Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a project to build a four-story hotel and extend a road in the City of Clearlake. The City approved the project after adopting a mitigated negative declaration (MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Koi Nation of Northern California, a Native American tribe, challenged the approval, alleging the City failed to comply with CEQA, particularly the provisions added by Assembly Bill No. 52, which requires consideration of tribal cultural resources and meaningful consultation with tribes.The trial court denied Koi Nation's petition for writ of mandate, concluding that the City had not violated CEQA’s consultation requirements because there was no written request from Koi Nation to invoke the right to consultation. The court also rejected Koi Nation’s claims regarding the City’s failure to investigate and mitigate the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that Koi Nation had indeed requested consultation in writing, as required by CEQA. The court determined that the City failed to conduct meaningful consultation, as it did not engage in a process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of Koi Nation, nor did it seek agreement on mitigation measures. The court concluded that the City’s failure to comply with CEQA’s consultation requirements constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion, as it omitted material necessary for informed decision-making and public participation.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and judgment, instructing the superior court to issue a writ of mandate setting aside the City’s MND and related project approvals. The court did not address Koi Nation’s other arguments, including the need for an environmental impact report (EIR). View "Koi Nation of Northern California v. City of Clearlake" on Justia Law

The case involves the Organization of Professional Aviculturists, Inc. and the Lineolated Parakeet Society, who sought to import two captive-bred parrot species, the Cactus conure and the green form of the Lineolated parakeet, from certain European countries. The Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act of 1992 prohibits the importation of these species unless they are added to a list of approved species. The plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to add these species to the list but only those bred in specific European countries. The Service denied the petitions, stating that the Act and its regulations do not allow for species to be approved on a country-by-country basis.The plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit, arguing that the Service's denial violated the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the claims with prejudice, reasoning that the Act requires the Service to consider species as a whole, not on a country-by-country basis. The court found that this interpretation aligned with the agency's long-standing interpretation and the statute's structure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the text, structure, and purpose of the Act require the Service to determine whether to exempt a species as a whole from the importation moratorium, not on a country-by-country basis. The court found that the Act's language and structure, including the requirement to consider regulatory and enforcement mechanisms in all countries of origin, support this interpretation. The court also noted that the Service's consistent interpretation since 1994 further supports this conclusion. Therefore, the Service's denial of the petitions did not violate the APA. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Organization of Professional Aviculturists, Inc. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" on Justia Law

A private, for-profit corporation, The GEO Group, Inc., which operates correctional facilities under contracts with federal and state government entities, was assessed a deficiency in sales and use taxes by the Texas Comptroller. GEO Group challenged the deficiency, arguing that the purchases made for operating the facilities were tax-exempt as they were made on behalf of government clients. The Comptroller denied the claim, and GEO Group paid the additional taxes and sued for a refund in district court.The trial court conducted a bench trial and ruled against GEO Group, finding that it failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was an "agent" or "instrumentality" of the government, thus not qualifying for the tax exemption. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that GEO Group's relationship with its government clients was too attenuated to warrant a tax exemption and that the trial court did not err in applying a heightened standard of proof.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and concluded that the correct standard of proof for GEO Group to prove its entitlement to a tax exemption is by a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. However, the court agreed with the lower courts that GEO Group is not an "agent" or "instrumentality" of the federal or state government under the relevant statutes and rules. Therefore, GEO Group is not entitled to a tax refund. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "The GEO Group, Inc. v. Hegar" on Justia Law

Antoine Smith, a police officer for the City of Cedar Rapids, was ordered to retake his official photo, which he refused. This led to a formal administrative investigation by the Cedar Rapids Police Department. Smith was notified of the investigation and later interviewed, during which he admitted to violating the department's code of conduct. The investigation concluded with a recommendation for a ten-hour suspension without pay and a requirement for Smith to retake his photo. Smith's counsel requested the investigation results and materials, which were denied until after the disciplinary decision was made.The Iowa District Court for Linn County granted summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that the City did not violate Iowa Code section 80F.1(3) or 80F.1(9) by withholding the investigative materials until after the disciplinary decision. Smith appealed this decision.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that under Iowa Code section 80F.1(3), an officer is entitled to the results of an investigation only after the agency has made a final determination, including whether discipline will be imposed. Similarly, under section 80F.1(9), the officer is entitled to investigative materials only after discipline is decided. The court concluded that the City did not violate these provisions by waiting until after the disciplinary decision to provide the requested materials. The court emphasized that the statutory language clearly conditions the rights to these materials on the imposition of discipline. View "Smith v. City of Cedar Rapids" on Justia Law

A citizen sought access to police use of force reports under the Iowa Open Records Act. The Des Moines Police Department requires officers to complete a report whenever force is used, detailing the incident's specifics. The reports are reviewed by supervisors and used for accountability, training, and identifying trends. In 2020, 387 use of force reports were filed, with only a few resulting in disciplinary action.The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted summary judgment in favor of the citizen, ordering the City of Des Moines to disclose the use of force reports. The court found that the reports were factual accounts of incidents and not evaluative or performance records, thus not exempt from disclosure under Iowa Code section 22.7(11). The court allowed redaction of information about officer injuries or medical treatment.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the use of force reports are not exempt from disclosure under section 22.7(11) as they are factual reports, not confidential personnel records. The court also rejected the City's argument that the reports were protected under Iowa Code section 80F.1(20), as this section pertains to statements and interviews in response to complaints, not routine use of force reports. The court noted that any specific redactions could be justified on other legal grounds if necessary. View "Harrison v. Mickey" on Justia Law

Alex Lancaster, who operates an adult foster care program in his home, received a correction order from Olmsted County on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) after a home inspection. The correction order cited two violations: failure to provide resident access to the upstairs living room and dining area. Lancaster did not request reconsideration of the correction order within the 20-day deadline.Lancaster appealed the correction order to the Minnesota Court of Appeals by petitioning for a writ of certiorari. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, determining that the correction order was not a quasi-judicial decision and therefore not appealable by writ of certiorari. Lancaster then petitioned for further review.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether a DHS correction order is appealable by writ of certiorari. The court held that a correction order is not a judicial or quasi-judicial decision because it does not bind and irrevocably fix the legal rights of the license holder. Instead, it merely notifies the license holder of alleged violations and the possibility of future sanctions if the violations are not corrected. As a result, the correction order does not meet the criteria for a quasi-judicial decision, which includes a binding decision regarding a disputed claim.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' dismissal of Lancaster’s appeal, concluding that the correction order was not appealable by writ of certiorari. View "Lancaster vs. Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Alpresteon Billings was hired as the executive director of the Housing Authority of Yazoo City, Mississippi, with an anticipated five-year contract and a starting salary of $65,000. However, the terms of this contract were not recorded in the Housing Authority’s board minutes. Billings was terminated from her position on February 20, 2019, and subsequently sued the Housing Authority for breach of contract, among other claims.The Yazoo County Circuit Court partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that the commissioners were immune under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act and dismissed the claims against them. However, the court denied summary judgment on Billings’s breach-of-contract claim against the Housing Authority, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and applied the rule that public boards can only act through their minutes, which must contain enough terms and conditions of a contract to determine the liabilities and obligations of the parties without resorting to other evidence. The court found that the Housing Authority’s minutes did not contain any terms of Billings’s alleged employment contract, such as her name, salary, or contract duration. Therefore, Billings’s breach-of-contract claim failed as a matter of law.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on Billings’s breach-of-contract claim and rendered judgment in favor of the Housing Authority. View "Housing Authority of The City of Yazoo City v. Billings" on Justia Law

Denise Evans was diagnosed with a ureteral injury shortly after undergoing a hysterectomy on August 14, 2019. She filed a negligence lawsuit in state court against the surgeon and associated medical entities. The surgeon was employed by a federally-funded health center, and the Attorney General certified that he was acting within the scope of his employment, allowing the United States to substitute itself as the defendant under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). The government removed the case to federal court and requested dismissal due to Evans's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court dismissed the claims against the government without prejudice and remanded the claims against the non-governmental defendants to state court.Evans then exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a claim with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which was received on September 23, 2021. After HHS failed to render a final disposition within six months, Evans filed a lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), asserting medical negligence. The government moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the claim was barred by the FTCA’s two-year statute of limitations. Evans contended that the Westfall Act’s savings provision and the doctrine of equitable tolling should apply. The district court disagreed and dismissed the suit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Westfall Act’s savings provision does not apply when the United States substitutes itself as a party under § 233(c) of the PHSA. The court also found that equitable tolling was inapplicable, as Evans did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances preventing her from timely filing her claim. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Evans's lawsuit. View "Evans v United States" on Justia Law

Volcano Telephone Company, a rural telephone service provider, receives subsidies from the California High-Cost Fund-A (A-Fund) administered by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Volcano Vision, Inc., an affiliate, uses Volcano Telephone’s broadband-capable facilities, subsidized by the A-Fund, to deliver broadband services without contributing to the underlying costs. The PUC considered Volcano Vision’s net revenues in setting Volcano Telephone’s A-Fund subsidy and future rates. The PUC also required Volcano Telephone to submit broadband service quality metrics related to Volcano Vision’s services.The PUC issued Decision No. 23-02-008, calculating Volcano Telephone’s A-Fund subsidy and approving rates for 2023. Volcano Telephone and Volcano Vision challenged this decision, arguing that the PUC’s implementation of broadband imputation constituted an unconstitutional taking and conflicted with federal law. They also contended that the order to submit broadband service quality metrics was outside the scope of the proceedings and the PUC’s jurisdiction. The PUC denied rehearing and modified the decision to clarify the reporting requirements.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court rejected the petitioners’ claims, affirming Decision Nos. 23-02-008 and 23-08-051. The court held that the PUC’s implementation of broadband imputation did not constitute an unconstitutional taking, as the A-Fund program is voluntary, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the rate of return was confiscatory. The court also found that the order to submit broadband service quality metrics was within the scope of the proceedings and the PUC’s jurisdiction. The court concluded that the PUC’s decisions were supported by substantial evidence and did not violate any constitutional rights. View "Volcano Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

Dr. Omar Almusa, a licensed medical physician and surgeon in Pennsylvania, unlawfully distributed hydrocodone between 2014 and 2018. He pleaded guilty to unlawful dispensing and distributing a controlled substance, conspiracy to distribute, and health care fraud. In 2019, he was sentenced to 24 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Consequently, the State Board of Medicine automatically suspended his medical license for at least ten years, effective August 15, 2019.Almusa did not appeal the suspension. In 2020, the General Assembly enacted Act 53, redefining how licensing boards consider criminal offenses, specifying that only drug trafficking offenses (involving at least 100 grams of a controlled substance) warrant automatic suspension. Almusa's offense did not meet this threshold. In 2021, Almusa petitioned for reinstatement of his license, arguing that Act 53 should apply to his case, allowing him to seek reinstatement without waiting ten years.The Board denied his petition, stating that Act 53 did not apply retroactively to suspensions imposed before its enactment. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting the suspension and reinstatement as a single action requiring a ten-year suspension period.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision. It held that automatic suspension and reinstatement are separate actions under the Medical Practice Act. The Court found that Act 53, effective December 28, 2020, applies to reinstatement proceedings initiated after this date. Since Almusa's offense did not qualify as drug trafficking under Act 53, the ten-year waiting period did not apply to his reinstatement petition. The Court concluded that Almusa was entitled to have his reinstatement petition considered under the new law. View "Almusa v. State Board of Medicine" on Justia Law