Kay “KT” Jacobs, a member of the Columbia Heights City Council, was the subject of a recall petition. The petition alleged that Jacobs used a fake name and made derogatory comments about a city council candidate's heritage during a phone call, lied during a city investigation, and was subsequently censured and stripped of her ability to serve on boards and commissions. Jacobs filed a petition to cancel the recall election, arguing that the recall petition did not meet the legal requirements for recall petitions and failed to allege malfeasance or nonfeasance, which are constitutional prerequisites for recalling an elected municipal official.The district court denied Jacobs' petition, finding that the recall petition met the procedural requirements of the city charter and that the allegations constituted malfeasance. Jacobs appealed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court granted her petition for accelerated review.The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision, concluding that the recall petition did not meet the legal definitions of malfeasance or nonfeasance. The court held that Jacobs' conduct, while inappropriate, did not violate a substantive legal standard established by law, rule, or case law, and that she was not acting in her official capacity during the phone call. Therefore, the recall petition failed to allege the necessary grounds for a recall election under the Minnesota Constitution. The court canceled the recall election scheduled for February 13, 2024. View "Jacobs v. City of Columbia Heights" on Justia Law

James Morell, a retired research attorney for the Orange County Superior Court, was entitled to a pension under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL). The dispute arose over whether the $3,500 Optional Benefit Program (OBP) payments he received should be included in the calculation of his pension. The OBP allowed attorneys to allocate the $3,500 benefit to various options, including taxable cash or a healthcare reimbursement account. Morell allocated portions of the OBP to both cash and healthcare reimbursement in the years leading up to his retirement.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially ruled in favor of Morell, ordering the Board of Retirement for the Orange County Employees’ Retirement System (OCERS) to reconsider its decision excluding the OBP payments from Morell’s pension calculation. The court found that the board had improperly relied on a settlement agreement and a repealed statute, Government Code section 31460.1, which had excluded such payments from the definition of "compensation."The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that Resolution 90-1551, adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, which excluded OBP payments from the definition of "compensation," remained valid despite the repeal of section 31460.1. The court found that Morell had elected to participate in the OBP by allocating the $3,500 benefit, and these payments reflected amounts that exceeded his salary. Therefore, the exclusion of the OBP payments from the pension calculation was proper.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with directions to deny Morell’s petition. The court held that Resolution 90-1551 was still valid and that the OBP payments were correctly excluded from Morell’s pension calculation. View "Morell v. Board of Retirement for the Orange County Employees’ Retirement System" on Justia Law

A retired Navy chaplain, Allen Lancaster, sued several Navy officials in their official capacities, alleging discrimination in the Navy’s promotion practices. Lancaster claimed he was not promoted due to retaliation based on personal hostility and denominational prejudice. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including orders to remedy the harm to his career and to hold new promotion boards. Lancaster also challenged the six-year statute of limitations for civil actions against the United States and the constitutionality of a statutory privilege for selection board proceedings.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Lancaster’s amended complaint with prejudice on res judicata grounds, referring to several prior decisions in the longstanding dispute over the Navy’s promotion procedures for chaplains. After Lancaster’s death, his widow, Darlene Lancaster, sought to reopen the case, substitute herself as the plaintiff, and amend the dismissed complaint. The district court denied these requests, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Lancaster’s death mooted his claims for prospective relief, as he could no longer benefit from the requested declarations and orders. The court also found that any potential claims for retrospective relief were barred by sovereign immunity, as the Lancasters failed to demonstrate an unequivocal waiver of this immunity. Consequently, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to dismiss the case on res judicata grounds or to rule on the widow’s post-dismissal motion. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Lancaster v. Secretary of the Navy" on Justia Law

The case involves the Western Coal Traffic League (the League), a coalition of coal shippers, petitioning for a writ of mandamus to compel the Surface Transportation Board (the Board) to take action on a proceeding related to the concept of "revenue adequacy" in freight rail shipping rates. The Board had opened an informational docket in April 2014 to gather public comments on how it calculates and applies revenue adequacy in rate cases. Over the next six years, the Board collected information through written comments and public hearings but had not issued a decision since February 2020. The League participated in the hearings and submitted comments advocating for changes to the Board's framework.The League filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in May 2023, arguing that the Board's delay in responding to the comments was unreasonable and requesting the court to compel the Board to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or issue a final decision within 90 days. The League relied on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to argue that the Board's inaction was a clear violation of its duty to act promptly.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for clear violations of a duty to act. The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ because the Board's management of the Revenue Adequacy docket did not constitute a "final order" subject to judicial review under the Hobbs Act. The Board had convened the proceeding solely to gather public comments without any statutory duty or plans to undertake a rulemaking or specific regulatory action. Consequently, the court dismissed the League's petition for mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. View "In re: Western Coal Traffic League" on Justia Law

Andres Cabezas was arrested in an FBI sting operation in 2017 and later pled guilty to receipt of child pornography. While his appeal was pending, he submitted FOIA requests to the FBI for records related to his case. After six months without a response, Cabezas filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking the release of the requested records. The FBI eventually released some records but withheld others, citing various FOIA exemptions. The district court granted summary judgment to the FBI, finding that it had conducted a reasonable search and properly withheld documents under FOIA and the Privacy Act.Cabezas appealed the district court's decision, challenging the adequacy of the FBI's search and the justification for withholding records. He also contested the denial of his motions for limited discovery and in camera review. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo and found that the FBI had made a good faith effort to conduct a reasonable search, using appropriate methods and search terms. The court also found that the FBI's affidavits provided a detailed account of the search process and the reasons for withholding certain records.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the FBI had conducted a reasonable search and properly invoked FOIA exemptions to withhold certain records. The court also upheld the denial of Cabezas's motions for limited discovery and in camera review, finding no abuse of discretion. The court concluded that Cabezas had not provided sufficient evidence to challenge the adequacy of the FBI's search or the validity of the exemptions claimed. View "Cabezas v. FBI" on Justia Law

In February 2021, a severe cold snap hit the central United States, causing widespread power outages and fatalities. This event highlighted the need for improved grid reliability. The Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which manages the electrical grid in the region, proposed changes to its capacity market to address these issues. MISO's new system includes seasonal capacity markets, a revised method for calculating generator capacity, and new rules for generator outages. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved these changes.Entergy Arkansas, LLC, along with other companies, petitioned for review of FERC's approval, arguing that FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Entergy challenged three main aspects: the new method for calculating generator capacity, the requirement for generator owners to replace capacity if offline for more than 31 days in a season, and the 120-day notice requirement for planned outages. Entergy was supported by several intervenors, including public utilities commissions and the East Texas Electric Cooperative.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that FERC had adequately explained its approval of MISO's changes. FERC's reliance on a study showing the new methodology's accuracy was deemed reasonable. The court also upheld the 31-day capacity replacement rule and the 120-day notice requirement, finding that FERC had provided sufficient rationale for these rules. The court denied Entergy's petitions for review and did not address issues raised solely by the intervenors. The court concluded that FERC's decisions were not arbitrary or capricious and were supported by substantial evidence. View "Entergy Arkansas, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

Federal agents seized packages containing noncompliant plant and animal products shipped to Amazon fulfillment centers in the U.S. by overseas sellers. The Department of Agriculture concluded that Amazon, by providing its fulfillment services, had aided, abetted, caused, or induced the unlawful importation of these products and imposed a $1 million fine on Amazon.The case was initially reviewed by an administrative law judge (ALJ) who granted summary judgment in favor of the Department, finding that Amazon had unlawfully imported the products by aiding, abetting, causing, or inducing their importation. The ALJ rejected Amazon's argument that it was unaware of the sellers' noncompliance, stating that neither bad intent nor any mens rea was required for liability. The Judicial Officer of the Department affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding that Amazon's conduct fell within the scope of the statutes and that Amazon had substantially assisted the importations with knowledge.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and set aside the Department's order. The court held that civil aiding-and-abetting liability generally requires conscious and culpable participation in unlawful conduct. The Plant Protection Act and Animal Health Protection Act incorporate this understanding. The court found that Amazon's provision of a neutral fulfillment service did not amount to conscious and culpable participation in the sellers' wrongdoing. Therefore, the court granted Amazon's petition for review, vacated the Department's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Amazon Services LLC v. AGRI" on Justia Law

Aly Abdellatif, an Egyptian citizen, suspected he was placed on government watchlists after experiencing unwarranted airport security screenings. He sought correction through the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) redress program, which responded without confirming or denying his watchlist status. Abdellatif and his wife, Nina Araujo, petitioned for review, challenging the administration of the traveler redress program and their treatment during travel.The petitioners initially filed their case in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They named multiple federal agencies and officials as respondents, alleging that Abdellatif's inclusion on the Selectee List and TSA watchlists led to enhanced security screenings and secondary inspections. They argued that TSA's redress process failed to correct erroneous information, violating statutory obligations and due process rights. The court dismissed the petition against all respondents except TSA, citing jurisdictional limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petition in part for lack of standing, as TSA cannot remove names from the Selectee List, which is maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). The court found that petitioners' injuries related to the Selectee List were not redressable in this lawsuit. However, the court denied the remaining claims on the merits, concluding that TSA's redress process complies with statutory requirements and does not violate due process. The court also rejected the Fourth Amendment claims, finding that the enhanced security screenings and secondary inspections described were reasonable and did not constitute unreasonable searches or seizures. The petition was dismissed in part and otherwise denied. View "Abdellatif v. DHS" on Justia Law

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is responsible for ensuring that rates charged by interstate oil pipelines are just and reasonable. Every five years, FERC reviews the methodology, known as the Index, used to set maximum annual rate increases. In 2020, FERC conducted its five-year review and set a new Index level, which was later modified on rehearing without adhering to notice-and-comment procedures.Initially, FERC invited comments on the proposed Index, receiving input from both pipeline operators (Carriers) and customers (Shippers). FERC issued an Initial Order in December 2020, establishing an Index level higher than proposed, effective July 1, 2021. Both Carriers and Shippers sought rehearing, with Carriers requesting minor changes and Shippers challenging the Index level. FERC issued a Rehearing Order in January 2022, adopting Shippers' suggestions and setting a new, lower Index effective March 1, 2022. Shippers sought clarification on the retroactive application of the Rehearing Order, which FERC denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. Carriers argued that FERC failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by modifying the Index without notice-and-comment procedures. The court agreed, noting that once the Initial Order's Index became effective on July 1, 2021, any substantive changes required adherence to APA procedures. The court found that FERC's modification of the Index in the Rehearing Order without such procedures was improper.The court granted Carriers' petitions for review, vacated the Rehearing Order, and ordered FERC to reinstate the Initial Order. Shippers' petitions for review were dismissed as moot due to the vacatur of the Rehearing Order. View "Liquid Energy Pipeline Association v. FERC" on Justia Law

Hudson Transmission Partners, a merchant transmission facility, previously held firm rights to draw electricity from the PJM grid and was assessed costs for certain grid improvements. In 2017, Hudson relinquished its firm rights, leading to a dispute over whether it must continue paying for previously assessed costs for lower voltage facility upgrades and economic projects under the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) found that Hudson must continue to pay these costs. FERC determined that the PJM Tariff dictates that prior assessments for lower voltage facility upgrades are fixed and unaffected by a change in firm rights. Additionally, the costs of economic projects are validly allocated to entities like Hudson that benefit from the energy savings, regardless of their firm rights status.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld FERC's decision, agreeing that Hudson remains responsible for the previously assessed costs. The court noted that the PJM Tariff includes a saving clause that fixes the cost responsibility for lower voltage facilities unless explicitly changed, which was not the case here. The court also found that Hudson continues to benefit from the economic projects, justifying the continued cost responsibility.The court concluded that FERC's interpretation of the PJM Tariff was consistent with its prior orders and the cost-causation principle, which assigns costs based on the burdens imposed or benefits received by a party. Therefore, the court denied the petitions for review, affirming that Hudson must continue to pay the previously assessed costs for the lower voltage facility upgrades and economic projects. View "New York Power Authority v. FERC" on Justia Law