James Lane Buckley

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit circuit Retired 2023 · served 1985–2023 Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 26 signed orders read

Judge Buckley no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Buckley decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Buckley reasons from statutory text and structure, and he defers to a reasonable agency interpretation under Chevron where the statute is genuinely ambiguous; a challenger who cites no case and offers no evidence of industry practice loses.

“Because the Commission reasonably interpreted section 210 to allow such waivers and did not depart from any prior interpretation, we follow the rule of Chevron and affirm the Commission’s decisions.”

Procedural preferences

Buckley polices reasoned agency decisionmaking closely: he remands where an agency calls a contested factual conclusion 'indisputable' without engaging the record rebuttal, and he insists an agency may not 'cite another conclusion' in place of an explanation.

“Because the Commission failed adequately to address certain of Moraine’s arguments regarding its effective capacity, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.”

He enforces jurisdictional exhaustion strictly, treating a mandatory application-for-rehearing requirement as an express statutory limit on the court's own power to hear a new objection.

“Because we find that the Town failed to present its argument for such refunds in an application for rehearing before the Commission, we dismiss this petition for want of jurisdiction pursuant to section 313 of the Federal Power Act”

Cautions

An agency invoking an emergency shortcut around notice-and-comment rulemaking must supply a record basis when it acts; Buckley will not let counsel cure the omission with after-the-fact assurances at oral argument.

“Accordingly, the petition is granted and the interim rule vacated.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Sandstone Resources, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1992-09-08
Petition for review (Sandstone Resources, Inc.) Denied

“Accordingly, the petition for review is Denied.”

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1992-07-14
Petition for review (Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company) Granted

“Accordingly, the petition is granted and the interim rule vacated.”

Consolidated Hydro, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1992-07-07
Petition for review (Consolidated Hydro, Inc.) Denied

“Because FERC has established a sufficient basis for jurisdiction over the Damariscotta Mills hydropower project, the petition for review is Denied.”

Town of Norwood, Massachusetts v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1990-08-29
Petition for review (Town of Norwood, Massachusetts) Moot / procedural

“Because we find that the Town failed to present its argument for such refunds in an application for rehearing before the Commission, we dismiss this petition for want of jurisdiction pursuant to section 313 of the Federal Power Act”

The City of Seattle v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1989-09-01
Petition for review (City of Seattle) Granted in part

“Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and vacate the Commission’s orders holding Seattle liable for extra annual charges from 1977 through 1983.”

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1990-03-23
Petition for review (Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company) Denied

“As petitioners have failed to show they do not already have the authority required to provide the services applied for, their petitions for review are denied.”

Cities of Anaheim, Riverside, Banning, Colton, & Azusa, California v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1991-08-20
Petition for review (Southern California Edison Company) Granted in part

“We deny the Cities’ petitions for review in their entirety. We also deny Edison’s challenges to the price discrimination analyses and findings. But we grant Edison’s petitions for review on the critical issue of competitive harm.”

Greensboro Lumber Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1987-08-11
Petition for review (Greensboro Lumber Company) Denied

“Because the Commission reasonably interpreted section 210 to allow such waivers and did not depart from any prior interpretation, we follow the rule of Chevron and affirm the Commission’s decisions.”

Moraine Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1990-06-22
Petition for review (Moraine Pipeline Company) Granted

“Because the Commission failed adequately to address certain of Moraine’s arguments regarding its effective capacity, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.”

Gulf States Utilities Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1989-04-14
Petition for review (Gulf States Utilities Company) Granted

“Because the Commission has failed to explain the basis for its decision, we deny FERC’s motion for summary affirmance, grant Gulf States’ petition for review, and remand the case to the Commission for further consideration.”

ANR Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
· 1989-03-24
Petition for review (ANR Pipeline Company) Denied

“As ANR has not established that the material facts presented by Conoco in support of its applications for section 102(d) determinations were either untrue or misleading, and as section 503(d) does not require that such a determination be reopened on the basis of later-discovered evidence, ANR’s petition for review is Denied.”

United States v. Kevin Williams
· 1991-05-21
Appeal (Kevin Williams) Denied

“As the district court properly concluded that section 2J1.6 of the Sentencing Guidelines required that Williams’s sentence be enhanced on the basis of the crime for which he was indicted, the sentence is Affirmed.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Not applicable to this circuit-court record.

A historical record

Judge Buckley no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.