Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A California nonprofit organization focused on preventing deceptive environmental claims filed a lawsuit against a manufacturer of feminine hygiene products. The organization alleged that the manufacturer labeled and advertised certain products, including period underwear, pads, and panty liners, as “organic” or “made with organic cotton” in violation of the California Organic Food and Farming Act (COFFA). The complaint stated that these products contained less than the minimum required percentage of certified organic materials and included nonagricultural and nonorganically produced components not permitted under state or federal organic standards.The case was first heard in the Alameda County Superior Court. The manufacturer moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that COFFA applies only to agricultural products, cosmetics, and pet food—not to personal care products such as feminine hygiene items. The Superior Court agreed with the manufacturer and granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding that COFFA did not govern the products in question. The nonprofit timely appealed that decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court held that COFFA applies broadly to all products sold as “organic” or containing “organic” materials in California, unless specifically exempted, and that the statute’s plain language encompasses feminine hygiene products. The court found no basis for an implied exception for personal care products and determined that the trial court erred in its interpretation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, clarifying that COFFA’s standards and labeling requirements apply to the manufacturer’s products at issue. View "Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael" on Justia Law

A city in California owned a downtown parking garage known as Garage 5, which was in poor condition and underutilized according to studies conducted in 2019 and 2022. The city had previously adopted a housing plan to identify public land suitable for housing development. In public meetings and study sessions throughout 2021 and 2022, city staff and consultants presented data showing declining demand for public parking and the high cost of necessary repairs to Garage 5. After further study and public comment, the city’s council passed a resolution in December 2022 declaring Garage 5 to be surplus land under the Surplus Land Act, provided that any future development retain at least 75 public parking spaces.The owner of nearby properties, Airport Business Center, filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief in Sonoma County Superior Court. The petitioner argued the city had violated the Surplus Land Act by declaring the garage surplus while there was still an ongoing need for public parking and contended that the city’s findings were not supported by the evidence. The Superior Court denied the petition, finding the city’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious, and that there was substantial evidentiary support for the resolution. A temporary stay was granted pending appeal, but the Court of Appeal denied a request for further stay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that the Surplus Land Act’s requirement that property be “not necessary for the agency’s use” allows a city to designate property as surplus if it is not indispensable for agency operations, even if the property serves a public purpose like parking. The evidence supported the city’s determination, and the findings in the resolution satisfied statutory requirements. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, awarding costs to the city. View "Airport Business Center v. City of Santa Rosa" on Justia Law

The case concerns challenges to groundwater replenishment charges imposed by a water district in a desert region where groundwater is the main source of potable water. The water district operates three areas of benefit (AOBs) and levies replenishment charges on customers who pump significant groundwater. Domestic customers do not pay these charges directly, but their payments for drinking water are allocated to the replenishment funds through the district’s enterprise fund system. Plaintiffs, including a taxpayer association, alleged that the replenishment charges were unconstitutionally structured, resulting in higher rates for certain AOBs and unfair subsidies for others, benefitting large agricultural businesses.The litigation began with a combined petition and class action in the Superior Court of Riverside County, which was dismissed because the court found the validation statutes applied and the statute of limitations had expired. Subsequent reverse validation actions for later fiscal years were timely filed and consolidated. The Superior Court, in rulings by two judges, found the replenishment charges to be unconstitutional taxes because they did not satisfy the requirements of California Constitution Article XIII C, Section 1, subdivision (e)(2). Specifically, the court found that the district failed to show the allocation of replenishment costs bore a fair or reasonable relationship to the burdens or benefits received by each AOB, and thus the charges were not exempt from being classified as taxes. The court awarded substantial refunds to affected ratepayers and enjoined the district from imposing similar unconstitutional charges in the future.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed both the district’s appeal of the remedies and liability findings and the taxpayer association’s cross-appeal on procedural grounds. The appellate court affirmed in full, holding that the replenishment charges were unconstitutional, the remedies were proper, and that the validation statutes applied to these charges, thus barring untimely claims for earlier years. The appellate court also found no error in the trial court’s grant of refund and injunctive relief. View "Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Coachella Valley Water Dist." on Justia Law

A property owner in Los Angeles obtained a density bonus from the city in 2005, allowing him to build one additional housing unit beyond what zoning would otherwise permit, in exchange for agreeing to rent one of the units to low-income households for at least 30 years. This agreement was formalized and recorded against the property in 2006. The owner had previously taken out a mortgage, and the lender recorded its deed of trust against the property in 2005. After the owner defaulted, the lender foreclosed on the property in 2013. Several years later, new owners purchased the property, allegedly unaware of the recorded agreement requiring the low-income rental restriction.Following a notice from the City demanding compliance with the affordable housing agreement, the new owners filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, seeking quiet title and declaratory relief. They argued that the affordable housing agreement, recorded after the original deed of trust, was a junior encumbrance extinguished by the foreclosure. The City countered that the agreement was a condition of a building permit and survived foreclosure. The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the agreement was a covenant running with the land and survived foreclosure.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the affordable housing agreement was equivalent to a “condition attached to a permit” under Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(E), and thus survived foreclosure. Permit conditions that have not been timely challenged run with the land and remain enforceable against successor owners, even those who acquire the property through foreclosure. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim and were not entitled to amend their complaint. View "Rodriguez v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

An elected county commissioner was arrested during a public board meeting after she repeatedly interrupted the reading of a letter that criticized her prior statements about alleged inmate mistreatment in the county jail. The commissioner, known for her confrontational stance toward her fellow commissioners and county officials, objected to the letter being read without prior notice and continued to speak over the clerk despite warnings and calls to order from her colleagues. Two sheriff’s deputies present as security arrested her for disrupting a lawful meeting under an Ohio statute. She was processed and released the same day, and the criminal complaint was later dismissed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted partial summary judgment in favor of the commissioner on her federal claims for First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure, and denied qualified immunity and statutory immunity to the defendants on these claims and related state-law claims for false arrest and civil conspiracy. The defendants, including the deputies, fellow commissioners, and sheriff, appealed the denial of immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the deputies had probable cause to arrest the commissioner for disrupting the meeting, and thus all defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim. The court also concluded that only the deputies were personally involved in the arrest for purposes of individual First Amendment liability and that the presence of probable cause generally precluded the First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but remanded for the district court to consider whether exceptions to this rule applied. Regarding the state-law claims, the court affirmed the denial of statutory immunity, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants acted in bad faith by allegedly conspiring to arrest the commissioner in retaliation for her speech. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Frenchko v. Monroe" on Justia Law

A man seeking treatment for mental health issues voluntarily admitted himself to a hospital in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Medical staff determined he needed emergency medication and began to physically restrain him when he refused a shot. An off-duty police officer, working as a hospital security guard and wearing his police uniform, intervened. He twisted the patient's arm behind his back, and when the patient pulled away to relieve pain, the officer punched the patient’s head into a cinderblock wall, causing head trauma. The patient remained nonviolent throughout and was smaller in stature than those restraining him.Following the incident, the Chattanooga Police Department conducted an internal investigation. Opinions within the review process were divided, but the interim chief ultimately found no policy violation. The patient filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, multiple state-law torts, and municipal liability against the City for failing to train or supervise the officer. The district court granted summary judgment for the officer on all but the assault and battery claim, finding qualified immunity on the excessive force claim, and granted summary judgment for the City on all claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that, although a reasonable juror could find the officer’s use of force excessive under the circumstances, the law was not clearly established that an officer in this situation could not use such force. Therefore, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the City was not liable under Monell since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a final policymaker’s actions were the moving force behind his injury. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Guptill v. City of Chattanooga" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a microbrewery and its owner, operated a seasonal business in a tourist town and became known for engaging in political advocacy. The business applied for various permits to operate both an indoor retail outlet and, later, an outdoor beer garden. Despite being granted permits that included specific conditions—such as restrictions on outdoor operations—the plaintiffs repeatedly violated these conditions, operated without proper permits, and explicitly stated their intention to continue doing so regardless of regulatory decisions. Throughout this period, the owner was vocal in criticizing local officials on social media.After several rounds of permit applications, denials, suspensions, and revocations, the plaintiffs’ most recent permit application for an outdoor beer garden was denied by the county committee, which cited the plaintiffs’ ongoing and willful violations of permit conditions and their declared intent to continue such violations. The plaintiffs appealed administrative actions to the Oneida County Board of Adjustment, which upheld the revocations. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, asserting that the permit denials and revocations constituted retaliation for protected political speech, in violation of the First Amendment. They sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate their permit and prevent further alleged retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and affirmed it. The Seventh Circuit held that, while the plaintiffs engaged in protected speech and suffered adverse permit actions, they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment retaliation claim. The court concluded that the permit denials and revocations were based on the plaintiffs’ repeated and admitted violations of permit conditions, not on retaliatory motives, and that the plaintiffs offered no evidence of disparate treatment or pretext. View "Minocqua Brewing Company LLC v Hess" on Justia Law

A neurologist submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the United States Social Security Administration (SSA) seeking documents about how the SSA evaluates disability claims for migraines and other headache disorders. The SSA determined that this request was not directly related to the administration of any of its benefit programs. Relying on a provision in the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1306(c)), the SSA required the requester to pay the full cost of processing the request, which totaled $2,908. The requester paid the fee but later objected because the SSA did not respond within the statutory deadline set by FOIA.The United States District Court for the District of Vermont found in favor of the requester. The district court concluded that FOIA’s provision prohibiting fees when the agency fails to respond on time superseded the Social Security Act’s cost-reimbursement clause. As a result, the court ordered the SSA to refund the fee and awarded the requester attorneys’ fees and costs. The court reasoned that allowing the SSA to charge fees despite late responses would undermine the FOIA amendments designed to ensure agency timeliness.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the Social Security Act’s cost-reimbursement provision or FOIA’s fee-preclusion provision controlled. The Second Circuit held that the plain language of § 1306(c), which begins with a “notwithstanding” clause, explicitly exempts the SSA from FOIA’s fee rules for requests not directly related to program administration. The court agreed with the SSA’s determination that the request was not program-related and found the statute unambiguous. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s judgment and vacated the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. View "Shapiro v. U.S. Soc. Sec. Admin." on Justia Law

An individual incarcerated at the Belmont Correctional Institution requested various records from the sheriff relating to the operation and administration of the county jail, including policies on inmate intake and booking, personnel employed during a specified period, and records-retention policies. When his attempts to submit the requests by hand delivery and certified mail failed—one being refused and the other returned as undeliverable—he sent the requests by fax. Additionally, a third party, claiming to be his agent, submitted similar requests via email. The sheriff provided some records, stated that others had already been given, and explained that many requested records were maintained by private entities that had operated the jail under contract during relevant periods.The inmate subsequently filed a mandamus action against the sheriff and the jail, but not against the private jail administrators. The Supreme Court of Ohio previously dismissed the claim against the jail as a non-legal entity, and granted a limited writ requiring the sheriff to obtain and provide certain records from the private entities or certify their nonexistence. The court deferred the issue of statutory damages until the sheriff complied. The sheriff requested the records from the private entities, forwarded what was provided to the inmate, and filed a notice of compliance.Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied the requests for statutory damages and for contempt and sanctions. The court held that the inmate had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he successfully transmitted his records requests by hand delivery or certified mail, nor that he authorized the third party to submit requests as his agent by email. The court further found no evidence that the sheriff disobeyed or resisted the court’s prior order, noting that the sheriff acted to comply with the writ by seeking records from the private entities and forwarding their responses. The motions for statutory damages, contempt, and sanctions were therefore denied. View "State ex rel. Brown v. Columbiana Cty. Jail" on Justia Law

An agricultural company opposed a unionization effort initiated by the United Farm Workers of America, who sought certification as the exclusive bargaining representative for the company's employees under a new statutory procedure. The union filed a Majority Support Petition with the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, presenting evidence that a majority of employees supported union representation. The company responded by submitting objections and employee declarations alleging misconduct by the union during the signature collection process. The Board's regional director investigated and determined that the union had met the statutory criteria for certification, leading the Board to certify the union as the employees' representative.Following the certification, the company filed additional objections with the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, including constitutional challenges to the underlying statute. The Board dismissed most objections and set others for a hearing, but stated it could not rule on constitutional questions. While administrative proceedings were ongoing, the company filed a petition in the Superior Court of Kern County seeking to enjoin the Board from proceeding and to declare the statute unconstitutional. The Board and the union argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to statutory limits on judicial review, but the superior court nonetheless issued a preliminary injunction halting the Board's proceedings. Appeals and writ petitions followed, consolidating the matter before the reviewing court.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, held that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to consider the challenge at this stage. The court reaffirmed that under California law, employers may not directly challenge union certification decisions in court except in extraordinary circumstances, which were not present here. The proper procedure is for employers to wait until an unfair labor practice proceeding or mandatory mediation is completed and a final order is issued before seeking judicial review. The court reversed the preliminary injunction and ordered dismissal of the company’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Wonderful Nurseries v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law