Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Several trusts owned by the Garaas family hold mineral interests in McKenzie County, North Dakota. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. operates a well on these lands, which are subject to two distinct spacing units created by orders of the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC): a base unit and an overlapping unit. NDIC issued an order allocating production from the well in the overlapping unit to Section 20, which is part of the base unit but not wholly contained within the overlapping unit. This allocation reduced the Trusts’ royalty interests, prompting them to seek declaratory relief and damages.The Trusts first brought their claims in the District Court of McKenzie County, but the court dismissed the case. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Trusts were required to exhaust administrative remedies before the NDIC. Subsequently, Petro-Hunt applied to NDIC for clarification on production allocation, and NDIC issued Order No. 33453, allocating production from the overlapping unit to the base unit. The Trusts appealed NDIC’s order to the district court, which affirmed NDIC’s order. The Trusts then appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that NDIC had legal authority under statute to allocate oil and gas production among spacing units. However, the court concluded that NDIC did not regularly pursue its authority because it failed to follow proper procedures, including providing notice and opportunity to participate to all affected interest owners. As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and vacated NDIC Order No. 33453. The request for attorney’s fees by the Trusts was denied, as the record did not show NDIC acted without substantial justification. View "Garaas v. NDIC" on Justia Law

Several health care facilities and their affiliates faced administrative complaints from the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2012 for alleged unfair labor practices. The proceedings were assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Kenneth Chu, who developed the factual record over multiple hearings. During this period, the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning invalidated certain NLRB Board appointments, calling into question ALJ Chu’s own appointment. The Board later “ratified” prior actions, including Chu’s appointment, after regaining a lawful quorum. Administrative proceedings were delayed for several years due to interlocutory appeals and COVID-19, and ultimately resumed in 2023. Shortly before resumption, the plaintiffs sought to halt the proceedings, arguing the ALJ was unlawfully appointed and protected from removal in a manner unconstitutional under the separation of powers.The plaintiffs initially sought relief in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which denied a temporary restraining order and transferred the case to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. There, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, again raising constitutional arguments regarding the ALJ’s appointment and removal protections. The District of Connecticut denied the injunction, finding the plaintiffs had not shown a clear likelihood of success on the merits. Proceedings before ALJ Chu concluded in May 2024, after which Chu retired and the NLRB Board assumed de novo review of the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the appeal. It assumed jurisdiction but declined to address the likelihood of success on the merits, instead affirming the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate irreparable harm. The court held that, because all proceedings before the challenged ALJ had concluded and the Board (now lawfully constituted) would conduct de novo review, there was no risk of irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief. The order was affirmed. View "Care One, LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A.B., a 42-year-old individual with a longstanding diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, had been receiving mental health services in San Francisco since 2008, including numerous psychiatric hospitalizations and crisis interventions. He was previously under conservatorship, which ensured compliance with medication, but historically disengaged from treatment and decompensated when conservatorship ended. In October 2023, following a psychiatric incident at home involving paranoia and disruptive behavior, A.B. was hospitalized. His mother, who provided housing, testified to his history of aggression and repeated decompensation when not medicated, stating she would not allow him to live with her absent a conservatorship and mandatory medication order.The San Francisco County Superior Court initially appointed the public conservator and imposed an involuntary medication order. After a mistrial in April 2023, the parties resolved the matter by conservatorship without a medication order, but following further decompensation, the conservator sought renewal with an involuntary medication order. At the 2025 court trial, testimony from A.B.’s mother and treating psychiatrist indicated that A.B. lacked insight into his illness, would not reliably take medication without a legal mandate, and was unable to maintain shelter independently. Although A.B. testified that he now recognized his diagnosis and would comply with medication, the court credited the testimony of his mother and psychiatrist over his own.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that A.B. was presently gravely disabled due to his mental disorder and unable to provide for his own shelter without medication, which he would not take absent a court order. The appellate court also affirmed the finding that A.B. was incompetent to give or withhold informed consent for psychotropic medication. The orders renewing the conservatorship and involuntary medication were affirmed. View "Conservatorship of A.B." on Justia Law

Over three hundred restaurants and businesses applied for grants from the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF), a program established by Congress in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The plaintiffs submitted their applications on the first day the portal opened, but did not receive grants before the RRF funds were exhausted. They alleged that the SBA improperly awarded grants to later applicants instead of following the statutory requirement to award grants in the order applications were received.The United States Court of Federal Claims considered the plaintiffs’ complaint seeking damages equivalent to the unpaid grants. The Government moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and for failure to state a claim, arguing that the RRF statute did not mandate payment and that Congress imposed a cap on liability. The Court of Federal Claims denied the motion, holding that the RRF statute’s language was money-mandating, thus conferring jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, and that there was no clear statutory cap limiting the Government’s liability for the grants. The court certified its decision for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that the RRF statute was money-mandating due to its mandatory “shall award” language and the retrospective nature of the grant calculation. The court further determined that the statutory appropriation language was ambiguous and did not impose a clear cap limiting the Government’s liability. As a result, the plaintiffs’ claims fell within Tucker Act jurisdiction, and they had sufficiently stated a claim for relief. The decision of the Court of Federal Claims was affirmed. View "112 GENESEE STREET, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

Three children attending a government-owned daycare center at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of two childcare workers. The children’s parents, who had entrusted them to the Center and paid for their care, alleged that the government had provided assurances of safety and had adopted formal criteria to prevent and respond to child abuse. The parents claimed that the Center’s director failed to report the abuse to authorities and that the government breached its duty to protect the children.The parents brought suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, alleging negligence in failing to protect the children. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were barred by the FTCA’s intentional tort exception, which preserves sovereign immunity for claims arising out of certain intentional torts, including assault and battery. The district court agreed, finding that the parents’ claims were dependent on the employment status of the abusers and thus fell within the exception. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied the parents’ motion to amend, reasoning that amendment would be futile.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the FTCA’s intentional tort exception did not apply because the government’s duty to care for and protect the children was independent of the employment status of the abusers. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal and denial of leave to amend, and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to consider whether the parents had stated a claim for relief. View "John Doe, 1 v. USA" on Justia Law

Two children were placed in the temporary custody of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) by the Family Court in 2018. The Family Court determined that Newport and Cumberland were responsible municipalities for the children’s education, as they were the residences of the custodial parents. DCYF placed the children in residential treatment facilities where they received general education services, but not special education services.DCYF requested orders from the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education that Newport and Cumberland reimburse DCYF for education costs at the per-pupil special-education rate. The commissioner agreed and ordered the municipalities to pay at that rate. Both municipalities appealed to the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, which denied their appeals. The municipalities then appealed to the Rhode Island Superior Court under the Administrative Procedures Act. The Superior Court consolidated the cases and found that the statute required the municipalities to pay their share of educational costs, but not at the special-education rate unless special education services were provided. The trial justice also held that, even after statutory amendments removed references to general education, the municipalities were still responsible for the per-pupil general-education rate for children not receiving special education.On review, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island considered whether the municipalities were obligated to pay the general-education rate after the statutory reference to general education was removed. The Court held that the plain language of the statute only requires reimbursement for special education costs and does not obligate municipalities to pay for general education where no special education services are provided. The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Superior Court. View "Newport School Committee v. Rhode Island Department of Education" on Justia Law

The case concerns a referendum petition submitted in Norman, Oklahoma, regarding a municipal ordinance that adopted the Rock Creek Entertainment District Project Plan. The ordinance created two tax increment financing districts to support the construction of a multipurpose arena, parking garage, and related infrastructure. The increments from local sales and ad valorem taxes were designated to fund the project up to certain financial limits or for a maximum period of twenty-five years. The ordinance was enacted without voter approval, prompting proponents to submit a referendum petition seeking a public vote on the ordinance.After the petition was filed, including 10,689 signatures, a protest was lodged in the District Court of Cleveland County, challenging both the legal sufficiency and signature count of Referendum Petition 2425-1. The protest focused on alleged inaccuracies and omissions in the petition’s gist, which is intended to briefly and accurately describe the purpose and effect of the proposed measure for potential signatories. The District Court, presided over by Judge Jeff Virgin, concluded that the gist was insufficient, specifically finding that it misrepresented the financial triggers and duration of the tax districts, and ordered the petition invalidated and stricken.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the sufficiency of the gist de novo. The Court determined that the gist failed to accurately state the maximum amount of public assistance and omitted the fact that the tax districts would expire upon the earliest of three specified events, not necessarily after twenty-five years. These deficiencies rendered the gist misleading and legally insufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s order invalidating Referendum Petition 2425-1, holding that the petition’s gist was legally insufficient and therefore the petition could not proceed. View "Allison v. McCoy-Post" on Justia Law

Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research, a nonprofit organization, filed a motion to intervene in a closed grand jury proceeding and sought to unseal Department of Justice applications for non-disclosure orders related to a 2017 grand jury subpoena for Google account records. At the time of the subpoena, Jason Foster, Empower’s founder, was the Chief Investigative Counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, investigating alleged misconduct at the Department. Google notified Foster in 2023 that a subpoena and non-disclosure order had been issued and extended multiple times. Empower argued that the applications should be unsealed, claiming they were judicial records subject to public access under common law and the First Amendment, and that grand jury secrecy had been waived due to public disclosures.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia permitted Empower to intervene but granted only partial unsealing. It held that the applications were ancillary grand jury records protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(6), limiting unsealing to jurisdictional and legal standard sections. The court found no waiver of secrecy, as disclosures were not sufficiently public to meet the threshold established by precedent. Most of the documents remained sealed, and Empower appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the applications were covered by Rule 6(e)(6), which displaces any common law or First Amendment right of access, and that grand jury secrecy had not been waived by the disclosures identified by Empower. The court also declined to review new evidence (the December 2024 OIG report) not presented to the district court but remanded the case for the lower court to consider whether to allow Empower to amend its motion and supplement the record with the OIG report. View "In re: Application of the United States for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2705(b)" on Justia Law

Essintial Enterprise Solutions, LLC, a staffing and services company, received a $7 million Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan during the COVID-19 pandemic. The company calculated its loan amount based on its reported payroll costs, which included payments made to both employees and independent contractors. After the loan was issued and the company applied for forgiveness, its bank approved forgiveness of the full amount. However, the Small Business Administration (SBA) reviewed the forgiveness request and determined that payments made to independent contractors were not eligible as “payroll costs” under the CARES Act, resulting in only partial forgiveness. The SBA forgave approximately $3.7 million and denied forgiveness for the remainder that was based on contractor payments.Essintial challenged the SBA’s decision by filing suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The company argued that the SBA’s interpretation of “payroll costs” was erroneous and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The District Court agreed with Essintial, granting summary judgment in its favor. It held that the SBA’s exclusion of independent contractor payments from payroll costs was arbitrary and capricious, and ordered full loan forgiveness for Essintial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the statutory definition of “payroll costs” in the CARES Act de novo. The Third Circuit held that the SBA’s interpretation was correct: payments to independent contractors by a business are not included as “payroll costs” for PPP loan forgiveness purposes. The court concluded that the CARES Act provides two separate definitions of “payroll costs” depending on the borrower’s type, and Essintial’s payments to independent contractors did not qualify. The Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Essintial Enterprise Solutions LLC v. SBA" on Justia Law

In this case, the central issue arose during a countervailing duty investigation into phosphate fertilizers imported from Morocco and Russia. The International Trade Commission (Commission) collected information through questionnaires sent to various parties, including domestic and foreign producers. The Commission’s longstanding practice was to automatically designate all questionnaire responses as confidential, regardless of whether the submitting party requested confidentiality or whether the information would qualify for such treatment under the relevant statute. This led to heavy redactions in the administrative record when the investigation was challenged in court.A Moroccan producer, OCP S.A., sought review of the Commission’s injury determination in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT initially remanded the injury determination due to insufficient evidentiary support. When the remand record again included substantial redactions, the CIT held a hearing to scrutinize the Commission’s confidentiality designations. After reviewing arguments from the Commission and affected parties, the CIT concluded that the Commission’s practice of automatically treating all questionnaire responses as confidential was unauthorized by law. The CIT found that much of the redacted information was either publicly available, generalized, or outdated, and thus not entitled to confidential treatment, with only a small portion warranting protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the CIT’s Confidentiality Opinion and Order. The Federal Circuit held that the governing statute does not abrogate the common law right of public access to judicial records and that the Commission’s blanket confidentiality rule conflicts with statutory requirements, which demand public disclosure of non-confidential information and proper justification for confidentiality. The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s order that required the Commission to comply with statutory standards for confidentiality and to cease automatic confidential designation of questionnaire responses. View "In re United States" on Justia Law