Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A member of the United States Army National Guard, Stacy Gonzales, worked as a local disease intervention specialist at the Finney County Health Department in Kansas. Her position was funded primarily through Aid-to-Local grants distributed by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), which set substantive job expectations and supervised both state and local disease intervention specialists. Gonzales’s salary and benefits were determined and paid by Finney County, but her day-to-day work, training, and performance evaluations involved significant oversight from KDHE. When KDHE decided not to renew the Aid-to-Local grant in 2010 due to perceived performance deficiencies, Finney County was forced to terminate Gonzales’s position, resulting in her unemployment.The United States filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging that KDHE had violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by discriminating against Gonzales based on her military service obligations. Both sides moved for summary judgment on the threshold issue of whether Kansas, through KDHE, was Gonzales’s “employer” under USERRA. The district court granted summary judgment to Kansas, concluding that KDHE was not Gonzales’s employer because it did not have direct authority to hire, fire, supervise, or determine her salary or benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that the definition of “employer” under USERRA includes entities that exercise control over employment opportunities, not limited to direct authority over hiring, firing, or pay. The court found sufficient evidence that KDHE retained significant control over Gonzales’s employment opportunities to preclude summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Department of Health & Environment" on Justia Law

PJM Interconnection LLC manages an extensive electrical grid across thirteen states and the District of Columbia. To ensure competitive market conditions and compliance with regulatory standards, PJM employs Market Monitoring Analytics LLP as its independent market monitor (IMM). For several years, IMM attended meetings between PJM’s Board of Managers and the Liaison Committee, a nonvoting body designed to facilitate communication between PJM Members and the Board. However, PJM began enforcing the Liaison Committee’s charter provision, restricting attendance to end-use customers and regulated utilities, thereby excluding IMM from future meetings.After this exclusion, IMM filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), arguing that PJM’s action violated Section IV.G of its tariff, which IMM interpreted as granting it the right to participate in such stakeholder processes. FERC reviewed the complaint and dismissed it. The Commission determined that Section IV.G only applied to decision-making bodies within PJM that handle proposed revisions to tariffs or market rules, not to the Liaison Committee, which functions solely as a communication forum and does not engage in decision-making or voting.IMM subsequently petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of FERC’s decision. The Court, before addressing the merits, examined whether IMM had standing to challenge its exclusion. The Court held that IMM failed to demonstrate a concrete or particularized injury resulting from its inability to attend the Liaison Committee meetings, as IMM retained access to all market data required for its monitoring functions and had alternative avenues for communication with the Board. The Court further found that IMM had not shown any expenditure of resources to counteract the alleged harm. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to IMM’s lack of standing. View "Independent Market Monitor for PJM v. FERC" on Justia Law

The appellant, a Ventura County Deputy Sheriff, suffered two work-related back injuries in 2014 and 2015. Medical evaluations revealed degenerative disc disease and herniation at the L5-S1 level. Multiple physicians recommended surgical intervention, and the County authorized surgery to address his condition. However, the appellant declined the recommended procedures, citing concerns about surgical outcomes and referencing anecdotal experiences of colleagues. Later, his condition progressed, and more extensive surgery was suggested, but authorization for additional procedures was denied due to insufficient evidence. Despite ongoing pain, the appellant also declined to participate in a recommended home exercise program and a work hardening regimen.After the appellant applied for service-connected disability retirement, his application was challenged by the County and assigned to VCERA’s hearing officer for review. During the administrative hearing, the appellant testified about his refusal of surgery and physical therapy, while medical experts presented conflicting views on his prognosis and ability to return to work. The hearing officer found that the appellant had unreasonably refused recommended medical treatments with a high probability of success, and that his refusal likely worsened his condition, making him ineligible for service-connected disability retirement benefits. The Board adopted these findings and denied his application.The Superior Court of Ventura County denied the appellant’s petition for a writ of administrative mandate, concluding that his unreasonable refusal of authorized surgery and other treatments constituted valid grounds to deny benefits under the doctrine of avoidable consequences/mitigation of damages. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed this decision. The court held that a disability retirement application may be denied if the disability is caused, continued, or aggravated by an unreasonable refusal to undergo medical treatment, even if the refused treatment is no longer effective due to the passage of time. View "Mendoza v. Bd. of Retirement of the Ventura County" on Justia Law

A longtime deputy sheriff was convicted by a federal jury of mail and wire fraud after she submitted an insurance claim for items stolen during a burglary at her home, some of which she falsely claimed as her own but actually belonged to her employer, the sheriff’s office. She also used her employer’s fax machine and cover sheet in communicating with the insurance company and misrepresented her supervisor’s identity. The criminal conduct arose after a romantic relationship with a former inmate ended badly, leading to the burglary, but the fraud conviction was based on her false insurance claim, not on the relationship or the burglary itself.Following her conviction, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) determined that her crimes constituted conduct “arising out of or in the performance of her official duties” under Government Code section 7522.72, part of the Public Employees Pension Reform Act, and partially forfeited her pension. The administrative law judge and the San Francisco Superior Court both upheld CalPERS’s decision, reasoning that her actions were sufficiently connected to her employment, particularly in her misuse of employer property and resources and in the context of her relationship with the former inmate.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the statute requires a specific causal nexus between the criminal conduct and the employee’s official duties, not merely any job-related connection. The court found that the deputy’s fraudulent insurance claim, although it referenced employer property and resources, did not arise out of or in the performance of her official duties as required by the statute. Accordingly, the pension forfeiture determination was set aside. View "Myres v. Bd. of Admin. for CalPERS" on Justia Law

Parker Noland operated a construction debris removal business in Flathead County, Montana, but was ordered by the Montana Public Service Commission to cease operations due to lacking a required Class D motor carrier certificate. Noland formed PBN LLC and applied for the certificate, but withdrew his application after finding the administrative process—including requests for sensitive financial information by competitors—too burdensome. He then limited his business to activities not requiring the certificate. Subsequently, Noland filed suit in the Eleventh Judicial District Court of Flathead County, seeking a declaratory judgment that two provisions of the Montana Motor Carrier law, known as the public convenience and necessity (PCN) provisions, were unconstitutional under both the Montana and United States Constitutions.The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the State of Montana and Evergreen Disposal, Inc., which had intervened. The court held that Noland lacked standing to bring an as-applied constitutional challenge, reasoning he sought to vindicate only a future injury and had not shown how the statutes would be unconstitutionally applied to him. However, the court found Noland had standing to bring a facial challenge, but ruled against him, concluding the provisions were not facially unconstitutional because some applicants had previously received Class D certificates.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s rulings de novo. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision that Noland lacked standing for an as-applied challenge, holding that he failed to demonstrate a concrete injury or how the statutes were applied to him. The Court reversed the District Court’s denial of Noland’s facial challenge, holding that he had standing to challenge the statute’s constitutionality on its face, since the procedural requirements themselves could constitute injury regardless of outcome. The case was remanded for further consideration of the facial constitutional challenges. View "Noland v. State" on Justia Law

A group of unhoused veterans with severe disabilities and mental illnesses sued the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), seeking to restore the West Los Angeles VA Grounds for its intended use: housing disabled veterans. The VA had leased portions of this land to third parties—including the Regents of the University of California, Brentwood School, and Bridgeland Resources LLC—for uses that did not principally benefit veterans. Plaintiffs argued that the lack of supportive housing denied meaningful access to VA healthcare, violated the Rehabilitation Act, and placed them at serious risk of institutionalization. They also challenged VA policies that counted disability benefits as income, restricting access to supportive housing, and claimed that certain land-use agreements violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Additionally, they asserted that the original 1888 Deed created a charitable trust that the VA had breached.The United States District Court for the Central District of California held a four-week bench trial, finding that the VA’s land-use leases with UCLA, Brentwood School, and Bridgeland Resources LLC were unlawful, voided these leases, and enjoined the VA from renegotiating them. The court certified a plaintiff class, ordered the VA to build supportive housing, found the VA and HUD violated the Rehabilitation Act in several respects, and determined that the VA had breached fiduciary duties under a charitable trust theory, invalidating certain leases on that basis as well.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The Ninth Circuit held that federal courts retained jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claims, upheld class certification, and affirmed findings of meaningful access, Olmstead, and facial discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act against the VA. The court reversed judgment against HUD, and also reversed the charitable trust claim, finding no judicially enforceable fiduciary duties under the Leasing Act. The court vacated related injunctive relief and judgments based on the charitable trust theory, including those against UCLA, Brentwood, and Bridgeland. The injunctions were modified, allowing the VA to renegotiate leases if compliant with statutory requirements. View "Powers v. McDonough" on Justia Law

Sanjeev Varghese was injured when he rode his bicycle into a steel cable stretched between two bollards on Pier 5 at Baltimore’s Inner Harbor. The barrier was located between a vehicular access road and a pedestrian promenade. The City of Baltimore had approved the design of the access road and its barriers, with changes for safety and aesthetics implemented in 2005. In 2017, a similar bicycle accident occurred, and the City received notice of that incident. In 2018, Varghese crashed into the barrier and subsequently sued the City for negligence, claiming the barrier was hazardous and that the City failed to address a known danger.The Circuit Court for Baltimore City allowed Varghese’s claims to proceed to a jury, which found the City negligent and awarded damages. The City moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing it was entitled to governmental immunity based on the discretionary nature of its design decisions. The circuit court denied this motion. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the judgment, concluding that the City was not immune from liability for failing to fix a known hazard.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the City’s decisions regarding the design and placement of the barrier were discretionary governmental functions. The court reaffirmed that municipalities are immune from tort liability for such discretionary design decisions unless the condition created is so obviously dangerous that no reasonable person could disagree. The court found that this exception did not apply here, as the barrier was not shown to be obviously dangerous. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and instructed that judgment be entered in favor of the City. View "May. & City Cncl. Of Baltimore v. Varghese" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs owned and operated a hotel that had a record of serious structural and safety problems, including a window and a stone falling from the building, and repeated failures to correct code violations. After a fire occurred without activation of the sprinkler system, a follow-up inspection revealed that several fire code violations remained unaddressed, along with new violations. Based on these findings, the city’s building administrator ordered the hotel to be closed immediately, citing imminent safety risks. The owners sought to appeal and demanded hearings, but the city cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for delay and directed them to other appellate avenues. The closure order was lifted once the most urgent hazards were remedied, and the owners eventually fixed all violations.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to the city and the building administrator, finding no violations of procedural due process or the Fifth Amendment, and that qualified immunity protected the administrator in his individual capacity. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the procedural due process provided for the closure, the application of qualified immunity, and asserting that the closure constituted a regulatory taking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that, even assuming a protected property interest existed, the risk of erroneous deprivation was low due to specific regulations and the availability of prompt post-deprivation remedies. The court also found that swift action in the face of public safety threats justified summary administrative action without additional pre-deprivation process. Regarding qualified immunity, the court determined that no clearly established law prohibited the administrator’s conduct. Finally, the court held that the temporary closure was a lawful exercise of police power and did not amount to a compensable regulatory taking. View "reVamped LLC v. City of Pipestone" on Justia Law

Two individuals, Aleah Michelle Camp and Danielle Ashley Simons, were each charged by home-rule municipalities in Colorado (Westminster and Aurora, respectively) with non-felony offenses—low-level theft and trespass—under municipal ordinances that prohibited the same conduct as relevant state statutes. Following the enactment of Colorado’s Misdemeanor Reform Act, which lowered sentencing caps for these state offenses, the municipal codes continued to authorize penalties for identical conduct that were significantly harsher than those allowed under state law.In the Westminster Municipal Court and Aurora Municipal Court, both defendants moved to dismiss their charges, arguing that the municipal sentencing provisions were preempted by state law because the penalties exceeded those permitted under the revised state statutes. Both municipal courts denied the motions, relying on precedent that recognized the authority of home-rule municipalities to regulate low-level offenses and to set their own penalties, and found no preemption or conflict with state law.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed these cases under its original jurisdiction. The Court held that when a municipal ordinance and a state statute prohibit identical conduct, municipalities may not authorize penalties that exceed the maximum sentencing caps established by state law for the corresponding offense. The Court found that the establishment of penalties for low-level criminal conduct is a matter of mixed statewide and local concern, but that municipal sentencing provisions which allow harsher penalties than state law create an operational conflict and are thus preempted to the extent of that conflict. The Court made the orders to show cause absolute and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with this holding. Camp and Simons may be prosecuted for their ordinance violations, but cannot be subjected to penalties greater than those permitted by state law for the same conduct. View "People v. Michelle" on Justia Law

HRT Enterprises owned an 11.8-acre parcel adjacent to Detroit’s Coleman A. Young International Airport, with about 20 percent of the property falling within a regulated runway “visibility zone” that restricted development. Over time, the City of Detroit acquired other properties in a nearby area for airport compliance but did not purchase HRT’s. By late 2008, HRT’s property had become vacant and vandalized, and HRT alleged it could no longer use, lease, or sell the property due to City actions and regulatory restrictions.HRT first sued the City in Michigan state court in 2002, alleging inverse condemnation, but the jury found for the City; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. In 2008, HRT sued in federal court, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the action without prejudice because HRT had not exhausted state remedies. HRT then filed a second state suit in 2009, which was dismissed on res judicata grounds; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. HRT did not seek further review.In 2012, HRT filed the present action in federal court, alleging a de facto taking under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied the City’s preclusion arguments, granted summary judgment to HRT on liability, and held that a taking had occurred, leaving the date for the jury. A first jury found the taking occurred in 2009 and awarded $4.25 million; the court ordered remittitur to $2 million, then a second jury, after a new trial, awarded $1.97 million.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that HRT’s claim was ripe, not barred by claim or issue preclusion, that the district court properly granted summary judgment on liability, and that its remittitur decision was not an abuse of discretion. View "HRT Enterprises v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law