The case involves an unfair labor practice dispute between Rieth-Riley Construction Co., a highway construction contractor in Michigan, and Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO. The dispute centers on subcontracting and employee wages. The last collective-bargaining agreement expired on May 31, 2018, and despite multiple bargaining sessions, no successor agreement has been reached. The Union went on strike on July 31, 2019, and picketing incidents ensued, including an altercation where a striking union member, Michael Feighner, assaulted a truck driver, Karl Grinstern.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel issued complaints against both parties: against the Union for picketing misconduct and against Rieth-Riley for failing to provide requested subcontracting and employee information. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Rieth-Riley violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by not providing the requested information and that the Union violated the NLRA when Feighner assaulted Grinstern. The ALJ ordered Rieth-Riley to provide the requested information and the Union to cease and desist from such misconduct. The NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision with a slight modification.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that President Biden lawfully removed the NLRB General Counsel, and the General Counsel had unreviewable prosecutorial discretion. The court found substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusions that the requested information was relevant to the Union’s bargaining responsibilities and that Rieth-Riley’s refusal to provide it violated the NLRA. The court also upheld the finding that the Union’s assault on Grinstern was an unfair labor practice. The court denied Rieth-Riley’s petition for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement of its order in full. View "Rieth-Riley Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Three licensed substance use disorder professionals, referred to as the Counselors, were employed by NCG Acquisition, LLC and NCG CARE, Inc. They allege that they were wrongfully terminated after attempting to ensure a client received appropriate care. The Counselors had recommended that a client in severe distress be moved to inpatient treatment, but their supervisor, Jessica Tewell, altered their recommendation, preventing the client from receiving the necessary care. The client subsequently died of a drug overdose. The Counselors reported their concerns internally and were terminated shortly thereafter.The Counselors filed a lawsuit in the Western District of North Carolina, claiming wrongful termination in violation of public policy under the North Carolina Substance Use Disorder Professional Practice Act (SUDPPA) and its regulations. The district court dismissed their complaint, concluding that while SUDPPA constitutes an expression of public policy, the Counselors failed to allege a plausible claim that their termination contravened specific SUDPPA regulations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that SUDPPA and its regulations indeed represent the public policy of North Carolina. The Counselors plausibly alleged that their termination was in retaliation for actions taken in compliance with their professional obligations under SUDPPA, such as protecting client welfare and maintaining accurate records. The court concluded that the Counselors' actions were consistent with their professional duties and that their termination violated the public policy of North Carolina. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Shook v. NCG Acquisition, LLC" on Justia Law

Thomas Zundel attempted to purchase a firearm but was denied due to a 1990 simple assault charge in Jamestown Municipal Court, which was flagged in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The charge was noted as continued for a year pending counseling, with no conviction confirmed. Zundel's voluntary appeal to the FBI was denied because the final disposition of the case was missing. Zundel sought records from various agencies, but none had documentation beyond the initial arrest. He then petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to close the case and restore his constitutional rights.The Jamestown Municipal Court and other respondents argued that Zundel had an adequate remedy in federal court, referencing Ross v. Fed. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. However, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that a federal suit would not adequately address the state court records issue. The court emphasized the municipal court's duty to maintain accurate records and noted that the missing record should have been retained permanently according to administrative rules.The North Dakota Supreme Court granted the petition in part, ordering the Jamestown Municipal Court to conduct a diligent inquiry to locate or reconstruct the missing record and document the results. The court denied Zundel's requests for declaratory relief regarding the nature of the 1990 charge and his right to possess a firearm, citing a lack of evidence in the record to make such determinations. The court's decision underscores the importance of accurate court records for due process and public accountability. View "Zundel v. City of Jamestown" on Justia Law

Timothy Blixseth, a debtor, faced an involuntary bankruptcy petition filed by the State of Montana Department of Revenue (State) along with other state tax agencies. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petition, finding the State's claim was subject to a bona fide dispute. Blixseth then filed an adversary proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i) seeking costs and damages from the State for the dismissed petition.The bankruptcy court denied the State's motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding, ruling that the State had waived its sovereign immunity by filing the involuntary petition and through statements made by its counsel. The State appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), which dismissed the appeal, stating that the collateral order doctrine did not apply.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the BAP's dismissal, holding that the collateral order doctrine did apply, allowing for immediate appeal. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the bankruptcy court's denial of sovereign immunity. The court held that the State did not waive its sovereign immunity by filing the involuntary petition or through its counsel's statements. Additionally, the court found that 11 U.S.C. § 106, which addresses sovereign immunity in bankruptcy proceedings, was unconstitutional.Applying the analysis from Central Va. Cmty. Coll. v. Katz, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Blixseth's § 303(i) claim was not necessary to effectuate the bankruptcy court's in rem jurisdiction. The court determined that the adversary proceeding did not further the core functions of bankruptcy jurisdiction, such as the equitable distribution of the debtor's property or the debtor's fresh start. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit reversed the bankruptcy court's denial of sovereign immunity and remanded with instructions to dismiss Blixseth's § 303(i) claim against the State. View "Montana Department of Revenue v. Blixseth" on Justia Law

The case involves the Center for Biological Diversity's efforts to protect the Canadian lynx, a threatened species, from incidental trapping in Minnesota. The Center sued the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, alleging that the state had not done enough to prevent trappers from accidentally capturing lynx. This led to a proposed consent decree requiring Minnesota to implement additional restrictions on trapping methods to protect the lynx.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota reviewed the case and approved the consent decree over objections from three pro-trapping organizations. These organizations argued that the decree was prejudicial and harmful to their interests and that state law did not permit the adoption of the new regulations in the manner proposed. The district court found the consent decree to be a reasonable compromise that balanced the interests of both parties and had a reasonable relationship to the claims and defenses in the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's approval of the consent decree. The appellate court examined whether the consent decree was procedurally fair and reasonable. It found that the negotiations were conducted in good faith and at arm's length, and that the trappers had ample opportunity to raise their objections. The court also determined that the consent decree was reasonable because it aimed to reduce the number of lynx deaths and furthered the objectives of the Endangered Species Act. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the consent decree and affirmed the judgment. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. MN Trappers Association" on Justia Law

In two separate cases, employees Terry J. Leal and Dustin Kopp sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries they claimed were work-related. Ms. Leal's claim involved a right shoulder injury, while Mr. Kopp's claim involved an abdominal hernia. Both claims were initially denied by the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Workers’ Compensation Division, which concluded that the injuries were not caused by their work activities. The employees contested these decisions, leading to hearings before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).In both cases, the OAH appointed attorneys to represent the employees. These attorneys hired medical experts to testify on the causation of the injuries. Ms. Leal's attorney hired Dr. Gregory Reichhardt, and Mr. Kopp's attorney hired Dr. Douglas Adler. The OAH found in favor of the employees, awarding them workers' compensation benefits. However, when the attorneys sought reimbursement for the medical expert fees, the OAH denied these requests, citing a lack of statutory authority under the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act to order such reimbursements.The employees appealed to the District Court of Laramie County, which certified the cases to the Wyoming Supreme Court. The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed whether the OAH had the authority to order reimbursement of medical expert fees. The Court concluded that the OAH does have such authority. It reasoned that the Wyoming Worker’s Compensation Act, when read as a whole, provides for the payment of costs, including expert witness fees, to ensure the quick and efficient delivery of benefits to injured workers at a reasonable cost to employers. The Court found that the OAH's decision to deny reimbursement was not in accordance with the law and reversed the OAH's decision. View "Leal v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Workforce Services" on Justia Law

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its denial of small refinery exemptions under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The RFS program mandates that refineries blend renewable fuels into fossil fuels or purchase credits to comply. Small refineries can petition for exemptions if compliance causes disproportionate economic hardship. In 2022, the EPA denied all pending exemption petitions, arguing that compliance costs are passed on to consumers, thus no refinery faces economic hardship due to the RFS program. The EPA also provided alternative compliance options for certain refineries whose exemptions were initially granted but later denied.Previously, the EPA had granted exemptions based on a Department of Energy (DOE) study and a scoring matrix that considered various economic factors. However, following a Tenth Circuit decision and the Supreme Court's ruling in HollyFrontier, the EPA revised its approach, focusing solely on compliance costs and the RIN cost passthrough theory. This led to the denial of all pending petitions, including those of Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company and Wynnewood Refining Company, which had initially received exemptions.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the EPA's rationale for denying the exemptions was contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The court held that the EPA's interpretation of "disproportionate economic hardship" was too narrow and inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The court also found that the EPA failed to adequately support its assumption that refineries could always purchase RINs ratably and pass the costs to consumers. Consequently, the court vacated the EPA's denial actions, except for two refineries deemed ineligible on other grounds, and dismissed Growth Energy's petition for lack of standing. The court denied Sinclair's petition challenging the alternative compliance action and dismissed Wynnewood's petition for not challenging a final agency action. View "Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Two non-domiciliary companies, S&H Independent Premium Brands East, LLC, and S&H Independent Premium Brands West, LLC, import and distribute European alcoholic beverages in the United States. They hold certificates of compliance under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 138, Section 18B, allowing them to sell alcoholic beverages to licensed wholesalers in Massachusetts. In 2019, an Austrian malt beverage producer, Stiegl Getränke & Service GmbH & Co. KG, terminated its distribution agreement with S&H without prior notice and entered into a new agreement with another distributor, Win-It-Too, Inc.S&H filed a petition with the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (ABCC), alleging that Stiegl violated Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 138, Section 25E, which prohibits suppliers from refusing to sell to any licensed wholesaler without good cause. The ABCC dismissed the petition, stating that Section 25E protections apply only to wholesalers licensed under Section 18, not to certificate holders under Section 18B. S&H then sought judicial review in the Superior Court, which upheld the ABCC's decision, agreeing that Section 25E protections do not extend to Section 18B certificate holders.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court held that the term "any licensed wholesaler" in Section 25E refers only to wholesalers licensed under Section 18, not to certificate holders under Section 18B. The Court also concluded that this interpretation does not violate the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution, as Section 18B certificate holders and Section 18 licensed wholesalers serve different roles in the regulatory framework. Therefore, the ABCC's decision to dismiss S&H's petition was upheld. View "S&H Independent Premium Brands East, LLC v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the sale of surplus state property owned by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The property, located at 3311 West State Street in Boise, was declared surplus after a flood rendered its largest building unusable. The Idaho Department of Administration (DOA) initiated a bidding process, and the petitioners, a group of business entities, submitted the highest bid. Despite negotiating a purchase and sale agreement, the DOA did not finalize the sale due to legislative actions that revoked its authority to dispose of the property and transferred control back to the ITD Board.The petitioners filed an original action in the Idaho Supreme Court seeking writs of prohibition and mandate. They argued that the legislative provisions revoking the DOA's authority were unconstitutional, violating the single-subject rule of the Idaho Constitution. They sought a declaratory judgment to invalidate these provisions and compel the DOA to complete the sale. The Idaho House of Representatives and its Speaker intervened, and the State Board of Examiners disclaimed further participation, having fulfilled its statutory duties.The Idaho Supreme Court held that the petitioners lacked standing to bring the action. The court found that while the petitioners demonstrated a distinct and palpable injury from the halted sale, they failed to show that a favorable decision would redress their injury. The court noted that the petitioners did not have a legally enforceable right to purchase the property, as the DOA had discretion in concluding the sale. Additionally, the court determined that the petitioners did not meet the criteria for relaxed standing, as other parties, such as the DOA and ITD, could potentially bring the constitutional claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for writs of prohibition and mandate. View "Hawkins Companies, LLC v. State" on Justia Law

The Attorney General of California drafted language for the ballot title, summary, and label for Proposition 5, a proposed amendment to the California Constitution that would allow certain local bonds to be approved by 55 percent of voters instead of the current two-thirds requirement. Jon Coupal and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association challenged the ballot label, arguing it was misleading because it did not mention the existing two-thirds approval requirement. They claimed this omission failed to inform voters of the measure's true purpose.The Superior Court of Sacramento County agreed with the challengers, finding that the ballot label did not adequately inform voters of the measure's chief purpose. The court ordered the Attorney General to revise the ballot label to include the current two-thirds approval requirement. The Attorney General then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, challenging the Superior Court's decision.The Court of Appeal concluded that the ballot label drafted by the Attorney General accurately and concisely described Proposition 5 and was not misleading. The court emphasized that the Attorney General is afforded considerable discretion in drafting ballot materials and that the label's language was factually accurate. The court found that the Superior Court failed to accord the proper discretion to the Attorney General and that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the ballot label was misleading. Consequently, the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to deny the challengers' petition and allow the Attorney General's original ballot label to be used. View "Bonta v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law