Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs (the Associations) challenged the district court's ruling that they lack Article III standing to bring a "reverse" Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, 706(2)(A), claim against the EPA. Plaintiffs challenge the EPA's disclosure of certain information about concentrated animal feeding operations, contending that this disclosure is an unlawful release of their members’ personal information. The court concluded that, assuming that plaintiffs' claim would be successful on the merits, the associations have established a concrete and particularized injury in fact traceable to the EPA’s action and redressable by judicial relief. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing this case for lack of standing. The court also concluded that the EPA abused its discretion in deciding that the information at issue was not exempt from mandatory disclosure under Exemption 6 of FOIA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider the associations’ request for injunctive relief. View "American Farm Bureau v. EPA" on Justia Law

In involuntarily hospitalized patient diagnosed with schizophrenia appealed a trial court’s order allowing for his involuntary medication. Patient argued that the court erred by: (1) incorrectly applying the competency standard under 18 V.S.A. 7625; and (2) failing to address whether a previously prepared document reflecting his desire not to be given psychiatric medication was a “competently expressed written . . . preference[] regarding medication” under 18 V.S.A. 7627(b). After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s findings supported its conclusion under section 7625, but agreed that the trial court did not squarely address patient’s argument under section 7627 in its findings. Accordingly, the Court reversed on that issue and remanded for the trial court to issue findings addressing the applicability of section 7627(b). View "In re I.G." on Justia Law

John Boman appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Gadsden. Boman worked as a Gadsden police officer from 1965 until he retired in 1991. Following his retirement, Boman elected to pay for retiree health coverage through a group plan offered by Gadsden to retired employees. This retired-employee-benefit plan was also administered by Blue Cross and provided substantially similar benefits to those Boman received as an active employee. In 2000, however, Gadsden elected to join an employee-health-insurance-benefit plan ("the plan") administered by the State Employees' Insurance Board ("the SEIB"). When Boman turned 65 in 2011, he was receiving medical care for congestive heart failure and severe osteoarthritis of the spine. After his 65th birthday, Blue Cross began denying his claims for medical treatment based on the failure to provide Blue Cross with a "record of the Medicare payment." However, Boman had no Medicare credits. Boman was hired before March 31, 1986, and, although Gadsden did begin participation in the Medicare program in 2006, Boman's employee group had not opted to obtain Medicare coverage before Boman retired. Consequently, Boman never paid Medicare taxes and did not claim to have Medicare coverage. The SEIB ultimately determined that the plan was the secondary payer to Medicare. Boman sued Gadsden, asserting that it had broken an agreement, made upon his employment, to provide him with lifetime health benefits upon his retirement. Boman also sued the members of the SEIB charged with administering the plan, challenging the SEIB's interpretation of the plan. Finding no reversible error in the grant of summary judgment to Gadsden, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Boman v. City of Gadsden" on Justia Law

The Wilcox County Board of Education ("the Board") and Lester Turk, in his official capacity as a member of the Board (collectively, "defendants"), petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Wilcox Circuit Court ("the trial court") to vacate its March 21, 2016, order denying their motion to dismiss Eli Mack's complaint and to enter an order granting that motion. Mack, a resident of Wilcox County, filed a "complaint for declaratory judgment" against the Board and Turk in his official capacity as a member of the Board. An election contest was filed against Darryl Perryman after a general election, which resulted in his being removed from office because he was not a resident within the jurisdictional boundaries for Wilcox County. The State Board of Education requested that the Board (while Turk was serving as president) permit it to intervene in the election contest. The request failed because of a tied vote. After the failed vote, three members of the Board, without the approval of a majority of the members, asked the State Board to intervene in the election contest. Given those facts, Mack alleged that an "actual and substantial controversy exists as to whether [the] [d]efendants had the authority to intervene in the election contest ... or to invite the intervention of the State Board ... where there are no facts that would justify such intervention, and no valid vote granting such action was taken." Because the Board was immune from suit, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court was without subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Board was entitled to dismissal from the case. In addition, Turk was also entitled to sovereign immunity (and thus dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) because Mack's claim for injunctive relief failed to invoke an "exception" to sovereign immunity. Because Mack lacked standing to bring a claim for the recovery of an expenditure of public funds, the trial court was without subject-matter jurisdiction over that claim as well. Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted the petition and issued the writ directing the trial court to enter an order granting the Board and Turk's motion to dismiss. View "Ex parte Wilcox County Board of Education" on Justia Law

When petitioner Mike Belenski requested certain records from Jefferson County (County), the County responded that it had "no responsive records." Over two years later, Belenski sued the County, asserting that this response violated the Public Records Act (PRA) because the County did in fact have such records and failed to make the proper disclosures. The Court of Appeals dismissed this claim as time barred under the two-year statute of limitations in RCW 4.16.130. At issue was which statute of limitations applied to Belenski' s PRA claim and whether the applicable statute rendered his claim time barred. The Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations in the PRA applied to Belenski' s claim and that this limitations period usually begins to run on an agency's final, definitive response to a records request. However, the Court remanded this case for the trial court to determine whether equitable tolling should have tolled the statute of limitations. View "Belenski v. Jefferson County" on Justia Law

Aguirre sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for failing to comply with the Public Records Act (PRA), Government Code sections 6250-6276.48 The complaint alleged that the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was closed after it leaked radiation in 2012; that costs of the shutdown and loss due to the shutdown exceeded $4 billion; and that CPUC approved the owner assigning $3.3 billion of these costs to utility ratepayers during an ex parte meeting in Warsaw, Poland. Aguirre made PRA requests seeking the production of emails and other documents related to the CPUC’s investigation of the shutdown and the settlement and meetings. The superior court rejected CPUC’s motion to dismiss. The court of appeal agreed with CPUC. Public Utilities Code section 1759 bars the superior court from exercising jurisdiction over the suit. The duty to comply with the PRA is an “official duty” of the CPUC. A “writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction” is one of the statutory means available to enforce the PRA (Gov. Code 6258), and a “writ of mandamus” may be brought against the CPUC in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal in appropriate cases under section 1759(b). View "Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In late August 2015, the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed a dependency petition regarding minor, who was about one month shy of his third birthday. While at the emergency room for a cut on his finger, child was observed to have red sores and pustules around his genitals and buttocks. Also, mother reported that she had not taken minor for any well checks since he was one month old, and that minor had not received any vaccinations. The petition alleged that mother had unresolved anger management issues. In 2013 mother was convicted for domestic violence arising from an incident in which she had struck her ex-husband in the head five times and struck his vehicle repeatedly with a metal stick. The petition also alleged that mother had an unresolved substance abuse problem; a history of methamphetamine use. She reportedly had last used methamphetamine approximately two weeks prior to the incident in which minor cut his finger. Mother’s probation officer reported that mother was not enrolled in a drug treatment program, had multiple positive drug tests, and was not attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Being sent to jail marked a significant turning point for mother. The child was placed with his maternal aunt and uncle. The aunt and uncle indicated a desire to adopt minor if reunification with mother were to fail. Mother contested the recommendation, and an evidentiary hearing was held. Ultimately, the court sided with SSA, terminated reunification services, and set a hearing. The court described mother’s progress while out of custody as “minimal” and “hollow.” The court described mother’s visitation as “strikingly sporadic.” The court noted, however, that while in custody, “mother has taken advantage of every service . . . available to her, and that certainly is to be commended.” The court also “emphathize[d] with mother for a variety of reasons, her youth, the loss that she has suffered in her life.” Nonetheless, the court felt “constrained by an evaluation of the . . . statutory and case law . . . .” Mother’s petition for writ of mandate arose from the trial court’s order terminating reunification services and the “.26 hearing.” After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court’s finding regarding mother’s actions towards reunification was not supported by substantial evidence. As such, the Court issued the requested writ of mandate. View "J.F. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Blake Brown, Dean Biggs, Jacqueline Deherrera, Ruth Ann Head, Marlene Mason, Roxanne McFall, Richard Medlock, and Bernadette Smith appealed a summary judgment order upholding Defendants-Appellees Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, and the Office of Workers Compensation’s (“OWC”) (collectively, “the agency”) redactions to documents they provided to Plaintiffs pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, (“FOIA”). Plaintiffs were former federal civilian employees eligible to receive federal workers compensation benefits. If there was a disagreement between a worker’s treating physician and the second-opinion physician hired by the OWC, an impartial “referee” physician was selected to resolve the conflict. The referee’s opinion was frequently dispositive of the benefits decision. To ensure impartiality, it is the OWC’s official policy to use a software program to schedule referee appointments on a rotational basis from a list of Board-certified physicians. Plaintiffs suspected that the OWC did not adhere to its official policy, but instead always hired the same “select few” referee physicians, who were financially beholden (and presumably sympathetic) to the agency. To investigate their suspicions, Plaintiffs filed FOIA requests for agency records pertaining to the referee selection process. Because the Tenth Circuit found that the FOIA exemptions invoked by the agency raise genuine disputes of material fact, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brown v. Perez" on Justia Law

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department or the State) terminated the employment of seafood inspector Ernest Thomas following a contentious airport inspection that resulted in complaints by a seafood processor and an airline. Thomas contended his termination was actually in retaliation for an ethics complaint he had filed over a year earlier against the agency’s director. The superior court decided most of the inspector’s claims against him on summary judgment but allowed one claim, alleging a violation of his free speech rights, to go to trial. The jury found that the ethics complaint was not a substantial or motivating factor in the inspector’s termination, and the superior court entered final judgment for the agency. On appeal, Thomas argued the superior court erred in granting summary judgment, in denying his motion for a new trial based on allegations of jury misconduct, and in awarding attorney’s fees to the agency. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Thomas v. Dept. of Environmental Conservation" on Justia Law

Joan and Shane Tangedal appealed the grant of summary judgment dismissing their negligence claim against the Lake Region District Health Unit and denying their motion to amend their complaint to add a Lake Region employee, Allen McKay, as a defendant to their lawsuit. In September 2014, the Tangedals sued William and Mavis Mertens, Lake Region, and the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners for damages resulting from the January 2014 collapse of a septic tank on land the Tangedals had purchased from the Mertens in 2009. The Tangedals alleged the Mertens failed to disclose that in 2000 they built an addition to the residence on the land on top of the septic system in violation of applicable state and county regulations. The Tangedals also alleged that, as part of the purchase and as required under North Dakota law and Ramsey County regulations, McKay, the Environmental Health Supervisor for Lake Region, inspected the septic system and negligently certified it as "expected to function satisfactorily and . . . not likely to create an insanitary condition." Lake Region and the Ramsey County Board answered, denying liability and alleging governmental immunity in the performance of a public duty. After review, the Supreme Court concluded Lake Region and McKay had immunity for their alleged acts under N.D.C.C. section 32-12.1-03(3). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Tangedals' motion to amend their complaint and did not err in granting summary judgment dismissal of their claim against Lake Region. View "Tangedal v. Mertens" on Justia Law