Plaintiffs Tati Abu King and Toni Heath Johnson were unable to register to vote in Virginia due to felony convictions. King was convicted of felony drug possession in 2018, and Johnson was convicted of multiple felonies, including drug possession, in 2021. Virginia's constitution disenfranchises individuals convicted of felonies unless their civil rights are restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority. King and Johnson argued that this disenfranchisement violated the Virginia Readmission Act, a federal statute from 1870, which they claimed restricted Virginia from amending its constitution to disenfranchise individuals for crimes that were not felonies at common law in 1870.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed three of the four counts in the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed one count based on the Virginia Readmission Act to proceed. The defendants, including various state election officials and the Governor of Virginia, moved to dismiss the complaint on sovereign immunity grounds, which the district court rejected.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs' claim met the requirements of the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows suits for prospective relief against state officials to prevent ongoing violations of federal law. The court affirmed the district court's decision to allow the claim to proceed against most defendants but reversed the decision regarding the Governor of Virginia and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, finding that they lacked enforcement responsibility for the challenged state action. The court concluded that the Governor and Secretary must be dismissed from the case on sovereign immunity grounds. The district court's order was thus affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "King v. Youngkin" on Justia Law

The Idaho State Board of Education approved a proposal for the University of Idaho to purchase the University of Phoenix for $550 million, funded by a $685 million bond. This decision followed three closed-door executive sessions. Idaho Attorney General Raúl R. Labrador filed a suit to void the sale, alleging violations of the Idaho Open Meetings Law, which mandates that public policy formation be conducted openly. The district court dismissed the suit, finding no violations.The district court ruled that the Board's actions during the executive sessions were lawful under the exception in Idaho Code section 74-206(1)(e), which allows closed meetings for preliminary negotiations involving trade or commerce when in competition with other states. The court interpreted "preliminary negotiations" to include all negotiations before contracting and applied a "reasonable belief" standard to determine if the Board believed it was in competition with another governing body.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its broad interpretation of "preliminary negotiations" and the application of the "reasonable belief" standard. The Supreme Court held that "preliminary negotiations" should be narrowly construed to mean a phase of negotiations before final negotiations, and the statute requires actual competition, not just a reasonable belief of competition. The court vacated the district court's summary judgment, its judgment following the bench trial, and the award of attorney fees and costs to the Board. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of Idaho Code section 74-206(1)(e). View "Labrador v. Board of Education" on Justia Law

The Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) removed two minors from their parents' care due to domestic violence and placed them with their paternal aunt. DFS provided rental assistance to the aunt for two months until she became a licensed foster parent and began receiving foster care subsidies. The children's attorney requested additional rental assistance for the aunt, which DFS declined. During a hearing on a motion to terminate parental rights, the district court ordered DFS to pay an additional $1,000 towards the aunt's rent. DFS sought reconsideration, which the district court denied after an evidentiary hearing.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada initially ordered DFS to pay the rental assistance, citing NRS 432B.550(1) as the basis for its authority. DFS argued that the district court lacked statutory authority to issue such an order and petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to vacate the order.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and concluded that the district court lacked statutory authority to order DFS to pay rental assistance. The court found that NRS 432B.550(1) and NRS 432B.590(7) did not empower the district court to direct DFS to make such payments. The court emphasized that DFS has broad statutory authority to manage its budget without interference from the court. Consequently, the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by issuing the order. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the petition for a writ of mandamus and directed the district court to vacate its order requiring DFS to pay rental assistance to the foster parent. View "In re N.R.R. and N.I.R." on Justia Law

Ashleigh Gelin died by suicide in November 2013 while incarcerated at the Baltimore County Detention Center. Her parents, Edward and Deborah Gelin, sued Baltimore County and several correctional officers, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and Maryland common law. They claimed the officers showed deliberate indifference to Ashleigh's safety and were grossly negligent.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland partially granted and partially denied the County's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the complaint did not properly allege deliberate indifference to Ashleigh's mental health needs but did plausibly allege indifference to her physical safety. The court held that the officers could not claim qualified immunity or Maryland common-law public official immunity and denied Baltimore County's claim of governmental immunity. The County's subsequent motion for reconsideration was partially addressed, but the court did not rule on whether the officers could assert public official immunity against the negligence claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the County's appeal was premature because the district court had not yet ruled on all issues raised in the County's motion for reconsideration. Specifically, the district court had not decided whether the officers could assert public official immunity against the negligence claims. As a result, the Fourth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance, pending the district court's resolution of the remaining issue. The court directed the parties to inform it once the district court had made a final ruling on the pending issue. View "Gelin v. Baltimore County" on Justia Law

Ohio House, LLC operates a sober-living facility in Costa Mesa, California, within a multiple-family residential (MFR) zone. The City of Costa Mesa notified Ohio House that it was subject to Ordinance 15-11, which mandates that group homes with over six residents in MFR zones obtain a conditional-use permit and meet a separation requirement. Ohio House's application for a permit was denied due to non-compliance with the separation requirement, and its request for a reasonable accommodation was also denied.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted partial summary judgment to the City on Ohio House's disparate-impact claim and denied Ohio House's post-verdict motions. The jury found in favor of the City on Ohio House's remaining claims, including disparate treatment, discriminatory statements, interference with fair housing rights, and reasonable accommodation. The district court also ruled that Ohio House's claim under California Government Code § 65008 was time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings. The court held that Ohio House failed to establish facial disparate treatment as a matter of law because the City's group-living regulations facially benefit disabled individuals. The court also affirmed the summary judgment for the City on the disparate-impact claim, agreeing that Ohio House did not prove a significant, adverse, and disproportionate effect on a protected group. The court upheld the jury's verdict on the discriminatory statements claim, finding no unlawful discriminatory statements by the City. The court also affirmed the denial of judgment as a matter of law on the interference claim, concluding that Ohio House failed to prove a causal link between its protected activity and the City's actions. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of judgment as a matter of law on the reasonable accommodation claim, agreeing that the requested accommodation was unreasonable as it would fundamentally alter the City's zoning scheme. The court also upheld the district court's ruling that Ohio House's § 65008 claim was time-barred. View "THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA" on Justia Law

Entergy Arkansas, LLC, a public utility company, challenged an order by the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC) regarding the allocation of costs from a refund mandated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Entergy Arkansas made short-term opportunity sales to third-party wholesale customers, which led to a complaint by the Louisiana Public Service Commission. FERC ruled that Entergy Arkansas violated the System operating agreement, resulting in a net refund of approximately $135 million to other System members. Entergy Arkansas sought to recover these costs from its retail customers, but the APSC denied the request and ordered Entergy Arkansas to refund a portion to its retail customers.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas upheld the APSC's order after a bench trial, finding that it did not violate Arkansas law, the filed rate doctrine, or the dormant Commerce Clause. Entergy Arkansas appealed, arguing that the APSC's order violated the filed rate doctrine by trapping costs and improperly allocating the bandwidth adjustment. They also contended that the order violated the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce and imposing excessive burdens.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the filed rate doctrine did not apply because FERC did not preemptively decide the cost allocation of the refund. FERC explicitly left the allocation of costs to state commissions. Additionally, the court found that the APSC's order did not discriminate against interstate commerce or impose excessive burdens, as it was not driven by economic protectionism and any negative effects were speculative.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the APSC's order. View "Entergy Arkansas, LLC v. Webb" on Justia Law

Lake County sought reimbursement from the State of Montana for costs incurred in enforcing state criminal jurisdiction on the Flathead Indian Reservation under Public Law 280 (P.L. 280). The County argued that the State was obligated to cover these costs, citing financial strain and the diversion of resources from other services.The District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District dismissed Lake County’s claims for unfunded mandate and unjust enrichment, ruling that the statutes of limitations had expired. The court determined that the claims accrued in January 2017, when the County expressed its inability to continue bearing the financial burden of P.L. 280. The court also ruled that the continuing tort and equitable tolling doctrines did not apply to toll the statutes of limitations. The court denied the State’s motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim but later granted summary judgment in favor of the State, ruling that the State was not obligated to appropriate any specific amount to reimburse the County.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s rulings. It held that Lake County’s claims were justiciable but that the continuing tort doctrine did not apply because the County sought monetary damages, not abatement. The Court also ruled that the equitable tolling doctrine did not apply as the County did not pursue a legal remedy within the doctrine’s scope. Finally, the Court held that § 2-1-301(2), MCA, only required the State to reimburse the County to the extent funds were appropriated by the Legislature, which retained discretion over such appropriations. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the unfunded mandate and unjust enrichment claims and the summary judgment on the declaratory judgment claim. View "Lake County v. State" on Justia Law

R.L., a sheriff’s deputy, was charged with driving while intoxicated, but the charges were later dropped. The Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board initiated proceedings to revoke R.L.'s basic-training certificate, which is necessary for his employment as an officer. R.L. sought and obtained a court declaration and injunction preventing the board from disciplining him before the board issued a final decision.The Martin Circuit Court granted R.L.'s request for declaratory and injunctive relief, barring the board from using facts from R.L.'s expunged arrest to revoke his certificate. The board intervened and moved to vacate the order, arguing procedural errors and lack of merit. The trial court vacated its initial order but issued a second similar order. The board appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, allowing the board to consider independent evidence of the facts underlying the expunged arrest records.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the trial court erred in granting R.L.'s request for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court emphasized that R.L. must follow the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (AOPA) to challenge the board's decisions and that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss R.L.'s declaratory-judgment action, reinforcing the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. View "Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board v. R L" on Justia Law

King County, Washington, issued Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO, which directed county officials to ensure that future leases at Boeing Field prohibit fixed base operators (FBOs) from servicing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) charter flights. This order was based on the county's disagreement with federal immigration policies. Following the issuance of the order, all three FBOs at Boeing Field ceased servicing ICE flights, forcing ICE to relocate its operations to Yakima Air Terminal, which increased operational costs and security concerns.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment for the United States, finding that the Executive Order violated both the Supremacy Clause’s intergovernmental immunity doctrine and a World War II-era contract reconveying Boeing Field to King County. The district court concluded that the Executive Order discriminated against the federal government and its contractors and breached the Instrument of Transfer, which required King County to allow the United States nonexclusive use of the landing area at Boeing Field.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the United States had Article III standing to bring the suit, as it had suffered concrete and particularized injuries due to the increased operational costs and imminent risk of future injury from the Executive Order. The court also found that the United States’ claims were ripe for adjudication.The Ninth Circuit concluded that the Executive Order violated the Instrument of Transfer by preventing ICE from using Boeing Field, thus breaching the contractual right of the United States to use the airport. Additionally, the court held that the Executive Order violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine by improperly regulating federal operations and discriminating against the federal government and its contractors. The court rejected King County’s defenses, including the anti-commandeering and market participant doctrines. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA V. KING COUNTY" on Justia Law

The State of Texas placed a concertina wire fence along part of the border with Mexico in the Eagle Pass area to deter illegal crossings. The United States Border Patrol agents cut the wire multiple times, claiming it was necessary to fulfill their duty of patrolling the border to prevent illegal entry. Texas sued for an injunction, arguing that the Border Patrol was needlessly cutting the wire. The district court found that the Border Patrol was not hampered by the wire and had breached it numerous times without apparent purpose other than to allow migrants easier entrance. However, the court denied the injunction, citing the United States' sovereign immunity against Texas's claims.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Texas's request for a preliminary injunction, despite agreeing with Texas on the facts. The court believed that the United States retained sovereign immunity. A motions panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed and granted a temporary injunction pending appeal. The United States sought relief in the Supreme Court, which vacated the injunction without providing reasons. The case was remanded to the district court to investigate events in Shelby Park, where Texas's actions were alleged to have obstructed Border Patrol operations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas is entitled to a preliminary injunction. The court held that the United States waived sovereign immunity as to Texas's state law claims under § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also rejected the United States' arguments that the injunction was barred by intergovernmental immunity and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court found that Texas satisfied the injunction factors from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and granted Texas's request for a preliminary injunction, with modifications based on the district court's supplemental fact findings. View "Texas v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law