Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between the Florida Division of Emergency Management (the Division) and a private company, Essential Diagnostics, LLC, over a contract for the purchase of COVID-19 test kits. The Division contracted with Essential Diagnostics to buy 200,000 COVID-19 test kits for $2.2 million. However, Essential claimed that the Division ordered 600,000 tests but only paid for 200,000. The Division, on the other hand, insisted that it only ever agreed to buy 200,000 tests and that it paid for them in full. Essential assigned its rights under the contract to Global Integrated Concepts, which sued the Division in Florida state court. However, the state court dismissed the complaint. Subsequently, Global and two other parties involved in the transaction sued the Division in federal district court in North Carolina, seeking to recover the same $4.4 million Global sought as damages in its state court suit.The Division moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds of sovereign immunity. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that the Division waived its sovereign immunity by contracting with the plaintiffs. The Division appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court found that the district court erred in concluding that the Division waived its sovereign immunity by contracting with the plaintiffs. The court clarified that the rules governing waiver of federal-law sovereign immunity in federal court come from federal law, not state law. The court concluded that the district court failed to distinguish between the defenses and immunities a State might enjoy under state law and the constitutionally protected sovereign immunity that States enjoy from suit in federal court. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Global Innovative Concepts, LLC v. State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management" on Justia Law

In 2007, Jon Oberg filed a lawsuit under the False Claims Act against various student-loan companies, including Nelnet, Inc., Nelnet Education Loan Funding, Inc., Brazos Higher Education Services Corporation, and Brazos Higher Education Authority, Inc. Oberg alleged that the companies submitted false claims to the Department of Education to inflate their loan portfolios eligible for interest subsidies. The parties agreed to a protective order for discovery, and the companies filed a joint motion for leave to file confidential summary judgment materials under seal. The magistrate judge granted in part the motion to file under seal. The parties eventually settled, and the magistrate judge dismissed the actions against the companies with prejudice.On March 31, 2023, Michael Camoin—a documentary filmmaker who covers the student-loan industry—filed a pro se letter in the district court requesting access to the materials that Oberg filed under seal in connection to his opposition to summary judgment. Nelnet and Brazos eventually filed a joint brief opposing Camoin’s request. On July 3, 2023, the magistrate judge denied Camoin’s motion. The judge found that Camoin has “no common law or First Amendment right to access the sought documents and portions of documents” because “a document must play a relevant and useful part in the adjudication process for either the First Amendment or common law rights of public access to attach.”On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the magistrate judge’s order and remanded for consideration of whether maintaining the seal on the requested documents is “necessitated by a compelling government interest[] and . . . narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” The court held that Camoin has a presumptive First Amendment right to access Oberg’s summary judgment motion and the documents attached to that motion. The court found that the public has an interest in ensuring basic fairness and deterring official misconduct not only in the outcome of certain proceedings, but also in the very proceedings themselves. The court concluded that irrespective of whether a district court ever resolves a summary judgment motion, the public has a presumptive First Amendment right to access documents submitted in connection with it. View "Camoin v. Nelnet, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves the Michigan Attorney General's attempt to shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 Pipeline, which runs underwater across the Straits of Mackinac between Michigan’s Lower and Upper Peninsulas. The Attorney General filed the case in Michigan state court in 2019, alleging violations of three state laws. Enbridge responded by moving for summary disposition, arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The state court held oral argument on those dispositive motions, focusing on preemption issues, including whether the Attorney General’s claims were preempted by either the Pipeline Safety Act or the federal Submerged Lands Act.In 2020, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued a notice of revocation of the 1953 easement, calling for Line 5 to be shut down by May 2021, and simultaneously filed a complaint in state court to enforce the notice. Enbridge timely removed the Governor’s case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The district court denied the Governor’s motion to remand, holding that it had federal-question jurisdiction. The Governor subsequently voluntarily dismissed her case.Enbridge removed the Attorney General’s case to federal court in December 2021, citing the district court’s order denying the motion to remand in the Governor’s case. The Attorney General moved to remand this case to state court on grounds of untimely removal and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion on both grounds, excusing Enbridge’s untimely removal based on equitable principles and estopping the Attorney General from challenging subject-matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding that Enbridge failed to timely remove the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and there are no equitable exceptions to the statute’s deadlines for removal. The case was remanded to Michigan state court. View "Nessel v. Enbridge Energy, LP" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over water rights associated with the Green Mountain Reservoir in Colorado. The City of Golden (Golden) opposed the implementation of an administrative protocol (the Protocol) developed by the United States and other parties, arguing that it would injure its rights upstream of the reservoir. The water court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Protocol is consistent with the Blue River Decree, a series of decrees and stipulations governing water rights in the area. Golden appealed this decision.Previously, the water court had ruled that an assessment of injury was not required in this case, as the United States was merely requesting confirmation that the Protocol was consistent with the existing Blue River Decree. The court also rejected Golden's claims that the Protocol contradicted language in the Blue River Decree requiring the "fair" and "equitable" treatment of all parties with interests in the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT), a complex water diversion project.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed the water court's ruling. It held that the Protocol is consistent with the Blue River Decree and does not violate the prior appropriation doctrine, a principle of water law that gives priority to those who first used the water. The court also rejected Golden's procedural arguments regarding the water court's denial of its motion for reconsideration. View "City of Golden v. City of Aurora" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the eligibility of a married individual, Costa Tingos, for Medicaid long-term care benefits. Costa and his wife, Mary, had been married for over 50 years, but had kept their finances largely separate due to Costa's history of gambling and financial mismanagement. When Costa moved into a nursing home, he applied for Medicaid benefits. However, Mary refused to provide information about her income and assets, which was necessary to determine Costa's eligibility. Costa argued that Mary's refusal to cooperate should not affect his eligibility.The case was initially heard by the Massachusetts Medicaid program, MassHealth, which denied Costa's application. Costa appealed to the MassHealth board of hearings, which also denied his appeal. Costa then sought judicial review in the Superior Court, which vacated the board's decision and remanded the case back to the board. After two more rounds of hearings and appeals, the Superior Court affirmed the board's decision to deny Costa's application.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. The court held that the board's interpretation of the phrase "refuses to cooperate" in the relevant regulation was reasonable. The court found that Mary's refusal to disclose her financial information did not constitute a refusal to cooperate within the meaning of the regulation, given the couple's long history of cooperation in other aspects of their marriage. The court also rejected Costa's argument that the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. View "Freiner v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

Felissa Jones, the mother of an elementary school student, reported to the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (MDCPS) that her son had suffered abuse and neglect by staff at his school. MDCPS responded that it does not investigate reports of abuse at school. Jones then sued MDCPS, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to MDCPS’s policy that the agency does not investigate allegations of abuse in out-of-home settings such as schools.The Hinds County Chancery Court denied Jones's motion for a judgment in her favor on the pleadings and granted MDCPS's motion for a judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Jones's complaint. The court ruled that Jones's request for declaratory relief related to MDCPS’s former intake policy was moot because the policy was no longer in effect. It also ruled that the current intake policy does not violate the relevant statutes, but instead conforms to the statutory mandate to refer allegations of child abuse in out-of-home settings to local law enforcement.In the Supreme Court of Mississippi, Jones appealed the lower court's decisions. The court affirmed the lower court's rulings, stating that MDCPS does not have a duty to investigate reports of abuse in out-of-home settings, such as schools, because children who are mistreated by school staff do not fall under the youth court’s limited jurisdiction. The court also found that Jones's claim for declaratory relief from the amended policy had no merit because the policy tracks the relevant statutes. View "Jones v. Department of Child Protection Services" on Justia Law

In 2020, the Town of Hideout, Utah, took advantage of a brief window in state law that allowed municipalities to annex unincorporated areas without a petition or county consent. Hideout annexed an area in Summit County, and after receiving a certificate of annexation from the Lieutenant Governor, Summit County challenged the annexation and the related municipal ordinance in district court. The district court ruled in favor of Summit County, finding that it had standing to challenge the annexation and declaring the annexation ordinance invalid.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reversed the district court's decisions. The court found that the relevant statutory scheme, the annexation code, did not provide Summit County with a legally protectible interest that would allow it to obtain the relief it sought. The court also found that the statutory provisions outside the annexation code that Summit County relied on did not provide it with a legally protectible interest in the controversy. The court further held that the doctrine of public interest standing, on which the district court alternatively relied, was inapplicable in this case.Because the court concluded that Summit County lacked standing to pursue its claims, it also reversed the district court’s award of summary judgment in Summit County’s favor without addressing the merits of Summit County’s claims. The case was remanded to the district court for dismissal. View "Hideout v. Summit County" on Justia Law

In 2018, a group of citizens in Tooele County, Utah, initiated the process to incorporate an area known as the City of Erda. The incorporation process involved several steps, including obtaining signatures from property owners within the proposed area, conducting a feasibility study, and holding a public vote. After the incorporation was certified by the Lieutenant Governor, three landowners within Erda's boundaries—John Bleazard, Mark Bleazard, and Six Mile Ranch Company—challenged the incorporation. They alleged that the incorporation process violated statutory requirements, including that their signatures were misrepresented in the feasibility study request and that the notice of impending boundary action was untimely.The district court in Tooele County denied motions to dismiss the case brought by the City of Erda and the Lieutenant Governor. They had argued that the landowners lacked statutory standing to challenge the incorporation. The court disagreed, finding that the landowners had a legally protectible interest under the Utah Code, which it interpreted as contemplating the possibility of a challenge to an incorporation.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the landowners' claim for declaratory relief was non-justiciable because they lacked a legally protectible interest in the controversy. The court found that the landowners did not have a private right of action to enforce the requirements of the incorporation code. The court concluded that the landowners' claim must be dismissed as a matter of law. View "Bleazard v. City of Erda" on Justia Law

In Utah, a group of local citizens sponsored the incorporation of an area in Tooele County to be known as the City of Erda. After the Lieutenant Governor certified Erda’s incorporation, three landowners within Erda’s boundaries challenged the incorporation, alleging statutory violations during the incorporation process. The defendants, Erda and the Lieutenant Governor, moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the landowners lacked statutory standing. The district court disagreed and denied their motions to dismiss.The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Utah, arguing that the landowners' claim for declaratory relief should be dismissed as it is non-justiciable. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the landowners’ claim must be dismissed as a matter of law because it is non-justiciable. The court found that under Utah law, a declaratory judgment action is non-justiciable if the plaintiff lacks a protectible legal interest in the controversy. The court concluded that the landowners did not have a protectible legal interest in their claim because the legislature did not grant affected citizens a private right of action to enforce the incorporation code’s requirements. Therefore, the court reversed the district court’s decision. View "Bleazard v. Henderson" on Justia Law

The case involves Amazon.com Services LLC and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB alleged that Amazon committed an unfair labor practice by discharging an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity. While the charge was pending before the Board, the Board sought temporary injunctive relief, including the employee’s reinstatement. The district court found "reasonable cause" to believe Amazon committed an unfair labor practice in terminating the employee. However, it concluded that ordering Amazon to cease and desist from committing certain violations of the Act was "just and proper," but that ordering Amazon to reinstate the employee was not.The district court's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appellate court found that the district court did not adequately explain why the cease-and-desist order was just and proper, particularly in light of its conclusion that the employee’s reinstatement was not. Therefore, the injunction was vacated in part. The court noted that the district court's lack of explanation for granting the cease-and-desist order, coupled with its explicit, undisputed findings in rejecting the request to order the employee's reinstatement, cast serious doubt on the propriety of the cease-and-desist order. View "Poor v. Amazon.com Services LLC" on Justia Law