Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Pavan V. Parikh, the Hamilton County clerk of courts, who implemented a policy in May 2022 that eliminated remote online access to court records in residential-eviction cases older than three years from the date of judgment satisfaction. Parikh argued that this policy was to prevent misuse of court documents by the public, such as employers and landlords. The judges of the Hamilton County Municipal Court objected to this policy and issued Administrative Order No. 23-45 in October 2023, directing Parikh to rescind the policy and restore online access to the records. Parikh did not comply, leading to the judges threatening contempt proceedings.Parikh filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition in the First District Court of Appeals to prevent the judges from enforcing the administrative order and holding him in contempt. The judges counterclaimed, requesting a writ of mandamus to compel Parikh to comply with their order. The court of appeals, with visiting judges from the Twelfth District, ruled in favor of the judges, granting their motion for judgment on the pleadings on the prohibition claim and issuing a writ of mandamus ordering Parikh to rescind his policy and comply with the administrative order.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the court of appeals' judgment. The court held that Parikh had a clear legal duty under R.C. 1901.31(E) to comply with the judges' administrative order. The court also determined that Parikh had an adequate remedy through appeal if held in contempt, and the judges did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to hold him in contempt for noncompliance. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of Parikh's request for a writ of prohibition and the granting of the judges' request for a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Parikh v. Berkowitz" on Justia Law

Ronald Ayers, an inmate at the Lake Erie Correctional Institution, petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel Laura Sackett, the prison's records custodian, to produce public records. Ayers requested a copy of the Department of Administrative Services’ general retention schedule and video footage from a security search of his cell on August 31, 2023. Sackett denied the requests, claiming the retention schedule was not specific to the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and that the video footage was not preserved as it did not document a "qualifying event."The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case after Ayers filed his petition. The court found that Ayers did not need to exhaust administrative remedies before filing for mandamus. The court determined that the requested video footage did not exist at the time of Ayers' request, as it had been recorded over, and thus Sackett correctly denied this request. However, the court found that the general retention schedule was a public record received and used by the prison, and Sackett's denial of this request was not justified.The Supreme Court of Ohio granted Ayers' writ of mandamus in part, ordering Sackett to produce the retention schedule. The court awarded Ayers $1,000 in statutory damages for the improper denial of the retention schedule but denied his request for court costs due to his affidavit of indigency. The court denied Ayers' motions for discovery as moot. View "State ex rel. Ayers v. Sackett" on Justia Law

A group of staffing companies in Texas challenged a memorandum issued by the former General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Jennifer Abruzzo. The memorandum outlined a plan to urge the NLRB to reverse its holding in a previous case, Babcock, which allowed employers to compel employees to attend meetings where they were urged to reject union representation. The staffing companies argued that the memorandum violated their First Amendment rights by restricting their speech about unionization and sought an injunction and declaratory judgment against its enforcement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the plaintiffs were challenging unreviewable prosecutorial decisions by the NLRB General Counsel, that the NLRA's scheme precluded jurisdiction, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The staffing companies appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its dismissal and that they had standing because the memorandum applied to them and was a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the staffing companies lacked standing. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not provided evidence of a credible threat of enforcement of the memorandum causing them direct injury. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate an intent to engage in conduct regulated by the memorandum, as there was no known unionization attempt at their businesses. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a credible threat of enforcement or a substantial risk of future injury.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case for lack of standing. View "Burnett Specialists v. Cowen" on Justia Law

A group called Idahoans United for Women and Families filed a petition seeking writs of certiorari and mandamus against the Idaho Division of Financial Management (DFM), the Idaho Attorney General, and the Idaho Secretary of State. The petition concerns the fiscal impact statement (FIS) and ballot titles for a citizen initiative titled the “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act.” Idahoans United argued that the FIS and ballot titles did not comply with Idaho law and requested the court to either certify their proposed versions or order the respondents to prepare new compliant versions.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petition against the Secretary of State, finding that Idahoans United failed to properly invoke the court's original jurisdiction against him. However, the court partially granted the writ of mandamus against DFM, concluding that the FIS did not substantially comply with Idaho Code section 34-1812 due to a lack of a reasonable basis for its estimated fiscal impacts, unclear and conflicting statements, and unnecessary legal terms. The court also partially granted the writ of mandamus against the Attorney General, finding that the short ballot title did not substantially comply with Idaho Code section 34-1809 because it failed to capture all distinctive features of the initiative. However, the court found that the long ballot title substantially complied with the statutory requirements.The Idaho Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and ordered DFM to provide a new FIS and the Attorney General to provide a new short ballot title by June 23, 2025. The court denied the request for attorney fees, noting that both parties prevailed in part. View "Idahoans United for Women and Families v. Labrador" on Justia Law

Verizon Wireless sought permits from the City of Milwaukee to install small cells and matching utility poles in a downtown plaza next to a major arena. The City denied most of the permits, initially citing aesthetic concerns and proximity to existing poles. Later, it claimed it lacked authority to grant the permits because the plaza was leased to Deer District LLC. Verizon sued the City, arguing the denials violated the Telecommunications Act (TCA) and Wisconsin state law. The district court ruled in favor of Verizon, finding the City's justifications insufficient and ordered the City to issue the permits. Verizon installed the poles, and the City accepted the ruling.The district court found that the City's initial reasons for denial were not supported by substantial evidence and violated the TCA. It also found the City's later rationale, based on the lease with Deer District, untimely and unconvincing. The court held that the City violated Wisconsin state law as well, and ordered the City to issue the permits. The City complied and did not appeal the decision. Deer District, an intervening defendant, appealed, challenging the district court's interpretation of the lease and state law, but not the TCA holding.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed Deer District's appeal for lack of Article III standing, as Deer District could not demonstrate that its injury would be redressed by a favorable decision. The court noted that the City did not join the appeal and that the injunction ran exclusively against the City. Therefore, even if the court ruled in Deer District's favor, it would not change the City's obligations under the district court's order. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. View "Cellco Partnership v Deer District LLC" on Justia Law

A student, E.I., attended El Segundo Middle School during the 2017-2018 school year and experienced bullying from classmates, particularly Skylar. Despite E.I. and her parents repeatedly reporting the bullying to school officials, including the principal and counselor, the school failed to take effective action. The bullying included verbal harassment, social media abuse, and physical aggression, which led E.I. to self-harm and develop PTSD and depression. The school’s anti-bullying policies were not adequately followed by the staff.The case was initially reviewed by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, where a jury found the El Segundo Unified School District negligent and awarded E.I. $1 million in damages. The District moved for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which were denied by the court.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The District argued several points on appeal, including errors in allowing reliance on certain Education Code provisions, claims of immunity under Government Code section 820.2, insufficient evidence of causation, improper consideration of a negligent training and supervision theory, admission of expert testimony, and attorney misconduct during closing arguments. The appellate court found that many of the District’s arguments were either waived or lacked merit. The court held that the District was not immune from liability under Government Code section 820.2, as the actions in question were operational rather than policy decisions. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the jury’s causation finding and determined that any potential errors were not prejudicial. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of E.I. View "E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

In October 2017, the FBI mistakenly raided the home of Hilliard Toi Cliatt, Curtrina Martin, and her 7-year-old son in suburban Atlanta, instead of the intended gang hideout. The error occurred due to Special Agent Guerra's reliance on a personal GPS device and the team's failure to notice the correct street sign and house number. The raid resulted in personal injuries and property damage. The plaintiffs sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for the officers' negligent and intentional actions.The district court granted summary judgment to the government, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Eleventh Circuit applied a unique approach to FTCA claims, holding that the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) overrides all exceptions, including the discretionary-function exception, allowing intentional-tort claims to proceed without further analysis. The court also allowed the government to assert a Supremacy Clause defense, which it found valid, leading to summary judgment for the United States.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) overrides only the intentional-tort exception, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions in §2680. The Court also held that the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in FTCA suits. The case was vacated and remanded to the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider whether the discretionary-function exception bars the plaintiffs' claims and to assess liability under Georgia state law without reference to a Supremacy Clause defense. View "Martin v. United States" on Justia Law

David J. Rudometkin was found guilty of several offenses by a military judge in 2018 and sentenced to seventeen years of confinement. His post-trial motion for a mistrial was denied by another military judge after the original judge was suspended for inappropriate conduct. Rudometkin then submitted FOIA requests to the Army and the Department of Defense for records related to the judges involved. The government either did not respond meaningfully or rejected the requests under FOIA exemptions.Rudometkin filed a pro se complaint in the District Court in 2020, challenging the government's withholding of records. He later amended his complaint to focus solely on records related to the appointment of the Chief Trial Judge. The District Court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the government had adequately searched for records and appropriately withheld information under Exemption 5’s deliberative-process privilege. The court also denied Rudometkin’s motions to amend his complaint to include his original FOIA claim regarding the Army’s investigatory records of the first judge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the government did not establish that it properly withheld records under Exemption 5’s deliberative-process privilege and had not shown that it released all reasonably segregable information. The court reversed and remanded on the segregability issue. However, the court affirmed the District Court’s denial of Rudometkin’s motion to amend his complaint, as his FOIA claim regarding the Army’s investigatory records of the first judge was now live in a separate action. View "Rudometkin v. USA" on Justia Law

In this case, Sacramento Television Stations Inc. (Sac TV) sought additional audio and video recordings from the City of Roseville (City) under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). The recordings pertained to an incident on April 6, 2023, where Roseville Police Department (Roseville PD) officers discharged firearms at a suspect, Eric J. Abril, resulting in injuries and a fatality. The City provided limited footage, arguing that further disclosure would interfere with an active investigation.The Superior Court of Placer County ruled that the City had shown by clear and convincing evidence that releasing more footage would substantially interfere with the ongoing investigation into Abril's criminal case. Consequently, the court denied Sac TV's petition for additional recordings. Sac TV then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, seeking to overturn the superior court's decision.The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and concluded that the superior court's finding of an "active investigation" was not supported by substantial evidence. The appellate court determined that the City had not provided sufficient detail to demonstrate how further disclosure would interfere with an active investigation. The court also found that the superior court correctly interpreted that more disclosure was required under subdivision (e) of section 7923.625 of the Government Code, but it had not determined the extent of additional disclosure needed.The Court of Appeal vacated the superior court's ruling and directed it to hold further proceedings, including an in camera review of the City's recordings, to determine the extent of additional disclosure required. The appellate court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient context to understand the events captured in the recordings, as mandated by the CPRA. View "Sacramento Television Stations Inc. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

A Nebraska county (Hayes) sought reimbursement from a neighboring county (Frontier) for half the cost of replacing a bridge under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-827 et seq. Hayes claimed the bridge was on a county line road, thus requiring shared expenses. Frontier's board of commissioners denied the claim, arguing the bridge was not on a county line road and that Frontier was not equally interested in the bridge. Hayes then filed a petition in error in the district court, seeking review of the board's decision.The district court reviewed the case and found that Hayes had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim. Specifically, the court noted that Hayes did not request an evidentiary hearing before the Frontier Board, resulting in a lack of formal proof regarding the bridge's location. The court concluded that the only evidence in the record was Hayes' claim and its attachments, which were insufficient to establish the bridge's location as required by § 39-827. Consequently, the district court denied and dismissed Hayes' petition in error.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the Frontier Board acted within its jurisdiction and whether its decision was supported by sufficient relevant evidence. The court found that Hayes failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the bridge was on a county line road as defined by § 39-1403. The court also noted that the Road Agreement between Hayes and Frontier did not conclusively establish the bridge's location for the purposes of the bridge statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified the disposition from "denied and dismissed" to "affirmed." View "County of Hayes v. County of Frontier" on Justia Law