Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In February 2020, a police officer in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, shot and killed a Black teenager, Alvin Cole. Following the incident, community members organized protests against police violence and racism. Anticipating unrest after the district attorney decided not to charge the officer, the mayor imposed a curfew. Plaintiffs, affected by the curfew and police conduct, filed constitutional and state law claims against the City of Wauwatosa and individual defendants.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed most claims, allowing only First Amendment and Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) claims to proceed. The court later granted summary judgment for the defendants on the First Amendment claims, leaving only the DPPA claims for trial. The jury ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants on the DPPA claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the curfew was a permissible time, place, and manner restriction under the First Amendment. The court found that the curfew was content-neutral, served a significant government interest in public safety, was narrowly tailored, and left open ample alternative channels for communication. The court also upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims against individual defendants, agreeing that the claims were inadequately pleaded and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further amendments. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s response to a jury question regarding the definition of “personal information” under the DPPA. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Knowlton v. City of Wauwatosa" on Justia Law

The case involves Lucas Sirois and Alisa Sirois, who were indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). They sought to enjoin the Department of Justice (DOJ) from prosecuting them, arguing that their conduct was in substantial compliance with the Maine Medical Use of Cannabis Act, which allows for the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana under state law. The defendants claimed that the DOJ's prosecution violated the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prohibits the DOJ from using funds to prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied the defendants' request for injunctive relief. The court held a hearing where the government presented evidence that the defendants' operations, particularly a grow operation known as the "Shoe Shop," violated Maine's medical marijuana laws by operating as a collective and engaging in black-market sales. The court found that the government had met its burden of production, showing a substantial evidentiary basis for the prosecution. However, the defendants failed to meet their burden of persuasion to demonstrate that the prosecution lacked a substantial evidentiary basis or was arbitrary or irrational.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The appellate court held that the defendants did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that they were in substantial compliance with Maine's medical marijuana laws. The court noted significant evidence that the Shoe Shop operated as a collective and that Lucas Sirois engaged in black-market sales. The court concluded that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the DOJ's prosecution would prevent Maine from giving practical effect to its medical marijuana laws, as required under the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment. Therefore, the denial of the motion to enjoin the prosecution was affirmed. View "United States v. Sirois" on Justia Law

Nicholas and Stacy Boerson, owners of New Heights Farm I and II in Michigan, faced a disappointing corn and soybean harvest in 2019. They submitted crop insurance claims to Great American Insurance Company, which were delayed due to an ongoing federal fraud investigation. The Boersons sued Great American, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for breach of contract, bad faith adjustment, and violations of insurance laws.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the Boersons' claims. It ruled that claims related to Great American's nonpayment were unripe due to the ongoing investigation, while claims alleging false measurements and statements by Great American were ripe but subject to arbitration. The court also dismissed claims against the federal defendants on sovereign immunity grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. It held that the claims related to nonpayment were unripe because the insurance policy barred payment until the investigation concluded. The court also found that the arbitration agreement in the insurance policy covered the ripe claims against Great American, requiring those disputes to be resolved through arbitration. Additionally, the court ruled that sovereign immunity barred the claims against the federal defendants, as there was no clear waiver of immunity for constructive denial claims under the Federal Crop Insurance Act. View "New Heights Farm I, LLC v. Great American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case involves the Ohio Democratic Party and two voters, Norman Wernet and Eric Duffy, who filed a mandamus action against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose. They sought to compel LaRose to rescind Directive 2024-21, which requires individuals delivering absentee ballots for family members or disabled voters to complete an attestation at the board of elections and prohibits returning such ballots to a drop box. The directive aims to prevent "ballot harvesting" and ensure the integrity and security of absentee ballot delivery.Previously, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled in League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose that certain Ohio laws limiting who can return absentee ballots for disabled voters were preempted by the federal Voting Rights Act. Following this, LaRose issued Directive 2024-21 and later Directive 2024-24 and Advisory 2024-03, which provided additional guidance but did not substantially alter the original directive.The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the relators' claims were barred by laches due to their unreasonable delay in filing the complaint. The court noted that the directive was issued on August 31, but the complaint was not filed until September 27, a 24-day delay. This delay was deemed unreasonable, especially given the time-sensitive nature of election-related matters. The court also found that the delay caused material prejudice to the Secretary of State and county boards of elections, as absentee voting had already begun, and changing the procedures at this stage would lead to voter confusion and administrative burdens.The Ohio Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus based on laches and did not address the merits of the relators' claims. The court also denied the motion to intervene filed by the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party but accepted their brief as an amici curiae brief. View "State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, citizens of the Dominican Republic, requested records from three federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) related to the revocation of their U.S. visas. The agencies produced some records but withheld others, citing FOIA exemptions, including Exemption 3 and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 222(f). The plaintiffs challenged the adequacy of the searches and the exemptions claimed by the agencies.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reviewed the case. The government filed declarations from FOIA officials explaining the searches and the withheld records. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, concluding that the agencies conducted adequate searches and properly invoked FOIA Exemption 3 to withhold and redact documents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the agencies conducted reasonable searches and properly invoked Exemption 3. The court found that INA § 222(f) qualifies as a withholding statute under Exemption 3 and that visa revocation records fall within its scope. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the agencies' declarations violated the best evidence rule and that the searches were inadequate because they did not include alien number searches or routing requests to other DHS components. The court concluded that the agencies' actions were reasonable and in compliance with FOIA requirements. View "Jimenez v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between a taxpayers' association and a water district over the imposition of groundwater replenishment charges. The taxpayers' association alleged that the water district's charges violated constitutional provisions and unfairly benefited large agricultural businesses. The association sought a writ of mandate to stop the collection of these charges and to vacate the resolutions imposing them. They also claimed conversion, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) against the water district's board members, general manager, and consulting firms.The Superior Court of Riverside County denied the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion, which sought to strike several causes of action on the grounds that they arose from protected activities. The court found that the public interest exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute applied. Additionally, the court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the first amended petition and complaint, finding the claims time-barred under the validation statutes. The court also awarded over $180,000 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs, deeming the anti-SLAPP motion frivolous.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that the public interest exemption did not apply because the relief sought could only be provided by the water district, not the individual defendants. The court found that the anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted for most causes of action, except for conversion and the writ of mandate against the general manager. Consequently, the fee award was reversed. The court also affirmed the demurrer ruling, as the claims against the individual defendants were not legally sufficient. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Powell" on Justia Law

In 2020, Utah law temporarily allowed municipalities to annex unincorporated areas without a petition or county consent. During this period, the Town of Hideout annexed land in Summit County. After receiving a certificate of annexation from the Lieutenant Governor, Summit County challenged the annexation and the related municipal ordinance in district court, claiming procedural violations and seeking to invalidate the annexation.The Fourth Judicial District Court in Wasatch County ruled in favor of Summit County, granting summary judgment on the grounds that Summit County had standing to challenge the annexation and that the annexation ordinance was invalid due to procedural issues. The court found that Summit County had standing under various statutes and the doctrine of public interest standing.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that Summit County lacked a legally protectible interest under the relevant statutory scheme, which did not provide counties with a right to challenge annexations. The court also determined that the public interest standing doctrine could not compensate for this lack of a legally protectible interest because the legislature had explicitly excluded counties from the annexation process. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the district court to dismiss the case. View "Hideout v. Summit County" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two federally recognized Indian tribes, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians, over the excavation and development of a burial site known as Hickory Ground in Wetumpka, Alabama. The Muscogee Nation claims that the site is sacred and historically significant, containing graves and ceremonial grounds. The Poarch Band, which purchased the site in 1980 and later had it held in trust by the United States, excavated the site with Auburn University and announced plans to develop a hotel and casino on it. The Muscogee Nation sued to stop the development and restore the site.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama dismissed the Muscogee Nation's complaint, ruling that the Poarch Band and its officials enjoyed sovereign immunity. The court also found that the Poarch officials were immune under an exception to Ex parte Young for claims that are the functional equivalent of a quiet title action and implicate special sovereignty interests. The district court did not analyze the claims individually but dismissed them collectively, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred by not analyzing the Poarch officials' sovereign immunity on a claim-by-claim basis. The appellate court emphasized that each claim must be considered separately to determine whether it is the functional equivalent of a quiet title action and whether it implicates special sovereignty interests. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to allow the Muscogee Nation to amend its complaint and to analyze the claims individually. The appellate court also rejected the argument that the Supreme Court had abrogated the Coeur d’Alene exception to Ex parte Young, affirming that it remains a narrow but valid exception. View "Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Rollin" on Justia Law

K.M., an adult with multiple disabilities, including autism and a seizure disorder, has been receiving Medicaid-funded developmental disabilities services for over twenty years. These services, provided by Washington County Mental Health Services (WCMHS), were supposed to include more than thirty hours of community support each week. However, since March 2020, K.M. has only received two to five hours of support weekly, leading to negative health effects.K.M. petitioned the Human Services Board to order the Department of Disabilities, Aging, and Independent Living (DAIL) to provide the full services he is entitled to. The Board dismissed his petition, stating it failed to specify the action required for compliance and that an order to provide services without available staff was too vague. The Board also interpreted K.M.'s request as seeking a broader policy change, which it deemed outside its authority, citing Husrefovich v. Department of Aging & Independent Living.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Board's dismissal. The Court held that the Board has the statutory authority to order DAIL to provide the services K.M. is entitled to under federal and state law. The Court clarified that while the Board cannot issue broad policy injunctions, it can provide specific relief to individuals. The Court found K.M.'s request for services clear and specific enough to inform DAIL of the required action. The case was remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "In re Appeal of K.M." on Justia Law

A county auditor filed an administrative complaint against the Secretary of State, alleging that the statewide voter registration file, known as I-Voters, lacked adequate security measures and safeguards to prevent unauthorized access and erroneous removal of eligible voters, thus violating the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The Secretary of State moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was speculative and that the file complied with federal standards. The administrative body agreed and dismissed the complaint.The county auditor then sought judicial review in the Iowa District Court for Polk County, arguing that the administrative body had erred in dismissing his complaint without an evidentiary hearing. The Secretary of State contended that the county auditor lacked standing and that the complaint was insufficient. The district court dismissed the petition, concluding that the county auditor had not demonstrated an injury in fact.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the county auditor had standing due to his role as the county commissioner of elections, which gave him a specific, personal, and legal interest in the integrity of the voter registration file. The court also found that the administrative body had improperly resolved factual questions without allowing an opportunity for the presentation of evidence. The court held that the county auditor's allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss and that the administrative body should not have decided factual issues at the motion to dismiss stage.The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Linn County Auditor v. Iowa Voter Registration Commission" on Justia Law