Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal relief programs such as the EIDL and PPP were implemented to assist small businesses. In Puerto Rico, a scheme led by Manfred Pentzke-Lemus fraudulently obtained such loans using fabricated documents and kickbacks. Jayson Pastrana-Román, owner of a food kiosk, became involved after Pentzke contacted him and assisted with loan applications. Pastrana allowed co-conspirators to alter his documents and apply for loans in his name, resulting in approved loans and kickbacks paid to Pentzke. Pastrana also recruited his brother and friends into the scheme, relaying instructions and collecting their kickback payments, though he did not retain these funds.A federal grand jury indicted Pastrana on ten counts, including wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy. He initially planned to go to trial but later pleaded guilty to all counts. At sentencing in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, the court determined Pastrana acted as a "manager" in the conspiracy, applying a three-level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). The court declined to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, finding his acceptance was not timely and he had not admitted to his full role as recruiter and intermediary. The court imposed a 33-month concurrent sentence for all counts, below the calculated Guidelines range.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Pastrana challenged the sentencing enhancements and denial of the acceptance reduction. The First Circuit held the district court did not err in applying the managerial role adjustment but did clearly err in denying the reduction for acceptance of responsibility, as Pastrana had admitted relevant conduct and timely notified the government of his intent to plead guilty. The court vacated Pastrana’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "US v. Pastrana-Roman" on Justia Law

Several plaintiffs, who own downstream water rights on the Baker-Lehman Creeks in Nevada, alleged that activities by Great Basin National Park—including water diversion and vegetation planting—reduced water flow and threatened their ability to use water as determined by a 1934 Nevada state court decree. This decree (the Baker-Lehman Decree) set out the rights of all claimants to water from these creeks, which now originate and flow through federally managed land. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the United States from activities that interfered with their water rights.The case began in Nevada state court, where plaintiffs filed to enforce their rights under the 1934 decree. The United States removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and asserted sovereign immunity from suit. The district court found that sovereign immunity was not waived, reasoning that the McCarran Amendment did not apply because the United States did not participate in the original adjudication and thus the decree was not “comprehensive.” It dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the McCarran Amendment retroactively waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for suits seeking administration of water rights determined in a comprehensive state adjudication. The court found that the Baker-Lehman Adjudication was comprehensive under Nevada’s statutory system, regardless of the United States’ prior participation. The plaintiffs’ suit to enforce their adjudicated water rights constitutes administration under the McCarran Amendment. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case, holding that the United States’ sovereign immunity was waived for this suit. View "BAKER RANCHES, INC. V. BURGUM" on Justia Law

An incarcerated individual submitted two separate public records requests to a police department in Ohio, one in March 2024 and another in March 2025. The first request, sent from an email account not in his own name and using a contraband cellphone from prison, sought ten categories of documents, including personnel records, budget materials, and complaints against officers. This email was inadvertently diverted to the department’s spam folder and went unnoticed for over a year. The second request, allegedly sent from an account in his own name, sought five items, including records of administrative leave, budget reports, payroll information, and complaints. Shortly after sending the second request, the individual initiated an action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the department to produce records responsive to both requests.Upon receiving the mandamus complaint, the Put-in-Bay Police Department investigated and discovered the March 2024 email in its spam folder, then promptly responded to both requests, providing available records and written explanations for items that did not exist. The department stated that some requested records, such as use-of-force reports and booking-and-release policies, were not maintained. The department also challenged the applicability of recent statutory amendments barring inmates from receiving statutory damages, but the Supreme Court of Ohio determined those amendments did not apply to this action because it was filed before their effective dates.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that the relator failed to rebut the department’s attestations that all responsive records had been produced. The court found no clear or convincing evidence that additional records existed or that the department unreasonably delayed its responses, particularly given the circumstances surrounding the March 2024 request. Thus, the court denied the writ of mandamus, statutory damages, and court costs. View "State ex rel. Harris v. Put-in-Bay Police Dept." on Justia Law

Three transgender individuals sought to amend the sex designations on their Oklahoma birth certificates to align with their gender identities. They obtained state court orders directing these changes, but when presented to the Oklahoma State Department of Health, the applications were denied. The denial was based on an executive order issued by the Governor, which instructed the agency to cease amending birth certificates in ways not explicitly permitted by Oklahoma law.Plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, raising equal protection and due process claims against state officials. The District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the due process claim but reversed on the equal protection claim. Defendants sought certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which issued a Grant, Vacate, Remand order directing the Tenth Circuit to reconsider in light of United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495 (2025). Subsequently, the Tenth Circuit certified three questions of Oklahoma law to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that Oklahoma Statute 63 O.S. § 1-321, as amended by § 1-321(H), prohibits changes to the sex designation on an Oklahoma birth certificate. The court further determined that neither current nor prior versions of the statute have ever permitted such changes, whether based on gender identity or otherwise. The answers to the certified questions were: 1) yes, the statute prohibits changes; 2) no, it has never permitted such changes; and 3) no, it does not now nor has ever permitted changes based on gender identity. View "FOWLER v. STITT" on Justia Law

An incarcerated individual submitted 73 public-records requests over ten days to various offices and employees within a state corrections department, a privately managed prison facility, and a food services provider. The requests sought records-retention schedules, records-retention policies, and public-records policies for the years 2023 or 2024, including department-specific documents from areas such as laundry, dental care, religious services, commissary, and education. After not receiving the documents he believed responsive, the requester filed a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandamus to compel production, statutory damages totaling $73,000, and court costs.The Supreme Court of Ohio previously dismissed claims against individual employees of the prison but allowed claims against the corrections department, the private prison manager, the facility, the food services provider, and certain employees. The corrections department and the private prison manager subsequently provided general records-retention and public-records policies, as well as a records-retention schedule. The requester argued these were insufficient, insisting he sought department-specific policies and schedules. Additional motions filed by the requester, including for default judgment and injunctive relief, were also considered.The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the requester failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the department-specific records he sought existed. The court found that the general policies provided applied to all departments and that separate department-specific policies did not exist. As such, the requester could not establish a clear legal right to relief or that any respondent failed to comply with obligations under the Public Records Act. The court also held that the private food-services provider was presumed not subject to the Public Records Act, and the requester failed to rebut that presumption. The court denied the writ, statutory damages, court costs, and all other motions. View "State ex rel. Ellis v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr." on Justia Law

TC Telephone participated as a provider in California’s LifeLine program, offering measured-rate telephone service to low-income customers. This service allowed subscribers 60 untimed local calls per month, for which TC Telephone incurred per-minute charges from other carriers. To recoup its costs, TC Telephone sought and received reimbursement from the California Public Utilities Commission (the Commission) based on the total minutes used, rather than per-call. Over several years, Commission staff approved these per-minute reimbursement claims and provided guidance that was ambiguous about the proper method for calculating reimbursements.The Commission began investigating TC Telephone’s reimbursement practices after concerns arose regarding claim amounts. In March 2020, the Commission issued a resolution clarifying that LifeLine providers should seek reimbursement on a per-call basis, not per-minute, and specified that this clarification applied prospectively. However, the Commission subsequently initiated proceedings to determine whether TC Telephone’s prior per-minute reimbursement claims violated program rules. In its initial decision, the Commission found that TC Telephone had improperly sought per-minute reimbursement and ordered it to repay over $8 million in funds received between January 2018 and March 2020, plus interest. TC Telephone’s petition for rehearing was denied.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the Commission’s decisions. The court held that prior to the Commission’s resolution, the reimbursement rules were unconstitutionally vague and failed to provide TC Telephone with fair notice that per-minute reimbursement was prohibited. Because even Commission staff did not know whether per-minute reimbursement was allowed, punishing TC Telephone for its claims violated due process. The court annulled the Commission’s decisions and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "TC Telephone v. Pub. Utilities Com." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the division of a government pension earned by an employee during a lengthy period of cohabitation before marriage. The employee worked at the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), contributing to his pension from 1987 to 2018. He and his partner began living together in 1993, executed a domestic partnership affidavit for benefits, purchased a home jointly, and eventually married in 2003. After their relationship ended, the partner sought legal separation and also filed a civil action alleging breach of an oral agreement made during their cohabitation period, in which they agreed to pool their earnings and share equally any property acquired as a result.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco consolidated the civil and divorce proceedings. It bifurcated the case, first trying the claims regarding the oral agreement. After trial, the court found that an implied-in-fact (Marvin) agreement existed during the cohabitation period, entitling each party to an equal share of property acquired, including pension contributions and accumulations. The employee moved to clarify that statutory protections made his pension “unassignable” and “exempt from execution,” but the court held that the partner was entitled to half of the pension benefits accrued during the Marvin period, and could receive payment upon distribution or via other assets after actuarial valuation.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed whether Public Utilities Code section 12337 barred the partner from sharing in pension benefits accrued during cohabitation. The court held that section 12337 does not prohibit the partner from receiving a share of pension contributions and accumulations, because her claim was based on ownership arising from the Marvin agreement, not as a creditor or assignee. The trial court’s order was affirmed. View "Seiwald v. Irias" on Justia Law

Crown Resources Corporation and its parent company operated the Buckhorn Mountain Mine in Okanogan County, Washington, under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Alleging violations of the Clean Water Act related to the mine’s discharges, both the Okanogan Highlands Alliance (OHA), a private environmental group, and the State of Washington filed separate citizen suits against Crown in 2020. The cases were consolidated and jointly litigated for several years. After mediation failed, OHA and Crown negotiated a settlement without Washington’s involvement. OHA and Crown submitted a proposed consent decree to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, which resolved OHA’s claims only. The district court entered the consent decree.Following the entry of the consent decree, Crown moved for judgment on the pleadings in Washington’s suit, arguing that the claims were barred by claim preclusion due to the prior resolution of OHA’s suit. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington agreed, finding that Washington was in privity with OHA and thus barred from pursuing its claims. Washington’s motion for relief from judgment was denied, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that Washington, not being a party to the consent decree and not in privity with OHA, was not barred from bringing its suit. The court found that the exceptions to nonparty preclusion identified in Taylor v. Sturgell did not apply here. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "WASHINGTON V. CROWN RESOURCES CORP." on Justia Law

A financial services company operating a designated contract market began offering sports-event contracts, which allowed users to buy and sell positions based on the outcome of various sporting events. These offerings attracted the attention of Ohio and Tennessee state gambling regulators, who asserted that the company was violating state gambling laws by operating without appropriate licenses and by allowing underage users to participate. Both states sent cease-and-desist letters to the company, demanding it stop offering sports-event contracts to their residents. The company, which claimed to be federally authorized under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), argued that federal law preempted state regulation of its activities.In Ohio, the company filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of state gambling laws against it. The district court denied the injunction, finding the company had not demonstrated that its sports-event contracts were “swaps” subject to exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and, even if they were, had not established federal preemption. The company appealed. In Tennessee, a similar suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which granted a preliminary injunction, holding the company was likely to succeed because the contracts constituted “swaps” and conflict preemption applied. Tennessee officials appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed both cases together. It held that the company’s sports-event contracts did not satisfy the statutory definition of a “swap” under the CEA and thus did not fall within CFTC exclusive jurisdiction. The court further held that, even assuming the contracts were swaps, the CEA neither expressly nor impliedly preempted Ohio’s or Tennessee’s gambling laws. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction in Ohio, vacated the grant of the injunction in Tennessee, and remanded for further proceedings. View "KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler" on Justia Law

The federal government expanded the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to allow state and local authorities to verify the citizenship status of registered voters and individuals registering to vote. This new version of the program incorporated Social Security Administration (SSA) records, including social security numbers, and permitted bulk searches. Under the modified program, personal information would be cross-checked with SSA databases, and if citizenship could not be confirmed, individuals would be required to provide additional proof to register or remain registered to vote.The League of Women Voters and other organizations sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), SSA, and related federal entities, claiming that the modified SAVE program violated confidentiality provisions of the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The organizations sought summary judgment. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in their favor, vacated the modified SAVE program, and denied the government’s request for a stay. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also denied a stay, with a dissent.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the government’s application for a stay. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff organizations likely had standing but concluded their claims were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The Court explained that 8 U.S.C. §1373, enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), authorizes DHS to request and receive information about citizenship status from other agencies, overriding restrictions in other laws. The Supreme Court granted the government’s application for a stay, allowing the modified SAVE program to operate pending appeal and possible review by the Supreme Court. View "Department of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters" on Justia Law