Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A minor collision involving a United States Postal Service (USPS) vehicle and Michael Le resulted in severe consequences. Michael Le, who had advanced ankylosing spondylitis, was struck by a USPS vehicle while backing out of his driveway. The collision caused his car to accelerate and crash into a neighbor's house. Le was hospitalized, underwent spinal surgery, and became a quadriplegic. He later developed complications, including an esophageal tear and infections, leading to further medical issues and amputations. Le and his wife filed a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States and USPS, alleging negligence by the USPS driver.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas conducted a bench trial and found the government liable for the damages. The court awarded significant damages to Michael Le for past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and intangible damages, as well as to his wife for loss of consortium and services. The government filed a post-judgment motion for remittitur, arguing that the damages were excessive, but the district court denied the motion, finding the awards reasonable given the unique facts of the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no clear error in the determination of liability or the calculation of damages. The court upheld the awards for past and future physical pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, and disfigurement, noting that the district court's findings were supported by the evidence and within the bounds of reasonable recovery. The appellate court also rejected the government's argument that Michael Le's death during the appeal nullified the damages awards, affirming that the awards persisted as part of his estate. View "Le v. United States" on Justia Law

A dispute arose over the authority of the Red Lake Watershed District (the District) to conduct improvement proceedings for Polk County Ditch 39, which lies within the District but under the drainage authority of the Polk County Board of Commissioners. In 2017, landowners filed a petition with the District to improve Ditch 39, aiming to increase its capacity and length to capture overflow from another ditch, Ditch 66. The District accepted the petition and initiated proceedings, but Keystone Township and several landowners challenged the District's order, arguing that the District lacked authority as the ditch was not transferred from the county.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Keystone, ruling that the District did not have the authority to order the improvement because it had not taken over the ditch from the county. The court of appeals reversed this decision, concluding that the District had the authority to conduct the improvement proceedings and that the proceedings substantially conformed to statutory requirements.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the court of appeals' decision. The court held that under Minn. Stat. § 103D.625, subd. 4, the District was authorized to conduct improvement proceedings for Ditch 39 without first taking over the ditch from the county. The court also concluded that the District's proceedings conformed to the statutory requirements, despite the involvement of county officials being inconsistent with the Watershed Law. The court rejected Keystone's procedural challenges, including the timeliness of the property owners' report and the final hearing notice, affirming that these did not affect the District's authority to establish the improvement project. View "In the Matter of Keystone Township vs. Red Lake Watershed District," on Justia Law

The Village of Morrisville, Vermont, sought to renew its federal license to operate a hydroelectric project in the Lamoille River Basin. The project had been in operation since 1981. Morrisville applied for a water quality certification from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, which is required under the Clean Water Act for projects that may result in discharges into navigable waters. After lengthy discussions and two rounds of revisions, Vermont issued a conditional water certification. Dissatisfied with the conditions, Morrisville argued that Vermont waived its certification authority by allowing Morrisville to withdraw and resubmit its application twice.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reviewed the case and found that Morrisville had unilaterally withdrawn and resubmitted its application to negotiate more favorable conditions, rather than at the behest of the state. FERC concluded that there was no evidence of a coordinated scheme between Morrisville and Vermont to delay the certification process. Consequently, FERC determined that Vermont did not waive its statutory certification authority.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and upheld FERC's decision. The court found that Morrisville's actions were unilateral and in its own interest, and there was no mutual agreement with Vermont to delay the certification process. The court distinguished this case from Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, where there was a clear agreement to delay certification. The court concluded that Vermont did not waive its certification authority and denied Morrisville's petitions for review. View "Village of Morrisville, VT v. FERC" on Justia Law

Ryan Holman sued the County of Butte, alleging it breached mandatory duties under Government Code section 815.6 related to the evaluation, investigation, and cross-reporting of a child abuse referral against him. Holman claimed the County failed to conduct an in-person investigation or cross-report the abuse allegations, leading to years of abuse and subsequent psychological issues. The County argued its employee exercised discretion in deciding to "evaluate out" the referral without further investigation, thus invoking discretionary immunity.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, concluding that the County's employee was exercising discretion protected by immunity when deciding to close the referral without an in-person investigation or cross-reporting. The court found no mandatory duty was breached, and the County was not liable under Government Code section 815.6.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the County had a mandatory duty under section 11166, subdivision (j), to cross-report the child abuse referral to law enforcement and other agencies. The court determined that the duty to cross-report is triggered by the receipt of a mandated child abuse report and does not involve discretionary judgment. The appellate court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether the County breached this mandatory duty by failing to cross-report the referral, thus reversing the summary judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Holman v. County of Butte" on Justia Law

Sean Hart and Tiffany Guzman filed a lawsuit against the City of Grand Rapids and three police officers, alleging excessive force during a 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstration. Hart and Guzman claimed that the officers used excessive force and that the City ratified this conduct. The officers sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the City argued that the plaintiffs failed to establish municipal liability.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the City and the officers, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and declining jurisdiction over the state claims. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity for Officer Johnson and Sergeant Bush, finding that the plaintiffs did not show that the officers violated clearly established rights. However, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment for Officer Reinink, determining that a reasonable jury could find that he used excessive force when he fired a Spede-Heat canister at Hart at close range, which could be considered deadly force. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on this claim.The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of municipal liability based on ratification of unconstitutional conduct. The plaintiffs' evidence, a spreadsheet of excessive force complaints, lacked qualitative specifics to show a pattern of inadequate investigations by the City. View "Hart v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich." on Justia Law

Boyle Ventures, LLC (Boyle) operates franchised retail pet stores selling cats and dogs from USDA-regulated breeders. After obtaining a business license in Fayetteville, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 6587, prohibiting such sales unless the animals were obtained from approved shelters or rescue organizations. Boyle filed suit against the City, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Ordinance violated Arkansas statutes, injunctive relief, and damages under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The parties agreed to a temporary restraining order, preventing the Ordinance from taking effect. Before the circuit court could rule, the City repealed the Ordinance, rendering the declaratory relief moot. The circuit court ultimately ruled in favor of the City, finding the Ordinance conflicted with state law but that the City was protected by qualified immunity.The Benton County Circuit Court dismissed Boyle's complaint, finding that the Ordinance conflicted with state law but that the City was immune from damages as it did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Boyle appealed, arguing the Ordinance violated the Arkansas Constitution and that the City was not immune from damages. The City cross-appealed, arguing the Ordinance did not violate state law.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and held that the circuit court erred in finding the Ordinance violated state law because it never went into effect and did not deprive Boyle of any rights or cause damages. Consequently, the court reversed the circuit court's decision on the cross-appeal and remanded for dismissal. The direct appeal and any remaining issues were dismissed as moot. View "BOYLE VENTURES, LLC V. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE" on Justia Law

Tracy Turner, a railway conductor employed by BNSF Railway for fifteen years, failed two vision tests required by federal law in 2020. The first test was the Ishihara 14-plate clinical vision test, which Turner failed due to a color deficiency affecting his perception of red and green. At his request, Turner was given a second vision field test by BNSF’s medical examiner, which he also failed. Consequently, BNSF did not recertify Turner as a conductor, as required by federal regulations.Turner did not appeal the denial of his recertification through the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) administrative review process. Instead, he filed a disability-discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which provided him with a right-to-sue letter. Turner then sued BNSF, claiming that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by not recertifying him due to his color deficiency. BNSF moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the motion, ruling that Turner was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA and that his claim was precluded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Turner was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA because he failed to obtain the FRA-required certification and did not exhaust the available administrative remedies. The court emphasized that BNSF was bound by federal law and FRA regulations, which mandated the vision tests and certification process. Turner’s failure to pursue the FRA’s appeals process meant he could not establish an essential element of his ADA claim. View "Turner v. BNSF Railway" on Justia Law

Kelly Rose, a former cashier at Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued her employer under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), alleging violations of the “suitable seating” provisions of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. After a nine-day bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, and judgment was entered accordingly. Rose appealed, but the judgment was affirmed. Subsequently, Hobby Lobby sought nearly $125,000 in litigation costs as the prevailing party, which the trial court ordered the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to pay, despite the LWDA not participating in the litigation.The LWDA appealed the cost order, raising the issue of whether it could be held liable for litigation costs in a PAGA action where it did not participate. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court concluded that even if a prevailing defendant in a PAGA action is entitled to recover costs under the general cost recovery rule, those costs are not recoverable against the LWDA if it did not participate in the litigation. The court emphasized that the LWDA was not a party to the lawsuit and did not take any action until after the judgment was entered.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order requiring the LWDA to pay Hobby Lobby's litigation costs. The court held that the LWDA, as the real party in interest in a PAGA action, is not liable for costs if it did not intervene or participate in the litigation. The decision clarified that the LWDA's role in PAGA actions does not automatically make it liable for litigation costs incurred by a prevailing defendant. View "Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores" on Justia Law

Sean C. Flynn was laid off from his full-time job at Sun Valley Brewing Company during the COVID-19 pandemic and applied for unemployment benefits from the Idaho Department of Labor (IDOL) on March 25, 2020. Flynn received unemployment benefits from March 29, 2020, through June 27, 2020, while he was still employed part-time as a French teacher for the Community School, Inc. Flynn did not report his earnings from the Community School on the weekly certification forms required by IDOL. Additionally, when Flynn returned to full-time work at Sun Valley Brewing, he inaccurately reported his income for the week ending June 27, 2020.Flynn's claim for unemployment benefits was audited two years later, revealing discrepancies in his reported income. IDOL issued an eligibility determination letter retroactively denying Flynn's unemployment benefits and imposing civil penalties for willfully making false statements or failing to report material facts. Flynn appealed to the Idaho Department of Labor Appeals Bureau, arguing that his omissions were honest mistakes. The Appeals Examiner modified IDOL’s determination, finding Flynn misunderstood the reporting requirements for his part-time job but willfully misreported his income from Sun Valley Brewing for one week.IDOL appealed to the Idaho Industrial Commission, which conducted a de novo review and reversed the Appeals Examiner’s decision. The Commission reinstated IDOL’s original eligibility and overpayment determinations, concluding that Flynn’s omissions were willful based on the explicit instructions provided by IDOL and Flynn’s repeated failure to accurately report his income.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the Commission’s decision, holding that Flynn’s omissions constituted a willful misstatement or concealment of material facts under Idaho Code section 72-1366(12). The Court determined that Flynn knew or should have known the necessity of reporting all income, and his failure to do so was intentional. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. View "Flynn v. Sun Valley Brewing Company" on Justia Law

Michael Poffenbarger, a First Lieutenant in the Air Force Reserve, filed a lawsuit challenging the Air Force’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, claiming it violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment. He sought a religious exemption, which was denied, and subsequently refused the vaccine. As a result, he received a letter of reprimand and was placed on inactive status, losing pay and retirement points. Poffenbarger sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including restoration of lost pay and points.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio initially granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Air Force from taking further punitive action against Poffenbarger. In a related case, Doster v. Kendall, the same court certified a class of affected service members and issued similar injunctions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed these injunctions, but the Supreme Court later vacated the decision on mootness grounds after Congress directed the rescission of the vaccine mandate. The district court then dismissed Poffenbarger's case as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The court held that Poffenbarger’s claim for lost drill pay and retirement points was barred by federal sovereign immunity. The court explained that RFRA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not unequivocally include claims for money damages against the federal government. Since Poffenbarger’s claim sought retrospective compensation for a previous legal wrong, it constituted money damages, which are not covered by RFRA’s waiver. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case. View "Poffenbarger v. Kendall" on Justia Law