Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., and its subentities sought an exemption from Wisconsin's unemployment compensation taxes, claiming they were controlled by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior and operated primarily for religious purposes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the exemption, ruling that the organizations did not engage in proselytization or limit their services to Catholics, and thus were not operated primarily for religious purposes.The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development initially denied the exemption request, but an Administrative Law Judge reversed this decision. The Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission then reinstated the denial. The state trial court overruled the commission, granting the exemption, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the organizations' activities were secular and not primarily religious, and that the statute did not violate the First Amendment.The United States Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's application of the statute violated the First Amendment. The Court found that the statute imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines, subjecting it to strict scrutiny. The Court concluded that the statute, as applied, could not survive strict scrutiny because the State failed to show that the law was narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. The judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission" on Justia Law

The Texas Attorney General alleged that Annunciation House, a nonprofit organization in El Paso, was unlawfully harboring illegal aliens. The Attorney General sought to examine the organization's records and initiate quo warranto proceedings, which could lead to the revocation of its charter. Annunciation House, which provides shelter to immigrants and refugees, was served with a records request by state officials, who demanded immediate compliance. Annunciation House sought legal relief, arguing that the request violated its constitutional rights.The 205th Judicial District Court in El Paso County granted a temporary restraining order and later a temporary injunction against the Attorney General's records request. The court also denied the Attorney General's motion for leave to file a quo warranto action, ruling that the statutes authorizing the records request were unconstitutional and that the allegations of harboring illegal aliens did not constitute a valid basis for quo warranto. The court further held that the statutes were preempted by federal law and violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case on direct appeal. The court held that the trial court erred in its constitutional rulings and that the Attorney General has the constitutional authority to file a quo warranto action. The court emphasized that it was too early to express a view on the merits of the underlying issues and that the usual litigation process should unfold. The court also held that the statutes authorizing the records request were not facially unconstitutional and that the trial court's injunction against the Attorney General's records request was improper. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "PAXTON v. ANNUNCIATION HOUSE, INC." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who own or operate gasoline service stations in Puerto Rico, offered two different prices to consumers: a higher price for those using credit or debit cards and a lower price for those paying with cash. In 2013, Puerto Rico's legislature enacted Law 152-2013, amending Law 150-2008 by removing a provision that allowed merchants to offer cash discounts. Plaintiffs ceased offering the lower price due to the threat of fines and criminal prosecution. They sued the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, arguing that Law 150 is preempted by federal law and is unconstitutionally vague.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico rejected the plaintiffs' arguments and granted the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court found that neither the Cash Discount Act (CDA) nor the Durbin Amendment preempted Law 150. The court also declined to address the constitutional vagueness argument, noting that the complaint did not allege that Law 150 is unconstitutionally vague.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the CDA and the Durbin Amendment do not preempt Law 150. The CDA regulates the conduct of credit card issuers, not merchants or states, and does not confer an absolute right to offer cash discounts. The Durbin Amendment regulates payment card networks, not states, and does not preempt state legislation restricting cash discounts. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not properly plead a vagueness claim in their complaint, rendering the claim unpreserved for appellate review. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. View "Asociacion de Detallistas de Gasolina de PR Inc. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

In 2018, the City of Nashua approved a bond resolution to construct a performing arts center. Due to financing complications, the City formed two non-profit corporations to take advantage of a federal tax credit. In 2020, NPAC Corp., a private, for-profit corporation, was formed to aid in the tax credit process. NPAC is wholly owned by one of the non-profits, which is owned by the City. Laurie Ortolano requested NPAC's public records related to the center, but NPAC claimed it was not subject to the Right-to-Know Law (RSA chapter 91-A). Ortolano then filed a complaint seeking access to these records.The Superior Court dismissed Ortolano's complaint, agreeing with NPAC that it was not a public entity subject to RSA chapter 91-A. The court also dismissed the claims against the City, reasoning that the relief sought was derivative of the claim against NPAC. Additionally, the court denied Ortolano's motion to amend her complaint to allege constitutional violations because she failed to attach a proposed amended complaint.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the City, finding that Ortolano's complaint did not state an independent claim against the City. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the claims against NPAC, ruling that the trial court erred by not applying the "government function" test to determine if NPAC was a "public body" under RSA chapter 91-A. The court also upheld the trial court's denial of Ortolano's motion to amend her complaint, as the proposed amendment did not cure the defect in the original pleading.The case was remanded for the trial court to apply the "government function" test to determine whether NPAC is subject to the Right-to-Know Law. View "Ortolano v. City of Nashua" on Justia Law

The case involves an enforcement action by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Gregory Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management, LLC. The SEC alleged that Lemelson made false statements of material fact, engaged in a fraudulent scheme, and violated securities laws, resulting in approximately $1.3 million in illegal profits. The SEC sought disgorgement of these profits, a permanent injunction, and civil monetary penalties. Lemelson moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court dismissed one of the challenged statements. The SEC filed an amended complaint, and the jury ultimately found Lemelson liable for three statements but rejected other claims.The District Court for the District of Massachusetts held Lemelson in contempt for violating a protective order and threatening a priest who provided information to the SEC. After the jury verdict, the district court issued a final judgment, including a five-year injunction against Lemelson and a $160,000 civil penalty. Lemelson appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. Lemelson then moved for attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), arguing that the SEC's demands were excessive compared to the final judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's denial of Lemelson's motion for fees and costs. The appellate court found that the district court incorrectly compared the SEC's demand to the scope of the initial claims rather than the final judgment obtained. The appellate court vacated the denial of fees and costs and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the SEC's demands were excessive and unreasonable compared to the final judgment. The appellate court also noted that the district court should consider whether Lemelson acted in bad faith or if special circumstances make an award unjust. View "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lemelson" on Justia Law

In 2023, James Broad and Rebecca McCrensky began operating a car-rental agency, Becky's Broncos, LLC, on Nantucket Island without the necessary local approvals. The Town of Nantucket and the Nantucket Town Select Board ordered Becky's to cease operations. Becky's sought preliminary injunctive relief in the District of Massachusetts to continue their business.The District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Becky's request for a preliminary injunction. The court found insufficient evidence of discriminatory effect under the dormant Commerce Clause and concluded that Becky's had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Becky's appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that Becky's did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim, as the ordinance did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses. The court also found that Becky's failed to establish a likelihood of success on its antitrust claims due to a lack of a concrete theory of liability. Additionally, Becky's procedural due process argument was rejected because it did not establish a property interest in the required medallions. Lastly, the court held that the ordinance survived rational basis review under substantive due process, as it was rationally related to legitimate government interests in managing traffic and congestion on the island. View "Becky's Broncos, LLC v. Town of Nantucket" on Justia Law

Zyla Life Sciences, LLC (Zyla) sells FDA-approved indomethacin suppositories, while Wells Pharma of Houston, LLC (Wells Pharma) sells compounded indomethacin suppositories that are not FDA-approved but are produced in a registered compounding facility. Zyla filed suit against Wells Pharma under the unfair-competition laws of six states, arguing that Wells Pharma's sales violated state laws that mirror the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) by requiring FDA approval for new drugs.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Wells Pharma's motion to dismiss, holding that the state laws were preempted by federal law. Zyla appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fifth Circuit held that state laws mirroring federal requirements are not preempted by the FDCA. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in California v. Zook, which established that state laws incorporating federal law do not create a conflict and are not preempted. The court also distinguished this case from Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, noting that Buckman involved state-law claims of fraud on a federal agency, which is a uniquely federal concern, unlike the parallel state regulations at issue here.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the state laws in question do not conflict with the FDCA and do not interfere with federal enforcement discretion. Therefore, the district court's order granting Wells Pharma's motion to dismiss was reversed, Wells Pharma's cross-appeal for attorney's fees was dismissed as moot, and the district court's order denying Zyla's motion for leave to amend was vacated. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Zyla Life Sciences v. Wells Pharma" on Justia Law

Badlia Brothers, LLC, a check-cashing business, cashed 15 checks issued by the State of Maryland. These checks had already been paid by the State before Badlia presented them for payment. Some checks were deposited using a mobile app, creating "substitute checks," and were then fraudulently or negligently presented to Badlia. Others were reported lost or stolen, leading the State to issue stop payment orders and replacement checks, which were also cashed by Badlia. Badlia accepted the checks without knowledge of prior payments and sought payment from the State, which refused.Badlia filed complaints in the District Court of Maryland, claiming the right to enforce the checks as a holder in due course. The court consolidated the cases, ruled that the State enjoyed qualified immunity, and dismissed the cases. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City reversed, holding that a check is a contract, and thus, the State had waived sovereign immunity. On remand, the District Court found that Badlia was a holder in due course entitled to enforce the checks. The Circuit Court affirmed, and the State petitioned for certiorari.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that a check is a contract for purposes of the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity under § 12-201(a) of the State Government Article. The court affirmed the Circuit Court's decision, concluding that the State has waived sovereign immunity for claims by a holder in due course seeking payment on an authorized State-issued check. View "Comptroller v. Badlia Brothers, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves two charitable organizations, Catholic Medical Mission Board, Inc. (CMMB) and Food for the Poor, Inc. (FFP), which were issued cease and desist orders and civil penalties by the Attorney General of California for allegedly making false or misleading statements in their charitable solicitations. The Attorney General found that both organizations overvalued in-kind donations and misrepresented their program efficiency ratios, leading to misleading donor solicitations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case and found that the challenged statutory provisions, sections 12591.1(b) and 12599.6(f)(2) of the Government Code, were unconstitutional under the First Amendment as they constituted prior restraints on speech. The court vacated the civil penalties and issued permanent injunctions against the Attorney General, preventing the enforcement of these provisions. The court also reformed section 12591.1(b) to exclude violations of section 12599.6 from the Attorney General’s cease and desist authority.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s constitutional rulings but vacated the permanent injunctions, stating that the trial court abused its discretion by granting them without requiring the plaintiffs to plead and prove entitlement to such relief. The appellate court remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaints to seek injunctive relief and to prove they are entitled to it. The court also affirmed the trial court’s reformation of section 12591.1(b) and vacated the postjudgment orders awarding attorney fees, directing the trial court to reconsider the fees in light of the appellate court’s rulings. View "Catholic Medical Mission Board, Inc. v. Bonta" on Justia Law

The case involves two charitable organizations, Catholic Medical Mission Board, Inc. (CMMB) and Food for the Poor, Inc. (FFP), which were issued cease and desist orders and civil penalties by the California Attorney General for allegedly overvaluing in-kind donations and making misleading statements in their solicitations. The Attorney General found that both organizations used inflated domestic market prices for donated medicines, which could not be distributed within the U.S., and misrepresented their program efficiency ratios to donors.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case and found that the challenged statutory provisions, sections 12591.1(b) and 12599.6(f)(2) of the Government Code, were unconstitutional as they constituted prior restraints on speech. The court vacated the civil penalties and issued permanent injunctions against the Attorney General, preventing the enforcement of these provisions. The court also reformed section 12591.1(b) by adding language to exclude violations of section 12599.6 from the Attorney General's cease and desist authority.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the permanent injunctions without requiring the plaintiffs to plead and prove their entitlement to such relief. The appellate court vacated the injunctions and remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaints and prove their entitlement to injunctive relief. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's reformation of section 12591.1(b), allowing the Attorney General to issue cease and desist orders for violations unrelated to speech. The appellate court also vacated the postjudgment orders awarding attorney fees and directed the trial court to reconsider the fees in light of the remand. View "Catholic Medical Mission Board v. Bonta" on Justia Law