitrary or unsupported; substantial evidence supports decertification. |
| Whether the Navy’s due process analysis should consider stigma to reputation as a liberty interest. | Court treats potential liberty interest with caution; assuming it, process still satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Decatur Liquors, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 360 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (facial vagueness challenge requires impermissible vagueness in all applications)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (Supreme Court 1982) (vagueness standard and notice considerations)
- Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (U.S. Supreme Court 1974) (contextual standard suffices when Congress framed a general standard)
- Fried v. Napolitano, 78 F.3d 692 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (non-renewal of designation not a property interest when agency retains discretion)