The Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled that certain legislative review provisions governing the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program, a land conservation initiative, were unconstitutional. The provisions in question allowed the Joint Committee on Finance (JFC), a legislative committee, to review and potentially block expenditures exceeding $250,000 or for land acquisitions outside of a project boundary, even after the legislature had already appropriated the funds.The case was brought by Governor Tony Evers and several state departments, who argued that these provisions violated the separation of powers by allowing the legislature to intrude on the executive branch's power to execute the law. The legislative respondents defended the statutes, arguing that they were necessary for overseeing the executive branch's expenditure of state funds.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin disagreed with the legislative respondents, ruling that the provisions unconstitutionally authorized the legislative branch to impede the executive's core power to execute the law. The court held that once the legislature appropriates funds for a particular purpose, the executive branch possesses the power to distribute those funds in accordance with the purposes outlined by the legislature. The court concluded that the legislative review provisions violated the separation of powers structurally enshrined in the Wisconsin Constitution. View "Evers v. Marklein" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a plaintiff, Carol Allen, who slipped and fell on the steps of Newport City Hall during a winter storm, resulting in severe injuries. Allen alleged that the city and its employees were negligent in failing to properly treat the stairs for adverse weather conditions. The case was heard in the Superior Court, where the trial justice ruled in favor of Allen, finding that the city and its employees had a duty to clear the steps of snow and ice, even during an ongoing storm, due to "unusual circumstances."The city and its employees appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. They argued that the trial justice erred in not applying the "Connecticut Rule," which states that a property owner's duty to clear snow and ice does not arise until a reasonable time after a storm has ended. The city argued that the storm was ongoing at the time of Allen's fall, and therefore, they did not owe her a duty to clear the steps.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island agreed with the city and its employees. The court found that the trial justice had erred in applying the "unusual circumstances" exception to the Connecticut Rule. The court clarified that "unusual circumstances" exist when a property owner's actions exacerbate the inherent risk of traveling during a storm, not when the owner fails to alleviate the danger. In this case, the city and its employees did not engage in any behavior that increased the risk to Allen. Therefore, the court vacated the judgments of the Superior Court and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the city and its employees. View "Allen v. Sitrin" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Xavier T. Vidot, an inmate, filed a complaint against the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) and its officials, alleging that they failed to provide inmates with a daily minimum of 8.5 hours outside their cells, in violation of RIDOC's internal policy and a state statute. The plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus, a declaration of violation, and a permanent injunction.The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that RIDOC's internal policies do not establish a private cause of action for inmates and that the application of these policies involves discretionary decisions. The plaintiff responded, asserting that the defendants had a ministerial legal duty to operate in accordance with RIDOC's policy and that the statute does not afford the defendants any discretion except that which is allowed by internal policies.The Superior Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, reasoning that the policies governing these issues are internal and discretionary, as they are not codified in the statute. The plaintiff appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The court found that the statute outlining the duties of the director of the Department of Corrections clearly bestows upon the director a great deal of discretion in the exercise of his or her duties. The court also found that both the previous and amended versions of RIDOC's policy contemplate that RIDOC must exercise its discretion in "exigent circumstances," in the case of "emergencies," or in the event of "overriding conditions"—all for the purpose of maintaining a "safe and orderly operation of the facility." Therefore, the court concluded that the hearing justice did not err in denying relief in the form of a writ of mandamus and in granting the motion to dismiss. View "Vidot v. Salisbury" on Justia Law

This case revolves around the denial of a disability pension application by a former state trooper, James Donnelly-Taylor. The defendants are the State of Rhode Island, Division of the State Police, and the Colonel of the State Police and Governor in their official capacities. The trooper had been involved in an incident where he assaulted an individual he had arrested. Following this incident, he reported experiencing personal and work-related stress and was placed on injured-on-duty status. Later, he was indicted on one count of simple assault. He pleaded nolo contendere to the assault charge and was ordered to perform community service. The trooper remained out of work and was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. He applied for a disability pension, which was denied by the superintendent of the state police.The superintendent's decision was appealed to the Superior Court, which found the denial to be arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded the case back to the superintendent for further consideration. The superintendent issued a supplemental decision, maintaining the denial of the disability pension. The Superior Court again found the superintendent's decision to be arbitrary and capricious and reversed the denial, instructing the superintendent to grant the trooper's request for a disability pension.The State of Rhode Island appealed the Superior Court's decision to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's decision, finding that the superintendent's denial of the disability pension was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court held that the superintendent had reasonable grounds to conclude that the trooper's assault of the individual was not in the course of performance of his duties as a state police officer, and therefore his disabling injuries were not suffered in the course of performance of his duties. The case was remanded back to the Superior Court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Rhode Island Troopers Association v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

The case involves the Newport School Committee and the Cumberland School Committee (collectively, plaintiffs) and the Rhode Island Department of Education and the Rhode Island Council on Elementary and Secondary Education (collectively, defendants). The dispute arose when the plaintiffs refused to reimburse the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) at the "per-pupil special-education" rate for the cost of educating children who were placed in residential treatment programs by DCYF but were not receiving special-education services. The Family Court had placed two children in the temporary custody of DCYF and designated Newport and Cumberland as the residences of the children's custodial parents for the purpose of determining the municipalities' financial responsibility for the children's education.The Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education agreed with DCYF's argument that the municipalities were required to pay the per-pupil special-education rate according to the unambiguous language of the relevant statutes. The Commissioner issued two decisions ordering Newport and Cumberland to reimburse DCYF for the cost of educational services provided to the children at the special-education rate. After the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education denied the municipalities' independent appeals of the Commissioner's decisions, the municipalities appealed to the Superior Court. The trial justice consolidated the two cases and issued a written decision, determining that the clear and unambiguous language of the statute required the designated city or town to pay its share of the cost of educational services to DCYF rather than the higher, per-pupil special-education rate.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case and found that there is nothing in the relevant statutes that expressly obligates a municipality to pay the per-pupil special-education rate when the child in question is not actually receiving special-education services. The court concluded that municipalities are not required to reimburse DCYF at the per-pupil special-education rate when there were no special education services rendered and thus, no special education costs incurred. The court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs to resolve the remaining question of what reimbursement, if any, DCYF should receive for the educational cost of non-special-education students placed in residential treatment programs that include the delivery of educational services. View "Newport School Committee v. Rhode Island Department of Education" on Justia Law

This case involves four individuals, Joao Neves, Keith Nunes, Pablo Ortega, and Mario Monteiro, who were convicted of various crimes in Rhode Island and were serving multiple sentences, including life sentences. The issue at hand is the interpretation of a Rhode Island statute, G.L. 1956 § 13-8-13(e), which was enacted in 2021 and provides that any person sentenced for any offense committed prior to their twenty-second birthday, other than a person serving life without parole, shall be eligible for parole review after serving no fewer than twenty years' imprisonment.The state argued that the statute applies only to individuals serving a single sentence and does not require the aggregation of multiple sentences for parole eligibility. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the statute applies to "any offense," and thus requires the aggregation of multiple sentences, including consecutive sentences, for parole eligibility.The trial justice agreed with the respondents and ordered that each respondent be immediately released on parole. The state appealed, arguing that the trial justice's interpretation of the statute violated the separation-of-powers doctrine by modifying judicial sentences.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that the statute mandates the aggregation of a qualified offender’s sentences, including consecutive sentences, for parole eligibility. The court also concluded that the statute, as interpreted, does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. However, the court found that the trial justice erred in ordering each respondent to be immediately released on parole, as the statute only provides a qualified offender the opportunity to appear before the parole board, not the right to be paroled. The court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgments of the lower court, and remanded the cases to the parole board for further proceedings. View "Neves v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

The case involves an American citizen and her noncitizen husband who sued two U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials, alleging that USCIS unreasonably delayed adjudicating a waiver application the husband submitted two years prior. The plaintiffs argued that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Mandamus Act granted subject-matter jurisdiction over their claims. The district court dismissed their claims, concluding that language in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that denies courts jurisdiction over suits based on agency “decisions or actions” also bars suits over agency inaction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, but for different reasons. The appellate court found that the district court erred in interpreting the INA's jurisdictional bar to include agency inaction. However, the court concluded that no statute or regulation requires USCIS to adjudicate the husband’s waiver application, and therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims. The court noted that while the delay in adjudication was stressful for the plaintiffs, their complaint should be addressed to the political branches, as the court lacked jurisdiction to order the relief sought. View "Lovo v. Miller" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Thomas E. Hennig, Jr., who was discharged from his job at Money Metals Exchange, L.L.C. after making a controversial comment on the company's instant messaging system. Hennig referred to himself as his employer’s “good little Nazi” in a joke about enforcing the company’s time clock rules. After his termination, Hennig applied for unemployment benefits, but his application was denied by the Idaho Department of Labor (IDOL) on the grounds that he was discharged for misconduct connected with his employment. Hennig appealed this decision to the Idaho Industrial Commission, which upheld the IDOL's decision.Hennig then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho, arguing that the Commission’s decision was unsupported by competent and substantial evidence. He contended that his use of the term "Nazi" was not objectively unprofessional and that the company had tolerated racist remarks from another employee. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the Commission’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the Commission had failed to properly analyze whether the company's expectations of Hennig's behavior were objectively reasonable, given evidence that it had tolerated racist comments from another co-worker and then promoted him to a supervisory position. The court also found that the Commission had failed to consider Hennig's claim that the company had encouraged his unorthodox humor. View "Hennig v. Money Metals Exchange" on Justia Law

Domingo Musquiz, a former rail industry employee, petitioned for review of a decision by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB). The RRB had adopted a hearing officer's finding that Musquiz was at fault for an overpayment of his reduced-age annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) and denied his request for a waiver or reduction of repayment of the overpayment and penalty. Musquiz had failed to report his re-employment and additional income to the RRB, leading to the overpayment.The RRB's decision was based on the fact that Musquiz had received a booklet of regulations, including reporting requirements, when he applied for his annuity. The RRB concluded that Musquiz should have known about his reporting duties and was at fault when he did not report his change in employment and additional outside income.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the RRB that Musquiz was at fault for the overpayment that occurred from August 2012 to June 2, 2013. However, the court concluded that Musquiz was without fault for the RRB’s overpayment of his annuity from June 3, 2013, onward. The court reasoned that by then, the RRB had informed Musquiz that they had taken his outside earnings into account and adjusted his annuity payments.The court granted Musquiz's petition, vacated the RRB's decision, and remanded the case to the RRB for further proceedings. The court instructed the RRB to develop a factual record and determine whether recovery of the overpayment from June 3, 2013, onward would be contrary to the purpose of the RRA, against equity, or against good conscience. View "Musquiz V. United States Railroad Retirement Board" on Justia Law

In April 2018, Benjamin Evans was shot and killed by Police Deputy Brian Krook in Lake Elmo, Minnesota, after Evans knelt in a crosswalk with a loaded gun pointed at his own head. Following a criminal trial, Krook was acquitted of a second-degree manslaughter charge. Subsequently, Evans' father, William O. Evans, Jr., filed a civil lawsuit against Krook under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Krook sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a defense unavailable when an officer uses deadly force against someone who does not pose an immediate threat of serious physical harm to another.The District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Krook's motion for summary judgment, citing genuine factual disputes over whether Evans' gun was ever pointed at the officers and whether Evans posed an immediate threat to them. Krook appealed this decision, challenging the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in reviewing the case, first addressed the question of jurisdiction. The court noted that it did not have jurisdiction to review the district court's determination regarding evidence sufficiency, i.e., what facts a party may or may not be able to prove at trial. The court's jurisdiction was limited to the purely legal question of whether the conduct that the district court found was adequately supported in the record violated a clearly established federal right.The court found that the availability of qualified immunity in this case hinged on whether Krook acted reasonably under the circumstances by shooting Evans because Evans either pointed his gun at another or otherwise wielded his gun in a menacing fashion. The court concluded that the inconclusive nighttime videos of Evans' actions did not clearly contradict the district court's factual determinations. Therefore, resolving the underlying factual dispute was beyond the court's limited review. As such, the court dismissed the appeal, stating it lacked the jurisdiction to resolve it. View "Evans v. Krook" on Justia Law