Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns the suspension of a driver’s license by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) after the driver, stopped for erratic driving and suspected of being under the influence of alcohol, refused a chemical test when properly advised of the consequences. At the administrative hearing regarding his suspension, the DMV’s hearing officer introduced evidence, asked clarifying questions, and ruled on objections, all while stating she was acting as a neutral factfinder rather than as an advocate for the DMV. The driver argued that the hearing officer’s dual roles violated his due process rights by making her both a prosecutor and adjudicator.After the DMV sustained the license suspension, the driver petitioned the Superior Court of Alameda County for a writ of mandate, claiming that the hearing officer functioned as both advocate and judge, creating an unconstitutional risk of bias. The trial court denied the petition, finding that the DMV’s current policy required hearing officers to act only as neutral decisionmakers and that no due process violation occurred.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the denial. The court clarified that due process requires an impartial adjudicator but does not prohibit the same person from developing the evidence and making a decision in an administrative setting, so long as there is no disqualifying interest or extraordinary evidence of bias. The court held that the DMV’s current structure does not violate due process, as hearing officers are presumed impartial and their actions in presenting evidence do not turn them into advocates. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. The court expressly declined to follow recent decisions adopting an “appearance of bias” standard and reinforced that only an actual, constitutionally intolerable risk of bias triggers a due process violation. View "Chi v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

Several married couples, with one spouse in each couple serving on active military duty, purchased educational materials from a business operating on military bases. The seller, George LeMay, through his company, brought lawsuits against these couples after they stopped payment, ultimately securing state-court judgments against each couple. Some judgments were later overturned, but LeMay sought to enforce the remaining judgments in Maryland using its Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. The judgments were domesticated by Maryland state-court clerks without the procedural protections required by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), such as affidavits regarding military status or appointment of counsel. The clerks also issued writs of garnishment, leading to the plaintiffs’ bank accounts being frozen. Plaintiffs eventually succeeded in vacating the judgments, but not before suffering financial harm.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against LeMay (later dismissed after settlement), the Governor of Maryland, and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Maryland, all in their official capacities. The district court found that the act of domesticating a judgment did not trigger the SCRA’s protections, but that issuing writs of garnishment did. It ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief but allowed their damages claims against the Justices to proceed, reasoning their supervisory role was sufficiently linked to the injuries. However, the district court ultimately granted summary judgment for the defendants, relying on legislative immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their injuries were not fairly traceable to acts or omissions by the Governor or the Justices. The court concluded the plaintiffs failed to show any defendant’s action caused the injuries, and it remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Rouse v. Fader" on Justia Law

Several Maryland local governments, including Baltimore City, Anne Arundel County, and the City of Annapolis, filed lawsuits in Maryland circuit courts against 26 multinational oil and gas companies. They alleged that the defendants’ extraction, production, promotion, and sale of fossil fuels—combined with deceptive marketing about their products’ climate risks—substantially contributed to global greenhouse gas emissions, resulting in severe local impacts such as sea-level rise, flooding, and heat waves. The local governments sought damages and equitable relief based on Maryland common law claims of public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, negligent failure to warn, and strict liability failure to warn.In the trial courts (the Circuit Courts for Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County), the defendants successfully moved to dismiss the complaints. The courts found that the local governments’ claims were preempted by federal law, specifically by federal common law and the Clean Air Act, and that the complaints failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted under Maryland law. The cases took a procedural detour through federal courts due to removal attempts, but were ultimately remanded to state court. The Appellate Court of Maryland consolidated the appeals, and the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review by writ of certiorari.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the dismissals. The court held that the local governments’ state law claims, though pled as torts, effectively sought to regulate interstate and international air emissions—an area governed exclusively by federal law. Relying on United States Supreme Court precedent, the court explained that such claims are displaced by federal common law and, in turn, by the Clean Air Act, which does not authorize broad state law claims in this context. The court further held that, even if not preempted, none of the plaintiffs stated valid claims under Maryland law for public or private nuisance, trespass, or failure to warn. View "Mayor & City Cncl. Of Balt. v. B.P. P.L.C." on Justia Law

Two married tenured professors at California State University, Chico alleged that they were subjected to harassment and discrimination by their department chair, with one professor experiencing conduct targeted at her gender and Korean ancestry. Despite their reports to university administration, the university did not intervene. As a result, one professor suffered serious mental health consequences, leading their doctor to recommend that she not work in the same environment as the chair. The university’s lack of response allegedly forced both professors to resign and accept positions at another university. After their resignation, the university initiated an investigation into one professor for an alleged violation of student privacy laws and communicated these allegations to the new employer, which the professors claimed was intended to sabotage their new employment. There were also alleged delays in transferring their lab equipment.The professors filed suit in the Superior Court of Butte County, asserting, among other claims, retaliation and whistleblower retaliation under California law. The university filed a special motion to strike these two causes of action under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the claims were based in part on communications protected by the statute. The trial court denied the motion, finding the university’s actions involved an official proceeding but also concluding that the professors demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on their claims.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion. The appellate court held that the university failed to carry its burden to show that all actions underlying the challenged causes of action were protected activity. The court clarified that the presence of some protected communications within the allegations does not mean the entire cause of action arises from protected activity. The judgment denying the anti-SLAPP motion was therefore affirmed. View "Pechkis v. Trustees of the Cal. State University" on Justia Law

Several rural electricity distribution cooperatives entered into long-term, all-requirements contracts with a generation-and-transmission cooperative, requiring them to purchase nearly all of their electric service from the cooperative through 2050. Some of these distribution cooperatives later sought to terminate their memberships and contracts early. In response, the generation-and-transmission cooperative proposed a methodology for calculating an exit fee and submitted it to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for approval.FERC initiated hearing procedures to determine a just and reasonable exit-fee methodology. In those proceedings, both the cooperative and FERC’s Trial Staff presented different approaches: the cooperative advocated a lost-revenues approach, while Trial Staff proposed a balance-sheet approach. An administrative law judge found that the cooperative’s methodology was not just and reasonable, but that the balance-sheet approach, with modifications, was. The cooperative sought review from FERC, which agreed with the administrative law judge, rejecting the lost-revenues approach and directing the cooperative to adopt the modified balance-sheet methodology.The cooperative then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing that FERC’s adopted methodology was arbitrary and capricious. The Tenth Circuit reviewed FERC’s orders under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court held that FERC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in rejecting the lost-revenues approach, adopting the balance-sheet approach, implementing a transmission-crediting mechanism, or applying the methodology to certain members despite existing contracts. The Tenth Circuit concluded that FERC engaged in reasoned decisionmaking, supported by substantial evidence, and denied the petitions for review. View "Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, v. FERC" on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute between a city and a civil liberties organization regarding public access to police records under the California Public Records Act. The organization submitted a request for records related to police K-9 use-of-force incidents, specifically seeking documents involving incidents resulting in “death or great bodily injury.” The city produced some records but withheld or redacted others, asserting that only records involving “serious bodily injury” as narrowly defined should be disclosed. The central disagreement focused on the meaning of “great bodily injury” in the statutory context.After the city maintained its position, the organization challenged the city’s interpretation in the Superior Court of Fresno County. The court did not decide whether the documents were investigatory records but instead ruled on the meaning of “great bodily injury.” It concluded that the term should be understood as “a significant or substantial physical injury,” consistent with the definition in Penal Code section 12022.7, rather than the narrower definition of “serious bodily injury” found elsewhere. The court therefore ordered the city to produce records involving any deployment of a police canine that resulted in great bodily injury, as so defined.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the city’s petition for writ of mandate. The appellate court agreed with the superior court, holding that the term “great bodily injury” in Penal Code section 832.7 should be construed in accordance with section 12022.7, meaning “a significant or substantial physical injury.” The court found no ambiguity in the statutory language, rejected the city’s alternative arguments, and concluded that the legislative history supported this broader interpretation. The court denied the city’s petition, affirmed the order for disclosure, and awarded costs to the organization. View "City of Fresno v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

A California-based company that produces lab-grown chicken sought to distribute and sell its product in Florida. After the company received federal approval from the USDA and FDA to market its lab-grown chicken, Florida enacted SB 1084, a law banning the manufacture, sale, and distribution of all lab-grown meat within the state. The company had previously held tasting events and developed business relationships in Florida but had no plans to manufacture its product there.Following the enactment of SB 1084, the company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against state officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The company argued that the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) preempted Florida’s ban, claiming the state’s law imposed “additional or different” ingredient or facilities requirements in violation of the PPIA. The district court denied the company’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the company unlikely to succeed on its preemption claims because SB 1084 did not regulate the company’s ingredients, premises, facilities, or operations. The court also addressed standing and procedural questions, ultimately dismissing the preemption claims after the company amended its complaint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the filing of an amended complaint or the district court’s dismissal order rendered the appeal moot and whether the company could challenge the Florida law as preempted. The Eleventh Circuit held the appeal was not moot and that the company could bring a preemption action in equity. However, the court concluded the company was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court held that Florida’s ban did not impose ingredient or facilities requirements preempted by the PPIA, as it simply banned the product’s sale and manufacture. Therefore, the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Upside Foods Inc v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture" on Justia Law

A professional pilot was asked to operate a Cessna Citation 550 aircraft whose tail number had recently been changed by its owner from N550ME to N550MK. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved the new registration and issued new documents, but denied a new airworthiness certificate because the aircraft required further inspection. Believing the registration had reverted to the old number due to the denial, the owner had the physical tail number altered back to N550ME using tape, while the aircraft carried documents for both the old and new registrations. The pilot, after being told about “paperwork issues” and noticing the taped number, proceeded to fly the aircraft on two flights without confirming the correct registration and without a valid airworthiness certificate for the current registered tail number. After the first flight, FAA inspectors issued a written notice warning that further operation would violate federal regulations; the pilot disregarded this and completed the return flight.The FAA suspended the pilot’s license for 150 days, citing violations of various regulations requiring proper display of the registered tail number and possession of a valid airworthiness certificate. The pilot appealed the suspension to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), where an Administrative Law Judge affirmed the FAA’s order after a hearing. The full NTSB then affirmed the ALJ’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case, applying a deferential standard to the agency’s findings and sanction. The court held that the NTSB’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The court concluded that the pilot’s reliance on the owner’s explanation was unreasonable and that the penalty was not excessive, even if the violations were administrative. The court also found no improper disparity in sanctioning compared to another pilot. The petition for review was denied, and the suspension was upheld. View "Hardwick v. FAA" on Justia Law

In 2024, a plaintiff filed suit against three individuals, alleging that they sexually assaulted her in 2012. She brought her claims under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law (VGMVPL), which, as amended in 2022, created a two-year window (from March 2023 to March 2025) for victims of sexual and gender-based violence to revive and pursue civil claims that would otherwise be time-barred. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the VGMVPL’s revival window was preempted by earlier state statutes—the Child Victims Act (CVA) and the Adult Survivors Act (ASA)—which had established shorter, earlier revival periods for similar claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed with the defendants, holding that the state laws preempted the VGMVPL’s revival window. The district court concluded both that the CVA and ASA conflicted with the city law and that the state legislature intended to occupy the field of revival windows for such claims, rendering the city’s extension invalid. The plaintiff appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and found that the question of whether the city’s VGMVPL revival window is preempted by the state’s CVA and ASA raises significant issues of New York law, particularly regarding home rule principles and state-local government relations. Recognizing a lack of controlling precedent from the New York Court of Appeals and the importance of the issue, the Second Circuit deferred its decision and certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: whether the VGMVPL’s two-year revival window for civil claims is preempted by the CVA and ASA’s earlier revival periods. The decision on the merits is reserved pending guidance from the state’s highest court. View "Parker v. Alexander" on Justia Law

Intuit, Inc., the seller of TurboTax tax-preparation software, advertised its “Free Edition” as available at no cost for “simple tax returns.” However, the majority of taxpayers did not qualify due to various exclusions, and those individuals were prompted during the tax preparation process to upgrade to paid products. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an administrative complaint in 2022, alleging that these advertisements were deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. After an initial federal court suit for a preliminary injunction was denied, the FTC pursued the matter through its internal adjudicative process instead.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Intuit’s advertisements were likely to mislead a significant minority of consumers. The FTC Commissioners affirmed this decision, issuing a broad cease-and-desist order that barred Intuit from advertising “any goods or services” as free unless it met stringent requirements. This order was not limited to tax-preparation products. Intuit petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review, asserting, among other arguments, that the FTC’s adjudication of deceptive advertising claims through an ALJ, rather than an Article III court, was unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that deceptive advertising claims under Section 5 of the FTC Act are akin to traditional actions at law or equity, such as fraud and deceit, and thus involve private rights. According to recent Supreme Court precedent in SEC v. Jarkesy, such claims must be adjudicated in Article III courts, not by agency ALJs. The Fifth Circuit granted Intuit’s petition, vacated the FTC’s order, and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with its holding. View "Intuit v. Federal Trade Commission" on Justia Law