Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In 2017, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III began investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, during which Giorgi Rtskhiladze testified before a grand jury. When the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a redacted version of Mueller’s report, it included information that Rtskhiladze claimed was inaccurate and damaging to his reputation. Rtskhiladze sued for both equitable and monetary relief and sought a copy of his grand jury testimony transcript.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Rtskhiladze lacked standing for his equitable claims, failed to state a claim for damages, and was not entitled to obtain a copy of the transcript. The court found that Rtskhiladze had abandoned his separate damages claim against DOJ and Mueller personally and forfeited arguments about this claim on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that Rtskhiladze has standing to bring all his claims and remanded the equitable claims for further consideration. The court agreed with the district court that Rtskhiladze failed to state a claim for damages under the Privacy Act, as he did not allege "intentional or willful" conduct by DOJ. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to deny Rtskhiladze’s request to obtain a copy of his grand jury testimony transcript, emphasizing the government’s interest in maintaining grand jury secrecy and preventing witness intimidation.In summary, the appellate court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Rtskhiladze’s equitable claims for lack of standing, affirmed the dismissal of his damages claim for failure to state a claim, and upheld the denial of his request to obtain a copy of his grand jury transcript. View "Rtskhiladze v. Mueller" on Justia Law

The Board of Allied Mental Health Practitioners denied an application for a license to practice clinical mental-health counseling in Vermont, citing the applicant's failure to meet educational prerequisites. The applicant, who graduated from a non-accredited program, argued that her coursework met the requirements through a combination of two courses. She also claimed that the Board had previously accepted similar coursework from another candidate, J.L., and sought to present evidence to support this claim.The Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) upheld the Board's decision. The applicant appealed, arguing that the Board and OPR improperly limited her ability to demonstrate that she was treated differently from similarly situated candidates. She also contended that the Board failed to justify its allegedly inconsistent application of licensing regulations. The appellate officer denied her motion to present additional evidence, concluding that the Board's evidentiary ruling was a matter of record and that the applicant was not seeking to introduce evidence of procedural irregularities but rather the excluded evidence itself.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the decisions of the Board and OPR. The Court held that comparator evidence might be relevant in some circumstances but found that the applicant failed to make a threshold showing that the Board had accepted credits from two courses in J.L.'s case. The Court also concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion in excluding further evidence about J.L.'s coursework as cumulative and of dubious relevance. The appellate officer's denial of the motion to present additional evidence was also upheld, as the applicant did not demonstrate good cause for the motion. The Court affirmed the lower decisions, finding no basis to disturb them. View "In re McNamer" on Justia Law

An inmate in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) filed a negligence action against the State of Nebraska under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA). The inmate alleged that DCS failed to investigate his complaint that other inmates had stolen his property while he was in segregated confinement. He claimed that this failure to investigate resulted in the loss of his property, valued at $496.05, and caused him mental and emotional distress.The District Court for Lancaster County dismissed the case, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the inmate failed to plead a cognizable claim under the STCA because he did not show that the State owed him a legal duty under the relevant regulations. The court determined that the regulations cited by the inmate did not create a legal duty owed to him by the State.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the inmate disciplinary procedure statutes and regulations did not give rise to a tort duty of the State to investigate the alleged theft of the inmate's property. The court found that these regulations were designed to prescribe disciplinary procedures for inmates who allegedly engaged in misconduct, not to protect an inmate seeking an investigation into other inmates' alleged misconduct. As a result, the inmate failed to state a claim of negligence under the STCA, and the State's sovereign immunity was not waived. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Ryan v. State" on Justia Law

Ricardo Jones sued the City of Jackson for injuries sustained from driving into a pothole. Before filing the lawsuit, Jones sent certified letters to the mayor and city council members but did not send a notice of claim to the city clerk, as required by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA).The Hinds County Circuit Court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, which sought dismissal of Jones’s claims due to his failure to comply with the MTCA’s presuit notice requirement. The City then petitioned the Supreme Court of Mississippi for an interlocutory appeal.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case de novo and found that Jones did not comply with the mandatory requirement to serve notice on the city clerk. The court held that the MTCA’s presuit notice requirement is clear and mandatory, and serving notice on the mayor or city council members does not suffice. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court’s decision and rendered judgment in favor of the City, dismissing all of Jones’s claims. View "The City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Jones" on Justia Law

In 1984, Richard Wershe, Jr., at fourteen, was recruited by the FBI as a drug informant. Over the next few years, he was involved in dangerous drug operations under the direction of federal and state officers. In 1987, Wershe was arrested and convicted of possessing a large quantity of cocaine, receiving a life sentence without parole, which was later amended to allow parole eligibility. While incarcerated, he cooperated with law enforcement in various investigations, including "Operation Backbone" and a grand jury against the "Best Friends" gang, based on promises of assistance with his parole. Despite his cooperation, Wershe was denied parole in 2003 and was only released in 2017, subsequently serving time in Florida for an unrelated charge until his release in 2020.Wershe filed two lawsuits: one in July 2021 against the City of Detroit and various federal and state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens, and another in October 2022 against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). He alleged constitutional violations and tort claims related to his time as a juvenile informant and subsequent parole denial. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed both lawsuits with prejudice, ruling that Wershe’s claims were time-barred and not subject to equitable tolling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that Wershe’s claims were indeed time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations and that he was not entitled to equitable tolling. The court found that Wershe had constructive knowledge of the filing deadlines, did not diligently pursue his claims, and that the defendants would be prejudiced by the delay. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaints with prejudice or in its handling of materials outside the pleadings. View "Wershe v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

A public children-services agency determined that an allegation of child abuse against Kelly D. Kyser was substantiated. Kyser challenged this finding through the agency’s administrative-review process, but her appeal was unsuccessful. She then appealed the agency’s decision to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. The court dismissed her appeal as untimely, and the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. The court noted that under R.C. 2506.01, a person may appeal a final order or decision of an agency that determines their rights, duties, privileges, benefits, or legal relationships. However, the court found that an agency’s disposition finding that an allegation of child abuse is substantiated does not determine any of these things. The court explained that while certain consequences may result from such a finding, the agency’s disposition itself does not determine those consequences.The Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that the common pleas court did not have jurisdiction to hear Kyser’s appeal because the agency’s disposition was not a final order under R.C. 2506.01. As a result, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth District Court of Appeals’ judgment and dismissed the appeal. View "Kyser v. Summit Cty. Children Servs." on Justia Law

In 2014, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a report mentioning the CIA’s “operational control” over fourteen detainees transferred to Guantanamo Bay in September 2006. Based on this, a lawyer representing one of the detainees requested records from the CIA under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) about the CIA’s “operational control” at Guantanamo from September 2006 to January 2007. The CIA identified three documents but stated it could neither confirm nor deny the existence of other records, citing the need to protect classified intelligence sources and methods.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the CIA. The court concluded that the CIA had adequately justified its Glomar response, which allows an agency to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records if doing so would reveal classified information. The court found that the CIA had not waived its right to issue a Glomar response despite the release of some documents and references in the Senate report.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the CIA did not waive its Glomar response through official acknowledgment, as the Senate report and the released documents did not constitute an official acknowledgment by the CIA. The court also found that the CIA’s justification for its Glomar response was logical and plausible, as confirming or denying the existence of additional records could reveal protected intelligence sources and methods. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the CIA. View "Connell v. CIA" on Justia Law

In 2019, Tamika Miller filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Citibank, alleging that the bank violated 2015 consent orders by hiding failures in its management of third-party risks to avoid paying regulatory fines. Miller claimed that Citibank altered audit reports to downplay compliance violations, thereby avoiding penalties. The United States declined to intervene in June 2020. In October 2020, Citibank entered into a new consent order with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and paid a $400 million civil penalty. Miller sought a share of this penalty, arguing it was an alternate remedy for her qui tam claim.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Citibank's motion to dismiss Miller's complaint for failure to state a claim and denied her motion for a share of the $400 million penalty. The court found that Miller failed to allege an "obligation" to pay the government as required by the FCA and did not meet the particularity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court also denied Miller's request for leave to amend her complaint, concluding that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Miller failed to state a reverse false claim because she did not allege an established duty for Citibank to pay the government. The court also found that Miller's complaint did not meet the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b) as it failed to identify specific false statements or reports. Consequently, Miller was not entitled to a share of the $400 million penalty, and the district court did not err in denying her leave to amend her complaint. View "Miller v. United States, Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

Hermilo Cantu Silva sustained a gunshot wound when a Border Patrol Agent attempted to apprehend him for suspected illegal entry into the United States. Silva sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), asserting several intentional tort claims and negligence. The case proceeded to a bench trial solely on the negligence claim. At the close of evidence, the trial court raised the potential applicability of the discretionary function exception, which the parties briefed. The trial court determined that the discretionary function exception deprived the court of jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a bench trial and, at the close of evidence, raised the issue of the discretionary function exception. The Government filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, and Silva responded. The trial court concluded that the discretionary function exception applied, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction over Silva’s FTCA claim. Silva appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the discretionary function exception applied. The court found that Agent Mendoza’s decision to draw and not re-holster his firearm was discretionary and grounded in policy considerations, meeting both prongs of the Gaubert test. Consequently, the discretionary function exception precluded subject matter jurisdiction over Silva’s FTCA claim. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case. View "Silva v. United States" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, property owners in West Virginia, filed a lawsuit against the current and former owners of abandoned oil and gas wells on their properties. They sought damages for the defendants' failure to plug the wells, alleging common law nuisance, trespass, and negligence. The defendants argued that the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) was responsible for well plugging and that WVDEP had approved transactions between the defendants, which purportedly relaxed their statutory duty to plug the wells. They claimed WVDEP was an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and, because it could not be joined due to sovereign immunity, sought judgment in their favor under Rule 12(c).The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied the defendants' motion, ruling that WVDEP was not a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19. The court concluded that it could grant the plaintiffs damages on their common law claims without implicating the State’s interests. The defendants then filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that the district court's order was reviewable under the collateral order doctrine, as it effectively denied WVDEP sovereign immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the district court's order did not rule on any immunity issue but only on whether WVDEP was a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19. The appellate court found that the order did not satisfy the requirements of the collateral order doctrine and was not a final decision. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "McEvoy v. Diversified Energy Company PLC" on Justia Law