Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A mining company sought to secure water rights in the Dixie Creek-Tenmile Creek basin to support a mining operation. The Nevada State Engineer issued a decision concerning the relinquishment of groundwater rights by the Nevada Division of State Lands (NDSL), which effectively reduced the amount of water available for future appropriation in the basin. The mining company did not hold any established water rights in the basin but had filed several applications for future rights and had objected to NDSL’s filings. The State Engineer did not notify the company of his decision, and the company only learned of it months later through a third party.After learning of the decision, the company petitioned the Fourth Judicial District Court for judicial review, claiming the relinquishment adversely affected its interests and the prospects of its water rights applications. The State Engineer moved to dismiss, arguing that the company lacked standing and that the petition was untimely. The district court agreed, finding that the company was not an aggrieved party under NRS 533.450(1) and had no standing, and also found the petition was untimely.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court determined that under NRS 533.450(1), unless a decision is made pursuant to certain enumerated statutes, the party seeking review must have a personal or property right affected by the challenged decision. The mining company had no such existing right; its interest was speculative and based only on pending applications. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the petition for lack of standing and did not reach the issues of timeliness or equitable relief. The holding clarifies that only parties with a personal or property right affected by a State Engineer’s decision may seek judicial review under the relevant statutory provision. View "Gold Standard Ventures (US) Inc. v. Thorson" on Justia Law

A candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives, District 92, was certified to appear on the Republican primary ballot. Another Arkansas citizen, who did not reside in District 92, sued to have the candidate declared ineligible based on a past guilty plea to a felony public trust crime. The plaintiff sought to prevent election officials from counting or certifying any votes cast for the candidate.The Pulaski County Circuit Court considered the statutory framework that allows any Arkansas citizen to bring an action to enforce eligibility requirements for public office if the responsible prosecuting attorney fails to act. The court found that the prosecuting attorney knew of the candidate’s prior conviction and failed to act, and that the plaintiff, as a citizen, had standing. The court ruled the candidate ineligible to run or hold office and ordered that votes for the candidate not be counted. The court denied the plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and expenses.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case. It affirmed the circuit court’s findings that the plaintiff had standing, that the prosecuting attorney’s failure to act was sufficient, and that the candidate was ineligible under the plain language of Arkansas’s statutory disqualification provisions for those pleading guilty to public trust crimes, even if records were sealed. The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s evidentiary rulings. On cross-appeal, the Supreme Court held that the statute mandates an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses to a prevailing citizen plaintiff. Thus, it reversed the denial of fees and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. The Supreme Court’s disposition was to affirm on the direct appeal and reverse and remand on the cross-appeal. View "Reed v. Yang" on Justia Law

A field consultant for a public teachers’ union brought a lawsuit after a school board held a closed executive session during a grievance hearing involving a teacher’s transfer and removal of extracurricular duties. The board’s attorney presented the school district’s legal position and rationale in an open meeting before the board entered executive session to receive additional legal advice. The board later voted in public to deny the grievance, and the plaintiff, who was not the aggrieved teacher, claimed the executive session violated North Dakota’s open meetings laws. She sought disclosure of the executive session recording as a remedy. The District Court of Grand Forks County granted summary judgment to the school district, finding no waiver of the right to enter executive session, that the requirements for the attorney consultation exemption were met, and that the plaintiff’s due process rights were not violated by her lack of access to the executive session transcript. The court declined to review the executive session recording, relying instead on declarations from board representatives and the parties’ stipulation that no material facts were in dispute. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the school board did not waive its right to an executive session by publicly stating its legal position and that the statutory requirements for entering executive session were satisfied. The court also found no due process violation from not providing the plaintiff access to the transcript. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by not conducting an in camera review of the executive session recording before granting summary judgment. The judgment of dismissal and the award of costs to the school district were reversed, and the case was remanded for the district court to review the recording and proceed accordingly. View "Haskell v. Grand Forks Public Schools" on Justia Law

An officer employed by the Chesapeake Sheriff’s Office was demoted following an internal-affairs investigation into a jailhouse incident involving deputies under his supervision. After his demotion, the officer requested access to certain internal-affairs records, including documentary and video materials, under both the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA) and the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act (Government Data Act). While his personnel file was provided, his requests for internal-affairs records were denied on grounds that they were exempt from disclosure under the VFOIA and that he lacked standing under the Government Data Act. The officer filed suit in the General District Court against the sheriff in his official capacity, seeking the records. After an adverse decision, he appealed to the Circuit Court, which also denied his claims. The Circuit Court concluded that the internal-affairs records were exempt from disclosure under the VFOIA and that, under the Government Data Act, the officer was not a “data subject” because the records were not indexed or searchable by his name or other identifying particulars. The court also found that these records were not part of his personnel file. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s rulings, agreeing that the officer was not a “data subject” under the Government Data Act and was not entitled to the records under either statute. The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed only the claims under the Government Data Act. The Court held that the sheriff’s office violated the Act by refusing to provide the officer access to internal-affairs records related to his actions or inactions as a supervising deputy, because the statutory definition of “data subject” is not limited to records formally indexed by name but also includes records that may be located using an individual’s name or identifying particulars. The Court affirmed the denial of relief under the VFOIA but reversed as to the Government Data Act and remanded for in camera review and redaction of non-personal information. View "Keil v. O'Sullivan" on Justia Law

A group of residents and an association challenged actions taken by the Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1 (CID) in Boise, Idaho. The dispute arose after the CID’s board adopted resolutions in 2021 authorizing payments to a developer for infrastructure projects—such as roadways, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities—and issued a general obligation bond to finance those payments. The residents objected to the projects, arguing they primarily benefited the developer, imposed higher property taxes on homeowners, and allegedly violated the Idaho Community Infrastructure District Act (CID Act) as well as state and federal constitutional provisions. Previously, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District reviewed the matter after the residents filed a petition challenging the board’s decisions. The district court ruled in favor of the CID and the developer, concluding most of the residents’ claims were either time-barred under the CID Act’s statute of limitations or had been waived because they were not preserved before the CID board. The court also found that the remaining claims failed on their merits, holding that the challenged projects qualified as “community infrastructure,” the stormwater facilities satisfied ownership requirements, and the CID was not the alter ego of the City of Boise. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court clarified that, given the lack of formal administrative proceedings under the CID Act, the preservation doctrine did not apply to bar the residents’ arguments. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court held that any challenge to the CID’s original formation and the 2010 bond election was time-barred. The court further held that the roadways and stormwater facilities qualified as community infrastructure, the CID’s actions did not violate constitutional requirements regarding taxation or lending of credit, and the CID was not the alter ego of the city. The Supreme Court awarded costs on appeal to the CID and the developer but denied attorney fees to all parties. View "Doyle v. The Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1" on Justia Law

Christopher and Jennifer Atkinson purchased a lot in the Ridgeview Trails Major Subdivision in Livingston, Montana, in 2012. The City of Livingston had approved the subdivision in 2005 and 2006, and a geotechnical report identifying problematic soils was created for the subdivision developers but was not provided to the Atkinsons when they purchased the lot. The Atkinsons received a building permit from the City to construct a residence, which was substantially completed in June 2013. In 2021, the Atkinsons began to observe cracking and structural problems in their home. After later discovering the existence of the geotechnical report, they sued the City in April 2024, alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation for the City’s failure to disclose known soil issues during the permitting process.The case was heard in the Montana Sixth Judicial District Court, Park County. By agreement, the parties proceeded directly to cross-motions for summary judgment to address threshold legal issues before discovery. The District Court granted summary judgment for the City, holding that the claims were barred by Montana’s statute of repose for construction-related claims, found in § 27-2-208, MCA. The District Court also found that the City owed no duty to the Atkinsons, that the public duty doctrine barred the claims, that the Atkinsons had disclaimed claims relating to permits and inspections, and that the geotechnical report was for the developer’s exclusive use.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Atkinsons’ claims were barred by the ten-year statute of repose in § 27-2-208, MCA, because their claims arose from the City’s planning and inspection activities and were filed more than ten years after substantial completion of the home. The Court also held that the statute applies to municipalities and that no statutory exception applied. View "Atkinson v. Livingston" on Justia Law

Eight residents of Boothbay and Boothbay Harbor challenged a school board’s refusal to put their petition for a new referendum before the voters. The underlying issue concerned a voter-approved bond to renovate local schools. After the bond passed, the residents submitted a petition containing two articles: one seeking to reconsider and repeal the prior vote, and another proposing a new, smaller bond for a different renovation project if the repeal succeeded. The school board rejected the petition, reasoning that it did not present a proper reconsideration question as required by statute and that the second article was unrelated to reconsidering the original referendum.The residents sought judicial review in the Lincoln County Superior Court under Rule 80B and also filed independent claims for a declaratory judgment and attorney fees, alleging a First Amendment violation. The Superior Court found that the petition was not a proper reconsideration petition because it included an additional article and that the independent claims were barred by the exclusivity principle. The residents then appealed.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. It held that the statute governing reconsideration petitions imposes a ministerial duty on the board to initiate a referendum if the statutory requirements are met; thus, the Superior Court had jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the residents’ petition did not comply with the statutory requirements for a reconsideration petition, as it sought affirmative repeal and included a second, unrelated article, making it ineligible for submission to voters. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the independent claims, holding there was no First Amendment violation. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Minerich v. Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor Community School District" on Justia Law

The case centers on a competitive bidding process conducted by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for a contract to provide medical nonemergency transportation (NET) brokerage services in one of the state’s transit regions. Waldo Community Action Partners (Waldo CAP), the incumbent provider in Region 5 since 2014, submitted a proposal in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP required bidders to detail their qualifications and provide three examples of relevant projects. Waldo CAP only completed details for one project, leaving the remaining two project sections blank except for the notation “NA.” After scoring, Waldo CAP did not receive the highest overall score; ModivCare Solutions, LLC, a vendor with extensive experience in other regions, was awarded the contract.Waldo CAP appealed the contract award to the Department of Administrative and Financial Services (DAFS) appeal committee, arguing that the process violated procurement laws and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The appeal committee affirmed DHHS’s decision, finding the point deduction for incomplete information justified and not arbitrary. Waldo CAP then sought judicial review in the Maine Superior Court, which also affirmed the committee’s decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine reviewed the case, applying a deferential standard to the agency’s factual findings and statutory interpretations. The Court held that the “best-value bidder” under Maine law is determined strictly by the criteria and requirements set forth in the RFP, and that the agency acted within its discretion in scoring and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. The Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, upholding the award to ModivCare and lifting the stay on the contract award. View "Waldo Community Action Partners v. Department of Administrative and Financial Services" on Justia Law

A provider of energy efficient resources (EERs), which are projects that reduce electrical consumption, challenged a decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approving a change to PJM Interconnection LLC’s tariff. PJM manages the electrical grid in parts of thirteen states and the District of Columbia, and it operates capacity auctions to ensure reliable electricity supply. Historically, EERs were allowed to bid in these auctions for up to four consecutive years to compensate for a lag in PJM’s statistical model (load forecast), which previously did not account for new EERs’ impact on energy consumption. In 2016, PJM updated its model to capture these effects in real time, removing the need for EERs to participate in the auctions.In 2024, PJM proposed a tariff amendment to exclude EERs from future capacity auctions, citing the improved accuracy of its load forecast and the unnecessary costs imposed on consumers by double-counting EERs’ effects. FERC approved this amendment, finding it would lower costs for consumers without compromising grid reliability. Affirmed Energy LLC, an EER aggregator, protested, arguing that the amendment was unlawfully retroactive and arbitrary and capricious, as it would disrupt settled expectations and reliance interests, particularly for projects that had already cleared prior auctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. It held that FERC’s orders were not retroactive because they only applied to future auctions and did not strip EER providers of entitlements to past payments or auction results. The court also found that FERC had reasonably evaluated PJM’s updated forecast, weighed the reliance interests at stake, and explained why the amendment was justified. The petition for review was denied. View "Affirmed Energy, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers and a trade association challenged a Louisiana statute, Act 358, which restricts drug manufacturers from interfering with the delivery of federally discounted drugs through contract pharmacies. The statute was passed in response to manufacturers’ efforts to limit the distribution of discounted drugs under the federal 340B Program, particularly through arrangements with contract pharmacies serving vulnerable populations. The plaintiffs argued that the Louisiana law was preempted by federal law and violated several constitutional provisions, including the Takings Clause, the Contracts Clause, and the Due Process Clause’s prohibition on vagueness.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana considered three related cases together. It denied the manufacturers’ motions for summary judgment and instead granted summary judgment for the State of Louisiana and the Louisiana Primary Care Association (LPCA) on all claims. The district court also allowed LPCA to intervene in each case, over the objection of one plaintiff.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Act 358 is not preempted by federal law. It found that the federal 340B statute does not occupy the field of pharmacy regulation and does not conflict with or frustrate federal objectives, as it is silent on the use of contract pharmacies and leaves room for state regulation. The court also concluded that Act 358 does not effect a physical or regulatory taking, does not substantially impair contract rights under the Contracts Clause, and is not unconstitutionally vague. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order permitting LPCA to intervene in AbbVie’s case, finding that LPCA’s interests were adequately represented by the State and it did not show it would present a distinct defense. The court affirmed summary judgment for Louisiana on all claims. View "AstraZeneca v. Murrill" on Justia Law