Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Puerto Rico's attempt to enact Law 29, which aimed to relieve municipalities from contributing to the Commonwealth's reformed public pension funding scheme. The Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the Board) challenged the law, and the Title III court overseeing Puerto Rico's debt restructuring declared Law 29 a nullity and of no effect. This decision was not appealed. La Liga de Ciudades de Puerto Rico (La Liga) argued that the Title III court's order did not authorize the Board to recover funds retained by municipalities under Law 29 before the order took effect.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, interpreting its own prior order, granted motions to dismiss filed by the Board and other defendants. The court dismissed some claims on the merits and others for lack of standing. The court held that the Title III court's order applied retroactively, nullifying Law 29 from its inception and allowing the Board to recover the funds.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of La Liga's complaint. It held that the Title III court's order declaring Law 29 a nullity and of no effect applied retroactively, covering the period from the law's enactment. The court found that the Title III court had the authority under PROMESA to nullify Law 29 from its inception and that the Board's actions to recover the funds were justified. The court also addressed standing issues, affirming that La Liga had standing to sue the Board and CRIM but not the executive branch defendants. View "La Liga de Ciudades de P.R. v. Financial Oversight and Management Board" on Justia Law

F.C. Bloxom Company, a Seattle-based distributor of fresh produce, entered into an agreement with Seven Seas Fruit to deliver three loads of onions to Honduras. The onions required phytosanitary certificates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to clear Honduran customs, but the parties did not explicitly discuss who would procure these certificates. Bloxom believed Seven Seas would handle it, based on past practices and vague assurances. However, the onions were shipped without the necessary certificates, leading to their rejection in Honduras and eventual spoilage upon return to the U.S.Seven Seas initiated administrative proceedings under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) when Bloxom refused to pay for the onions. The Secretary of Agriculture ruled in favor of Seven Seas, finding no evidence that Seven Seas had agreed to procure the certificates. Bloxom appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, which granted summary judgment for Seven Seas. The court found that Bloxom had accepted the onions at the Port of Long Beach and did not revoke that acceptance, thus obligating Bloxom to pay for the onions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Bloxom had accepted the onions by shipping them to Honduras and did not revoke this acceptance even after learning the certificates were missing. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Bloxom's request for additional discovery time, as further discovery would not have changed the outcome. The court concluded that Bloxom was liable for the payment under PACA. View "F.C. Bloxom Company v. Tom Lange Company International, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Business and Professions Code section 7451, enacted through Proposition 22, which classifies app-based drivers for companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash as independent contractors rather than employees, provided certain conditions are met. This classification exempts these drivers from California workers’ compensation laws, which typically apply to employees. Plaintiffs, including several individuals and unions, argue that section 7451 conflicts with article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution, which grants the Legislature plenary power to create and enforce a complete system of workers’ compensation.The Alameda County Superior Court found Proposition 22 unconstitutional, reasoning that it improperly limited the Legislature’s power to govern workers’ compensation, a power deemed "unlimited" by the state Constitution. The court held that the people must amend the Constitution through an initiative constitutional amendment, not an initiative statute, to impose such limitations. Consequently, the court invalidated Proposition 22 in its entirety.The California Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that article XIV, section 4 does not preclude the electorate from using its initiative power to legislate on workers’ compensation matters. The court reasoned that the Legislature’s power under article XIV, section 4 is not exclusive and that Proposition 22 does not conflict with this constitutional provision. The court did, however, affirm the invalidation of certain severable provisions of Proposition 22 not at issue in this appeal.The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment, agreeing that section 7451 does not conflict with article XIV, section 4. The court held that the Legislature’s plenary power under article XIV, section 4 is not exclusive and does not preclude the electorate from enacting legislation through the initiative process. The court did not address whether other provisions of Proposition 22 improperly constrain the Legislature’s authority, as those issues were not presented in this case. View "Castellanos v. State of California" on Justia Law

Enright Seeding, Inc. is involved in a dispute with the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO, regarding the nature of their collective bargaining agreement. Enright Seeding, a construction industry subcontractor, signed a bargaining agreement with the union in 2007, which included language suggesting it was a § 9(a) agreement under the National Labor Relations Act, indicating majority employee support for the union. The company later claimed that its obligations ended when it repudiated the contract in 2016. The union, however, argued that the agreement was a § 9(a) agreement and that the company violated the Act by not providing requested information.An administrative law judge determined that the agreement was a § 9(a) agreement and that Enright Seeding violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing to provide the requested information. The judge also concluded that even if the agreement was under § 8(f), the company did not clearly repudiate it. A three-member panel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) affirmed this decision, focusing on the § 9(a) status and not addressing the repudiation issue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the NLRB's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as there was no actual evidence of majority employee support for the union in 2007, only boilerplate contract language. The court emphasized that all evidence must be considered to determine the status of the relationship, and mere contract language is insufficient. The court also rejected the argument that Enright Seeding was barred from disputing the agreement's status due to the six-month limitation period in § 10(b) of the Act.The Eighth Circuit vacated the NLRB's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, without expressing a view on whether Enright Seeding had effectively repudiated the agreement or whether the union was entitled to the requested information under a § 8(f) agreement. View "NLRB v. Enright Seeding, Inc." on Justia Law

The City of Custer applied for a permit from the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) to discharge treated wastewater into French Creek as part of an upgrade to its wastewater treatment facility. Preserve French Creek, Inc. (Preserve), a group of local citizens, opposed this discharge. Two years after the permit was issued, a Custer County ordinance was passed by citizen initiative, declaring the discharge of treated water into French Creek a nuisance. Preserve demanded the City cease construction based on the new ordinance, but the City did not comply. Preserve then sought mandamus relief to enforce the ordinance, which the circuit court denied.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Custer County found that the ordinance conflicted with state law, specifically SDCL 21-10-2, which states that actions done under the express authority of a statute cannot be deemed a nuisance. The court concluded that the City’s actions, authorized by the DANR permit, could not be considered a nuisance. The court also rejected Preserve’s estoppel argument, stating that the City and County had no duty to enforce an ordinance that conflicted with state law.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the ordinance was preempted by state law because it attempted to declare a nuisance something that state law expressly authorized. The court also found that the City and County were not estopped from asserting the ordinance’s invalidity, as their actions in placing the ordinance on the ballot and canvassing the vote were statutorily required and did not constitute an inconsistent position. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was properly denied. View "Preserve French Creek V. Custer County" on Justia Law

The case involves a public-records request submitted by David Armiak and the Center for Media and Democracy to the Ohio Attorney General. The request sought documents related to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and the Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF). The Attorney General refused to produce the documents, arguing they were not public records as defined by Ohio law. Armiak then filed a mandamus action to compel the production of the documents.The Tenth District Court of Appeals handled the initial proceedings. During discovery, the court allowed Armiak to conduct broad discovery to test the Attorney General's claim that the documents were not public records. This included deposing the Attorney General and obtaining extensive documents and interrogatories. The Attorney General sought a protective order to limit this discovery, arguing it was overly burdensome and interfered with his constitutional duties. The Tenth District denied the protective order and allowed the broad discovery to proceed.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case to determine whether the discovery order was appealable. The court found that the order met the criteria for a provisional remedy under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4), as it determined the action regarding the discovery dispute and prevented a judgment in favor of the Attorney General. The court also found that the Attorney General would not be able to obtain effective relief through an appeal following final judgment, as the discovery process itself would cause irreparable harm. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied Armiak's motion to dismiss the appeal and set the matter for oral argument. View "State ex rel. Ctr. for Media & Democracy v. Yost" on Justia Law

The case involves a coalition of states led by Washington suing the FDA over its 2023 REMS, which eliminated in-person dispensing requirements for the abortion drug mifepristone. Washington argues that the FDA should have further reduced restrictions on the drug, claiming that the remaining requirements impose unnecessary hurdles. Idaho, leading another coalition of states, sought to intervene, arguing that the elimination of the in-person dispensing requirement would harm its interests by making the drug easier to obtain and harder to police, potentially increasing Medicaid costs and endangering maternal health and fetal life.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied Idaho's motion to intervene. The court found that Idaho did not have a significantly protectable interest that would be impaired by the litigation, as its complaint concerned different aspects of the 2023 REMS. The court also denied permissive intervention, concluding that Idaho's claims did not share common questions of law or fact with Washington's claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of Idaho's motion to intervene as of right. The Ninth Circuit held that Idaho must independently satisfy the requirements of Article III standing because it sought different relief from Washington. The court concluded that Idaho's complaint did not establish a cognizable injury-in-fact that was fairly traceable to the FDA's revised safe-use restrictions. Idaho's alleged economic injuries, law enforcement burdens, and quasi-sovereign interests were deemed too speculative or indirect to confer standing. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the portion of the appeal concerning the denial of permissive intervention. View "STATE OF WASHINGTON V. FDA" on Justia Law

The case involves individual falconers and the American Falconry Conservancy challenging state and federal regulations that require them to consent to unannounced, warrantless inspections as a condition for obtaining a falconry license. The plaintiffs argue that these regulations impose unconstitutional conditions on their right to obtain a license and violate the Fourth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate injury in fact because they had not been subjected to a warrantless inspection under the challenged regulations and had not shown that future inspections were imminent. The district court also found that the American Falconry Conservancy lacked associational standing because it did not allege that its members faced immediate or threatened injury from unannounced inspections.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs' unconstitutional-conditions claim against the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), holding that the plaintiffs had standing because they were forced to choose between retaining their Fourth Amendment rights and obtaining a falconry license. The court affirmed the dismissal of the remaining claims against CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), finding that the plaintiffs' claims against FWS were unripe and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of future injury to support their Fourth Amendment claims. The court also concluded that the American Falconry Conservancy had standing for its unconstitutional-conditions claim but not for its unannounced-inspection claim.The Ninth Circuit's main holding was that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the unconstitutional conditions imposed by CDFW but lacked standing for their other claims. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "PETER STAVRIANOUDAKIS V. USFWS" on Justia Law

SO Apartments, LLC and Elm Creek, LLC (the “Complexes”) challenged the City of San Antonio’s Proactive Apartment Inspection Program (PAIP), which was created to address property maintenance code violations. The PAIP requires multifamily apartment complexes with five or more units to enroll if they receive three or more code citations over six months that are not cured. Enrolled complexes are subject to monthly inspections and a $100 per-unit, per-year fee. The Complexes received multiple code violation notices, failed to cure them, and were fined and enrolled in the PAIP, resulting in significant fees.The Complexes filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, arguing that the PAIP violated the Fourth Amendment by allowing warrantless inspections, the Eighth Amendment by imposing excessive fines, and the Fourteenth Amendment by denying procedural and substantive due process. The district court denied their request for a preliminary injunction, finding they failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, that the balance of harms favored them, or that an injunction would serve the public interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the PAIP does not authorize warrantless searches, as it does not explicitly state that city officials can conduct searches without a warrant. The $100 per-unit fee was found to be administrative rather than punitive, and thus not excessive under the Eighth Amendment. The court also found that the PAIP provided adequate procedural due process through its notice and appeal processes. Lastly, the court determined that the Complexes failed to show that the PAIP’s requirements were so egregious as to violate substantive due process. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. View "SO Apartments v. City of San Antonio" on Justia Law

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a health advisory in 2022 for HFPO-DA, a chemical found in drinking water. The Chemours Company, which uses HFPO-DA in manufacturing, challenged the advisory, arguing it was unlawful. Chemours contended that the advisory violated procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the nondelegation doctrine.Chemours petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for review, invoking the section of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that allows for review of final actions by the EPA Administrator. Chemours argued that the health advisory was a final agency action, thus subject to judicial review. The EPA, however, maintained that the advisory was not a final action but rather a nonbinding document meant to provide information to decision-makers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the health advisory did not constitute a final agency action because it did not determine any rights or obligations, nor did it have direct and appreciable legal consequences. The court emphasized that the advisory was informational and non-enforceable, and any legal consequences would result from subsequent actions by other entities, not from the advisory itself. Therefore, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the advisory under the SDWA. View "The Chemours Company FC, LLC v. EPA" on Justia Law