Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

This case concerned the extent of the protection, if any, that the Petition Clause granted public employees in routine disputes with government employers where petitioner filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit after respondent's termination of petitioner as police chief and where petitioner was subsequently reinstated, with directives instructing petitioner in the performance of his duties. Petitioner alleged that the directives were issued in retaliation for the filing of his first grievance and violated his First Amendment right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." At issue was whether the public concern test applied when the employee invoked the Petition Clause. The Court held that a government employer's allegedly retaliatory actions against an employee did not give rise to liability under the Petition Clause unless the employee's petition related to a matter of public concern. Therefore, the Court held that the Third Circuit's conclusion that the public concern test did not limit public employees' Petition Clause claims was incorrect. Accordingly, the Court concluded that, absent full briefs by the parties, the Court need not consider how the foregoing framework would apply to this case and therefore, vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff sued defendant, a deputy with the sheriff's office, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the deputy violated her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. At issue was whether the district court erred in concluding that the deputy was not entitled to qualified immunity because he was acting outside the scope of his discretionary authority. The court held that the deputy's actions were undertaken pursuant to the performance of his duties and were within the scope of his authority. The court also held that, under the particular circumstances of the case, the deputy's conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment and he was therefore, entitled to qualified immunity. Furthermore, assuming arguendo a constitutional violation, a reasonable officer in the deputy's shoes would not have known that his conduct was unlawful. Plaintiff had no binding precedent that clearly established that probable cause and exigent circumstances immediately evaporated once an officer performing a welfare check for a possibly suicidal person and saw that the person was merely alive. Accordingly, the district court's order denying the deputy's motion for summary judgment was reversed and remanded.

The Elijah Group, Inc. ("Church") sued the City of Leon Valley ("City") alleging that the City's prohibition of the Church from performing religious services on certain properties violated Texas state law, the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(1), and both the Texas and U.S. Constitutions. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed the Church's claims under the Equal Terms Clause of the RLUIPA. The court held that the City's imposition of its land use regulation violated the Equal Terms Clause where the ordinance treated the Church on terms that were less than equal to the terms on which it treated similarly situated nonreligious institutions. Accordingly, the district court's order granting the City's motion for summary judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs filed suit under the federal Driverâs Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, and 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that personal information, as defined by the DPPA, was disclosed by individual defendants while acting as agents of the Ohio Department of Public Safety or the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV). The BMV apparently made bulk disclosures of personal information from motor vehicle records to a company, for an asserted permissible purpose, and the company resold or redisclosed the information. The district court determined that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. On interlocutory appeal. the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The DPPA is not a strict liability statute and the defendants made the disclosures for a purportedly permitted purpose; they did not violate plaintiffs' "clearly established" rights. The DPPA does not impose a duty to investigate requests for disclosure nor does it clearly prohibit bulk disclosures.

Plaintiff, employed by the department of public works since 1972, publicly criticized the city's decision to purchase a certain brand of tractor and indicated that board members were influenced to purchase the more-expensive tractors by having been taken on an expenses-paid visit to the company's plant. A letter was published in the local paper and the board ultimately changed its decision. After the debate, the plaintiff's subordinates were promoted over him and his applications for promotion were denied. The district court rejected First Amendment retaliation claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the plaintiff made his public comments in the context of performing his job. When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.

Plaintiffs, a father and his children, brought various claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 asserting that a children's services caseworker entered their home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of the children into state custody. At issue was whether the district court properly concluded that the caseworker was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to all of the claims against him and granted summary judgment in his favor. The court held that the caseworker was not entitled to qualified immunity and vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for Fourth Amendment violations arising out of the allegedly unlawful search of plaintiffs' home; plaintiffs' claims for violations of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; the father's claim for violation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; and the children's claim for unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff sued defendants, including the police officer that shot him, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and various state law theories. At issue was whether the district court erred by denying the officer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's section 1983 claim, concluding that the facts established a violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the law was clearly established at the time of the shooting. The court concluded that it was not clearly established as of the time of the shooting that an officer in Missouri could effect a seizure under the Fourth Amendment without subjectively intending to do so. Therefore, the district court erred in denying the officer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim without considering the officer's subjective intent. Accordingly, the court vacated the section 1983 claim and remanded for further proceedings regarding the officer's subjective intent.

Claimant appealed the district court's judgment upholding the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for disability insurance. Appellant raised several issues of error on appeal. The court held that a certain physician's post-hearing letter did not contain any additional information and was not relied upon in the decision making process, and its receipt did not violate claimant's due process rights; that the ALJ did not err in finding claimant retained the residual functional capacity to perform certain kinds of low-stress work; that there was no error in the decision not to order a consultative examination regarding claimant's mental impairments; and that a hypothetical question posed to the Vocation Expert adequately addressed impairments supported by the record. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment where substantial evidence on the record as a whole supported the ALJ's decision.

In this case, a jury found that the FBI violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 U.S.C. 1447, by launching a security investigation of plaintiff, then an agent in its Saudi Arabia office, in retaliation for his filing of a discrimination complaint. On appeal, the government argued that plaintiff's claim was nonjusticiable under Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit case law because adjudicating Title VII liability called for the jury to second-guess security judgments committed by law to FBI discretion. The court vacated the judgment in plaintiff's favor and held that plaintiff's case, as presented to the jury, invited just such second-guessing. The court remanded for further proceedings, however, and held that plaintiff might be able to pursue his retaliation claims without calling into question unreviewable security decisions.

Appellant, a former corrections officer, was dismissed after an administrative hearing on November 4, 2009. On November 18, the commissioners issued their written decision which containted their findings and rationale. On December 18, the appellant filed a compliant asserting a due process claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and a wrongful termination claim pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. 501(3)(A). At issue was what constitutes ânotice of any actionâ to trigger M.R. Civ. P. 80B(b)âs 30-day time limit for filing an administrative appeal. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower courtâs dismissal of appellantâs due process and wrongful termination claims as untimely, holding that Rule 80B(b)âs time limit for seeking review of a decision to dismiss an employee does not commence until the employee receives a written decision of the county commissioners or personnel board. The Court also held that because appellant did not have an opportunity to address his suspension before he was terminated, direct review pursuant to Rule 80B(b) would not provide an adequate remedy for appellantâs Section 1983 claim; therefore, denial of appellantâs right to due process of law was independent of his administrative appeal.