Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Several insurance companies participate in Indiana’s Assigned Risk Plan, a statutory system designed to ensure workers’ compensation coverage for employers unable to obtain insurance in the voluntary market. One participating insurer, Technology Insurance Company, provided coverage under this system. After handling a significant workers’ compensation claim and settling for over $2 million, the company sought reimbursement from the Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau, as provided in their agreements. The Bureau denied reimbursement, alleging the company had acted fraudulently. The company followed the dispute-resolution procedures required by contract, ultimately securing a favorable ruling from an administrative law judge, who ordered full reimbursement. The company then sought additional relief—attorneys’ fees, interest, and expenses—from the agency, but received no response despite repeated requests.After payment of the principal settlement amount but no fees or interest, the company sought judicial review in the Marion Superior Court, which found the Department of Insurance’s failure to rule was arbitrary and contrary to law. The trial court ordered the Bureau to pay fees, interest, and expenses. The Bureau appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding the company’s claims for fees were not governed by the parties’ agreements and must be presented anew to the Bureau.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the appellate court’s decision. The Court held that the company was required to exhaust administrative remedies, as set out in the Assigned Risk Plan and related agreements, but found the company had done so by pursuing its claims through the prescribed channels. The Court further held that the company was entitled to prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and expenses under the contracts, and that these collateral claims could properly be added in the judicial review proceedings without further agency exhaustion. The judgment for the company was affirmed and the case remanded to the trial court for calculation and award of appropriate fees, interest, and expenses. View "Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau v. Technology Insurance Company" on Justia Law

During a prolonged standoff in Las Vegas, New Mexico, Alejandro Alirez shot Cristal Cervantes and her grandfather inside their home while livestreaming the incident on Facebook. Law enforcement officers from multiple agencies responded after being alerted that Alirez, believed to be armed and mentally ill, was acting erratically at the residence. Upon the deputies’ arrival and their attempt to make contact, gunshots were fired almost immediately, with Cristal and her grandfather ultimately killed during the ordeal. Law enforcement officers established a perimeter and called for tactical support, but Cristal was found unresponsive after Alirez surrendered hours later.The plaintiffs, including Cristal’s personal representative and her mother, brought suit against various law enforcement agencies and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New Mexico state law, alleging failure to intervene and negligence. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment for all defendants, concluding that qualified immunity barred the § 1983 claims and that the plaintiffs could not prevail on their state-law claims, including negligent investigation, negligent training, and loss of consortium.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Tenth Circuit held that the law enforcement officers did not affirmatively act to create or increase the danger to Cristal, a necessary element for liability under the substantive due process “danger-creation” exception, and thus the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Additionally, the court found that the officers’ inability to intervene was caused by the immediate deadly threat posed by Alirez, precluding liability under New Mexico law for negligent investigation or related torts. The disposition of the case was affirmed in favor of the defendants. View "Salcido v. City of Las Vegas" on Justia Law

A healthcare provider operating as a covered entity under the federal Section 340B Drug Pricing Program purchased pharmaceuticals from several drug manufacturers. The provider alleged that these manufacturers engaged in a fraudulent scheme by knowingly charging prices for drugs that exceeded the statutory ceiling, resulting in inflated reimbursement claims submitted to Medicaid, Medicare, and other government-funded programs. The provider did not seek compensation for its own overcharges, but instead brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), seeking to recover losses on behalf of the federal and state governments.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It reasoned that, under the Supreme Court’s holding in Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, Section 340B does not confer a private right of action for covered entities to sue drug manufacturers over pricing disputes; such claims must instead be pursued through the Section 340B Administrative Dispute Resolution process. The district court concluded that the provider’s FCA claims were essentially attempts to enforce Section 340B and should therefore be barred.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the provider’s FCA claims were not barred by the absence of a private right of action under Section 340B or by the Astra decision, because the action was brought to remediate fraud against the government and not to recover personal losses or enforce Section 340B directly. The court further found that the provider had plausibly pleaded falsity under the FCA. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings. View "ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM OF WEST V. ABBVIE INC." on Justia Law

A foreign service officer with the Department of State alleged that her employee evaluation review for 2016 contained false and prejudicial statements, which she claimed delayed her eligibility for tenure. After her administrative grievance was denied, she appealed to the Foreign Service Grievance Board. The Board conditionally dismissed her appeal, contingent on the Department providing certain corrective actions. Over the following years, the officer and the Department exchanged multiple motions regarding the completeness of the relief provided and attorney’s fees. Ultimately, the Board found that the Department had provided the promised relief, denied her motion for attorney’s fees on the grounds she was not a prevailing party, and closed the case, barring further filings.Subsequently, the officer filed a five-count complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging several Board orders as arbitrary and seeking attorney’s fees, costs, and other relief. The district court dismissed counts I through IV as time-barred, holding that the 180-day statute of limitations began when the Board closed the case and was only paused during reconsideration proceedings, making her claims untimely. The court also dismissed count V for lack of jurisdiction, finding no right under Board rules to file further motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the timely motion for reconsideration rendered the underlying Board order nonfinal for purposes of judicial review and reset the statute of limitations. Therefore, the officer’s claims in counts I through IV were timely. However, the appellate court affirmed dismissal of count V, concluding she failed to state a claim because the Board’s regulations did not guarantee her the right to additional filings or attorney’s fees. The decision was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on counts I through IV. View "Simmons v. Rubio" on Justia Law

A significant number of private attorneys who serve as court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants in two Massachusetts counties stopped accepting new cases to protest legislatively set compensation rates. This work stoppage resulted in hundreds of indigent defendants, including many in pretrial detention, being left without legal representation. The Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), the entity charged with administering indigent defense, reported that the public defender division was at capacity and unable to fill the gap. CPCS petitioned for emergency relief, seeking both implementation of a protocol to address unrepresented defendants and a court-ordered increase in compensation rates for bar advocates.The Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, through a single justice, conducted an evidentiary hearing, found a systemic violation of indigent defendants’ constitutional rights to counsel, and implemented the protocol requiring prompt hearings and potential release or dismissal when counsel could not be appointed in a timely manner. The single justice, however, denied the request to judicially increase rates, deferring to the Legislature. After a trial court judge unilaterally ordered higher rates for certain attorneys, the question of judicial authority to set such rates was reserved and reported to the full Supreme Judicial Court.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that neither it nor any other court has authority to order increased compensation rates for bar advocates above those set by the Legislature, absent extraordinary circumstances where the judiciary’s constitutional functioning is impaired and all other remedies are exhausted. The court found that the existing statutory rates, recent legislative rate increases, and incentive programs ensured a constitutionally adequate system and that judicially ordered rate increases would violate the separation of powers. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk County District Courts" on Justia Law

An Indiana prisoner, while serving a 65-year sentence for murder, attacked a correctional officer at the Miami Correctional Facility in 2022. The attack caused serious injuries requiring outside medical treatment. Following an administrative hearing, the prisoner was found guilty of battering staff and was sanctioned by losing nearly 19 years of accumulated good time credits. The hearing officer based the sanction on the severity of the attack and the resulting injury and checked factors including the seriousness of the offense and the disruption to facility security.The prisoner filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, raising due process and Eighth Amendment claims. He alleged procedural errors, hearing officer bias, and that there was no evidence of serious injury. He also argued that the sanction was grossly disproportionate. After counsel was appointed, he submitted a brief that referenced, but did not fully restate, these claims. The district court denied relief, holding that the due process claims lacked merit and that the Eighth Amendment claim was waived due to insufficient argument in the brief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the relevant constitutional claims were not waived, as the amended filing preserved the original petition’s arguments. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the hearing officer’s finding of serious bodily injury was supported by sufficient evidence under the “some evidence” standard. The court also concluded that the loss of good time credits was not grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment, given the circumstances of the offense, the petitioner’s disciplinary record, and the nature of his underlying conviction. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Hawkins v. Sevier" on Justia Law

A deputy sheriff employed by the Rhode Island Department of Public Safety applied for both ordinary and accidental disability retirement pensions, claiming a back injury sustained in 2011 caused him to stop working in 2020. The Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island’s Disability Committee recommended approval of only the ordinary disability pension, finding the accidental disability claim untimely under the statutory filing limits, and noting no evidence of an intervening injury or aggravation. The state retirement board adopted this recommendation and denied the accidental disability pension. Despite submitting additional evidence and requesting rehearing and further medical evaluation, the deputy sheriff’s application continued to be denied by the board, which advised that any appeal could be made in the Superior Court or the Workers’ Compensation Court, if applicable.Following these denials, the deputy sheriff filed appeals in both the Superior Court and the Workers’ Compensation Court. The Employees’ Retirement System moved to dismiss the Workers’ Compensation Court matter, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over a state employee’s appeal. The trial judge of the Workers’ Compensation Court denied the motion, concluding that jurisdiction existed based on multiple statutes, including those relating to injured-on-duty payments and the right to appeal denials of accidental disability pensions.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case on certiorari and held that the Workers’ Compensation Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the deputy sheriff’s appeal. The Court reasoned that the statutory scheme provides for Workers’ Compensation Court jurisdiction only for municipal employees covered under the Optional Retirement Plan, not for state employees like the petitioner, who are covered by the state retirement system. The Supreme Court therefore quashed the trial judge’s order and remanded the case for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction. View "O'Connell v. Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

A federal land exchange was mandated by the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, requiring the United States Forest Service to transfer approximately 2,500 acres of National Forest land, including Oak Flat—a site of religious significance to the Apache—to Resolution Copper Mining, LLC, in exchange for over 5,000 acres of private land. The legislation included requirements for tribal consultation, land appraisal, and the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). Following the issuance of a revised Final EIS in 2025, several environmental and tribal groups, as well as individual Apache plaintiffs, challenged the exchange. Their claims spanned the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Free Exercise Clause, alleging procedural and substantive deficiencies.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction, finding that they had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on any claims relating to the appraisal process, NEPA, consultation, or the National Forest Management Act. A separate group of Apache plaintiffs brought similar claims, including religious liberty challenges, which were also denied—particularly in light of circuit precedent established in Apache Stronghold v. United States. All plaintiff groups appealed and sought further injunctive relief pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed. The court held that plaintiffs had standing and their claims were justiciable, but that none of their arguments were likely to succeed on the merits or raised serious questions. The court specifically found the appraisals and environmental review sufficient, the agency’s tribal consultation adequate, and the religious liberty claims foreclosed by circuit precedent. The denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed, and all related motions for injunctive relief were denied as moot. View "ARIZONA MINING REFORM COALITION V. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE" on Justia Law

The plaintiff owned a building in Corpus Christi, Texas, with significant cultural and historical importance, particularly within the Black community. Over several years, the City’s Code Enforcement Division cited the property for structural deficiencies and ultimately recommended its demolition. Despite the plaintiff’s efforts to preserve the building for historic purposes, the Building Standards Board voted to recommend demolition at a hearing that the plaintiff and her counsel could not attend. After the City temporarily suspended the demolition order, it imposed conditions on the plaintiff to secure the property, which the City later deemed unmet. The City then gave the plaintiff 30 days to demolish the building or face further action.The plaintiff filed suit in Texas state court against the City and two City employees, alleging that selective enforcement of building codes violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause, asserting a “class of one” theory under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that the plaintiff had not sufficiently pleaded a substantive constitutional violation and thus did not reach the question of municipal liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed only the claim against the City, as the plaintiff did not pursue claims against the individual defendants. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The court held that the plaintiff’s allegations did not establish a municipal policy, custom, or pattern of selective enforcement sufficient to state a claim for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court found that a single cited instance of allegedly selective enforcement was insufficient to plead an official policy or custom. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the action. View "Cambric v. City of Corpus Christi" on Justia Law

After the Texas Legislature enacted a law banning certain medical treatments for minors for the purpose of gender transition, PFLAG, Inc., a nonprofit organization with Texas members, became involved in litigation challenging the law. During this litigation, PFLAG’s executive director submitted an affidavit describing, among other things, how families sought “alternative avenues to maintain care” for transgender youth in Texas. The Office of the Attorney General, suspecting that some medical providers might be concealing violations of the new law through deceptive billing practices, issued a civil investigative demand (CID) to PFLAG seeking documents underlying the affidavit and related information. PFLAG declined to produce the documents and instead petitioned the 261st Judicial District Court in Travis County to set aside or modify the CID. The Attorney General subsequently narrowed the scope of the CID to exclude identifying information of PFLAG’s members and focused the requests more closely on the affidavit’s content.The district court granted a temporary restraining order and, after a trial, issued a final declaratory judgment and injunction largely protecting PFLAG from producing the requested documents. The district court focused its analysis on the original, broader CID and found that the Attorney General lacked a valid basis to believe PFLAG possessed relevant information. The court also concluded that the CID infringed on constitutional rights and failed to comply with statutory requirements.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the district court erred in analyzing only the original CID and not the revised version. The Supreme Court clarified that the Attorney General’s statutory authority to issue a CID requires only a reasonable belief, not proof, that the recipient may have relevant material. The Court found the Attorney General’s belief reasonable given the content of the affidavit and ruled that PFLAG must produce most responsive documents, subject to privilege and redaction of identifying information. The district court’s order was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. PFLAG, INC." on Justia Law