A man was unable to purchase a firearm because a background check revealed he was subject to a long-term domestic violence protective order (DVPO). He sued the State, claiming he was no longer subject to a protective order as defined by federal statute and sought a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment to have the Department of Public Safety (DPS) notify a national database that he was no longer subject to a protective order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). He filed a motion for summary judgment, which the State opposed, filing a cross-motion for summary judgment. The superior court granted the State’s cross-motion, and the man appealed.The superior court found that the DVPO had not expired and remained a qualifying order under Section 922(g)(8). It also concluded that the man’s constitutional claims were not ripe because he had not initiated modification or dissolution of the order. The court entered a final judgment in favor of the State.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court’s decision. The court held that the DVPO remained in effect and was a qualifying order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The court found that the legislative history supported the interpretation that DVPOs issued under AS 18.66.100(c)(1) are effective until further order of the court. The court also concluded that the man’s remaining claims were not ripe for adjudication because he had not attempted to dissolve or modify the DVPO. View "Eng v. State" on Justia Law

An infant child, G.K., suffered grievous injuries while in the legal custody of the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and under the physical care of foster parent Samantha Gafford. Brittany Howe, G.K.'s biological mother, filed a lawsuit individually and as natural tutrix of G.K. against Gafford and DCFS. The plaintiffs alleged that DCFS had a non-delegable duty of care towards G.K. and was liable for the actions of the foster parent.The trial court granted DCFS's motion for summary judgment, agreeing with DCFS's argument that the non-delegable duty was effectively overturned by the case Kunath v. Gafford and that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding Gafford's employment status with DCFS. The Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, affirmed the trial court's decision, reasoning that Louisiana Revised Statute 42:1441.1 prohibited DCFS from being held liable for the actions of foster parents unless the foster parent was an official, officer, or employee of the state.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that DCFS has a non-delegable duty of care and well-being owed to children in its legal custody, which cannot be abrogated by La. R.S. 42:1441.1. The court clarified that this duty is distinct from vicarious liability arising from a master-servant relationship and is an affirmative duty owed by the state. The court concluded that the statute does not apply to the duty of care DCFS owes to children in its custody. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "HOWE VS. GAFFORD" on Justia Law

The case involves the Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish, a political subdivision of Louisiana, which suffered property damage from Hurricanes Laura and Delta in 2020. The Police Jury had insurance policies with a syndicate of eight domestic insurers. The insurers sought to compel arbitration in New York under New York law for the approximately 300 property damage claims. The Police Jury alleged underpayment and untimely payments by the insurers and filed suit in state court, which was later removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.The Western District Court granted the Police Jury's motion to certify three questions of Louisiana law to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The questions concerned the validity of arbitration clauses in insurance policies issued to Louisiana political subdivisions, particularly in light of a 2020 amendment to La. R.S. 22:868 and the applicability of La. R.S. 9:2778, which bars arbitration clauses in contracts with the state or its political subdivisions.The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the certified questions. First, it held that the 2020 amendment to La. R.S. 22:868, which allowed forum or venue selection clauses in certain insurance contracts, did not implicitly repeal the prohibition of arbitration clauses in all insurance contracts under La. R.S. 22:868(A). Second, the court determined that La. R.S. 9:2778 applies to all contracts with political subdivisions, including insurance contracts, thereby prohibiting arbitration outside Louisiana or the application of foreign law. Third, the court held that a domestic insurer cannot use equitable estoppel to enforce an arbitration clause in another insurer’s policy against a political subdivision, as it would contravene the positive law prohibiting arbitration clauses in La. R.S. 22:868(A)(2).The Louisiana Supreme Court answered all three certified questions, maintaining the prohibition of arbitration clauses in insurance policies issued to Louisiana political subdivisions and affirming the applicability of La. R.S. 9:2778 to such contracts. View "POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH VS. INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE CO." on Justia Law

Jim Walsh, a member of the Washington State House of Representatives, along with other appellants, submitted six initiatives to the legislature. Three of these initiatives were enacted, while the remaining three—repealing the Washington Climate Commitment Act, repealing the state’s capital gains tax, and making participation in the state’s long-term care insurance program optional—were set to appear on the November 2024 ballot. The appellants sought to prevent public investment impact disclosures from appearing on the ballot, arguing that these disclosures were not warranted.The Thurston County Superior Court denied the appellants' request for writs of mandamus and prohibition, dismissing their complaint. The court found that the capital gains tax was not impliedly repealed by another initiative and that the other two initiatives did indeed modify a "tax or fee," thus requiring public investment impact disclosures. The appellants then appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the writs of prohibition and mandamus were not appropriate in this case. The attorney general and the secretary of state were acting within their jurisdiction and statutory obligations. The court also noted that the appellants had not demonstrated the absence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of legal proceedings. Therefore, the trial court's denial of relief and dismissal of the case were upheld. View "Walsh v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Herbert McCoy, Jr. applied for a Program Analyst position with the General Services Administration (GSA) but was not selected. He appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board), claiming his veteran's preference and 30% or more Disabled Veteran status were not considered. McCoy had not filed a complaint with the Secretary of Labor before appealing to the Board.The Board's Administrative Judge (AJ) ordered McCoy to provide proof of filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, as required under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA). McCoy failed to provide such proof. Consequently, the AJ dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. McCoy petitioned the Board for review, but the Board affirmed the AJ's decision, stating McCoy had not exhausted his Department of Labor (DOL) remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that McCoy had not demonstrated he exhausted his DOL remedies, a prerequisite for the Board's jurisdiction under the VEOA. McCoy's arguments did not address this failure. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it lacked jurisdiction over McCoy's petition. View "MCCOY v. MSPB " on Justia Law

Jaime Morales, a Sheriff’s Deputy with the Scott County Sheriff’s Office, was shot and paralyzed during a law enforcement operation to apprehend a bank robbery suspect in September 2018. Morales filed a negligence suit against several employees of the City of Georgetown and the Georgetown Police Department, alleging that their actions led to his injuries. The case centers on whether the government defendants are immune from suit.The Scott Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that they were immune from Morales’s claims. The court found that Officer Joseph Enricco and Lieutenant James Wagoner were entitled to qualified official immunity for their discretionary actions, and that the City and the Georgetown Police Department were immune from vicarious liability and negligence claims.The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that some of Lt. Wagoner’s actions were ministerial and not protected by qualified official immunity. The court also found that the City and the Georgetown Police Department could be held vicariously liable for Lt. Wagoner’s ministerial actions and directly liable for their own negligence.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case. The court held that Officer Enricco’s decision to fire his weapon was discretionary and protected by qualified official immunity. However, it found that Lt. Wagoner had a ministerial duty to formulate a plan to apprehend the suspect and to enforce certain training requirements, making him potentially liable for negligence. The court also ruled that the City and the Georgetown Police Department could be held liable for Lt. Wagoner’s ministerial actions but were immune from direct negligence claims related to training and personnel selection. View "MORALES V. CITY OF GEORGETOWN, KENTUCKY" on Justia Law

The case involves Amaka Oji and Oji Fit World, LLC (OFW), who were approved as Medicaid providers by the D.C. Department of Health Care Finance (DHCF) in 2011. Between 2012 and 2015, they submitted over 24,000 claims for reimbursement for wellness services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. Investigations by DHCF, the Office of the Inspector General for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the FBI revealed that Oji and OFW regularly overbilled Medicaid, often charging for a full hour of service regardless of the actual time spent or whether the service was provided at all.The District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in April 2021 under the D.C. False Claims Act and the common law doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the District, finding that Oji and OFW had submitted false claims and falsified records. The court awarded the District $1,001,362.50 in treble damages and $497,000 in civil penalties. Oji and OFW's various procedural defenses, including claims of laches and statute of limitations, were deemed waived due to their failure to raise them in a timely manner.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the summary judgment order. However, the court remanded the case for further consideration of the damages and penalties. The appellate court found that the Superior Court had not provided sufficient explanation or analysis for the awarded amounts, making it difficult to review the decision. The appellate court emphasized the need for the trial court to explain its reasoning in detail to permit adequate appellate review. View "Oji Fit World, LLC v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

In 2016, voters in Donegal Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania, decided to increase the number of members on the township’s board of supervisors from three to five. Subsequently, in 2020, the voters opted to reduce the number back to three. This led to a legal dispute involving Richard Martin, Jr., Richard Fidler, and Tammy Iams, who were elected to the five-member board but faced shortened terms due to the reduction.The Court of Common Pleas of Washington County initially dismissed the action brought by Martin, Fidler, and Iams, who challenged the constitutionality of Section 402(e) of the Second Class Township Code. The Commonwealth Court partially reversed this decision, ruling that Section 402(e) was unconstitutional as applied to Martin and Fidler, as it effectively removed them from office before their terms expired, contrary to Article VI, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and focused on whether Section 402(e) was unconstitutionally applied. The Court held that Section 402(e) did not result in the removal of Martin and Fidler from office but rather modified their terms due to the reduction in the number of supervisors. The Court emphasized that Article VI, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provides the exclusive method for removing elected officials, was not applicable because the statute did not involve removal but rather a lawful modification of legislative office terms.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision, upholding the application of Section 402(e) and concluding that it did not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court found that the reduction in the number of supervisors and the subsequent election for the new three-member board were constitutionally permissible actions by the legislature. View "Martin v. Donegal Township" on Justia Law

Adrian Galvez-Bravo, a Mexican national, entered the United States in 1994 and has lived in the Memphis area since then, except for a brief return to Mexico to marry his wife. He has three children, two of whom are U.S. citizens. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, alleging he was a noncitizen present in the U.S. without being admitted or paroled. Galvez-Bravo conceded the charge and sought cancellation of removal under § 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children.An Immigration Judge (IJ) disagreed with Galvez-Bravo's assessment of hardship, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ's decision, ordering his removal to Mexico. Galvez-Bravo then filed a motion to reopen the removal proceedings, citing new evidence, including his daughter's recent dyslexia diagnosis and the potential impact on his children's education and well-being if he were removed. The BIA denied the motion, concluding that the new evidence did not meet the hardship standard required for cancellation of removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court confirmed its jurisdiction to review the legal challenges presented by Galvez-Bravo, noting that his arguments focused on whether the BIA engaged in reasoned decision-making. The court found that the BIA had articulated a rational explanation for its decision, considering the new evidence but determining that the hardship did not exceed what would normally be expected upon the removal of a close family member. The court also rejected Galvez-Bravo's argument that the BIA's decision was inconsistent with its prior decisions, noting that the unpublished decisions he cited did not establish a pattern of conflicting outcomes.The Sixth Circuit held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Galvez-Bravo's motion to reopen and denied his petition for review. View "Galvez-Bravo v. Garland" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the "metering" policy implemented by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the U.S.-Mexico border. Under this policy, asylum seekers without valid travel documents were turned away when ports of entry were deemed at capacity. Plaintiffs, including an immigrant rights organization and individual asylum seekers, argued that this policy unlawfully prevented them from applying for asylum. They also challenged the subsequent application of the "Asylum Transit Rule," which required asylum seekers to apply for asylum in a third country before seeking it in the U.S., to those turned away under the metering policy.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California found the metering policy unlawful under § 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which mandates that courts compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the application of the Asylum Transit Rule to those turned away under the metering policy before the rule took effect. The court also ordered the government to unwind past asylum denials based on the rule. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the APA § 706(1) and due process claims but did not reach the APA § 706(2) claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the metering policy violated § 706(1) of the APA, holding that noncitizens stopped at the border are eligible to apply for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) and that border officials have a mandatory duty to inspect them under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. The court also affirmed the classwide declaratory relief but vacated the district court's judgment on the due process claim, deeming it unnecessary. The court affirmed the negative injunctive relief prohibiting the application of the Asylum Transit Rule to class members but vacated the portion of the injunction requiring the government to reopen or reconsider past asylum denials on its own initiative, as it violated 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). View "AL OTRO LADO V. AMAYORKAS" on Justia Law