Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff named Robert A. Stanard, who was an inmate in the federal prison system, sued several prison officials, claiming they violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him treatment for Hepatitis C, and his Fifth Amendment rights by discriminating against him due to his pre-trial status. Stanard sought damages under Bivens, a precedent that allows individuals to sue federal officers for constitutional rights violations. The district court dismissed Stanard’s complaint, and he appealed.The Ninth Circuit partly affirmed and partly reversed the district court’s decision. First, the court reversed the dismissal of Stanard’s Eighth Amendment claim. The court found that his claim was not a new context for a Bivens action because it was similar to a previous case, Carlson v. Green, where the Supreme Court recognized a Bivens remedy for prison officials who were deliberately indifferent to an inmate's medical needs. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the prison officials in Stanard's case denied him care due to a Bureau of Prisons policy, while the officials in Carlson acted so inappropriately as to evidence intentional maltreatment causing death, holding that the difference in degree was not a meaningful difference that would create a new context.However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Stanard’s Fifth Amendment claim. The court found that this claim did present a new Bivens context because it involved disparate treatment of pre-sentencing and post-sentencing inmates, a situation not previously addressed in Bivens cases. Given that this was a new context, the court then determined that special factors counseled against extending a Bivens remedy. Specifically, the existence of alternative remedial structures, such as the Bureau of Prisons' administrative remedy process, indicated that Congress, rather than the courts, should decide whether to create a new damages remedy. View "STANARD V. DY" on Justia Law

In the case, Maple Run Unified School District (the District) appealed a trial court order which granted the Vermont Human Rights Commission (the Commission) a motion to dismiss the District’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The dispute arose from a complaint of sexual harassment filed by a student in the District. The student's mother later filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that the District failed to comply with the Vermont Public Accommodations Act (VPAA), the anti-harassment provisions in Title 16, and the school’s own policy. The Commission decided to investigate the matter. The District filed a motion with the Commission to dismiss the investigation, arguing that federal regulations preempted Title 16 and the complaint failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination under the VPAA. The Commission denied the District’s motion and decided to continue the investigation. The District then filed a Rule 75 petition in the civil division against the Commission, which the Commission moved to dismiss arguing that there was no cognizable avenue for relief under Rule 75 and the superior court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the petition. The court dismissed the District’s complaint. The District appealed claiming that subject-matter jurisdiction had been established under Rule 75 via either mandamus or prohibition. The Supreme Court of Vermont held that the Commission’s determination that the complaint states a prima facie case of discrimination under the VPAA is not reviewable under Rule 75 via either mandamus or prohibition, and therefore, the superior court did not err in dismissing the District’s petition. View "Maple Run Unified School District v. Vermont Human Rights Commission" on Justia Law

Sammy Tawakkol sued two Texas state officials, alleging that they violated his right to procedural due process when they notified him that he was required to register as a sex offender under Texas law. The district court ruled in Tawakkol's favor. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Tawakkol's suit was barred by sovereign immunity and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the case.The case began when Tawakkol was required to register as a sex offender under the federal Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act (SORNA) because of a crime he committed while he was a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy. After he moved to Houston, Texas, state officials determined that he also needed to register as a sex offender under Texas's system. Tawakkol sued the state officials, alleging that their registration determination violated his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.The district court ruled in favor of Tawakkol, but the Court of Appeals vacated this decision and remanded the case back to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals found that the suit was barred by sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that prevents certain lawsuits against state officials. The court concluded that Tawakkol's case did not meet the criteria for an exception to sovereign immunity established in Ex parte Young, a Supreme Court case that allows lawsuits against state officials to prevent them from enforcing state laws that violate federal law.The court reasoned that unlike in Ex parte Young, the district court's order did not enjoin the state officials from enforcing a state law that violated federal law. Instead, the district court invalidated federal law and prohibited the state officials from enforcing a state law that was consistent with that federal law. The court determined that this type of relief fell outside the narrow parameters of the Ex parte Young exception and did not serve its purpose, which is to vindicate federal rights. View "Tawakkol v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

Sherelle Thomas, on behalf of the estate of Terelle Thomas, sued the City of Harrisburg, PrimeCare Medical, Inc., and several individual law enforcement officers (the Officers) alleging that they failed to provide medical care and to intervene in the prevention of a violation of Thomas's right to medical care. The Officers moved to dismiss the case on grounds of qualified immunity, but the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the motion. The Officers then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, reviewing the case de novo, affirmed the District Court's denial of qualified immunity regarding the failure to render medical care. The court found that the Officers, based on their observations and knowledge, should have recognized that Thomas had ingested a significant amount of cocaine, presenting a serious medical need. The Officers' decision not to take Thomas to the hospital amounted to deliberate indifference to that need, constituting a violation of Thomas' constitutional right to medical care.However, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's recognition of a claim of failure to intervene. The court explained that neither the Supreme Court nor the Third Circuit have recognized a right to intervene in the context of rendering medical care. As such, the Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.The case was remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the claim regarding the Officers' failure to intervene. View "Thomas v. City of Harrisburg" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed a case involving the estate of Terelle Thomas who died after ingesting a large amount of cocaine while in police custody. The plaintiffs, acting on behalf of the estate, brought a suit against the City of Harrisburg, PrimeCare Medical, and several individual law enforcement officers, alleging that they failed to render medical care and intervene to prevent a violation of the right to medical care. The officers moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of qualified immunity, but the District Court denied the motion.On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for the failure to render medical care claim as the plaintiffs successfully alleged a violation of the constitutional right to medical care. The court found that the officers had a clear indication that Thomas had ingested a significant amount of drugs and thus had a serious medical need, and their decision to book Thomas instead of taking him to a hospital demonstrated deliberate indifference to that need.However, the court reversed on the failure to intervene claim. The court noted that neither the Third Circuit nor the Supreme Court had recognized a right to intervene in the context of rendering medical care. Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the failure to intervene claim. The case was remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the failure to intervene claim. View "Thomas v. City of Harrisburg" on Justia Law

In 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule governing the Title X program, which makes grants to assist in the establishment and operation of family planning projects. The Rule interpreted section 1008 of Title X, which bars funds appropriated under the Title X grant program from being “used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” States challenged the 2021 Rule’s elimination of a prior HHS rule that required grantees to maintain strict physical and financial separation between Title X programs and abortion-related services they might provide and the Rule’s requirement that Title X projects provide referrals for abortion services when requested by the patient.The Supreme Court has held (“Rust,” 1991) that section 1008 is ambiguous as to program integrity and referrals for abortion and that Chevron deference applies. The Sixth Circuit held Ohio is entitled to a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from enforcing the 2021 Rule’s program integrity rules in Ohio in a manner that would affect the allocation of funding in Ohio. While the doctrinal landscape undergirding Rust has shifted significantly since it was decided, Rust, and its application of Chevron, remain binding. The 2021 Rule’s referral requirement is not an impermissible interpretation of section 1008 but the program-integrity requirements do not represent a permissible interpretation. View "State of Ohio v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the Utah State Tax Commission that the Property Tax Division correctly followed the requirements of the Aircraft Valuation Law, Utah Code 59-2-201 subsection 4, in determining the 2017 value of Delta Air Lines' aircraft, holding that Salt Lake County failed to demonstrate that the Law, as applied to Delta's 2017 assessment, violated the fair market value provision of the Utah Constitution.For tax year 2017, the Division valued Delta's aircraft according to section 59-2-201's preferred methodology. The County appealed, arguing that the valuation did not reflect the fair market value of Delta's aircraft, in violation of the Utah Constitution. The Commission upheld the assessment, concluding that the County did not establish that the Legislature's preferred method of valuation did not reasonably reflect fair market value. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Aircraft Valuation Law was not unconstitutional as applied by the Commission to assess the value of Delta's aircraft for tax year 2017. View "Salt Lake County v. Utah State Tax Commission" on Justia Law

In 1970, Michigan voters approved Proposal C, amending Article VIII, section 2 of Michigan’s constitution: “No public monies or property shall be appropriated or paid or any public credit utilized, by the legislature or any other political subdivision or agency of the state directly or indirectly to aid or maintain any private, denominational or other nonpublic, pre-elementary, elementary, or secondary schools.” The plaintiffs allege that Proposal C was spurred by the legislature’s passage of 1970 PA 100, which “allowed the Department of Education to purchase educational services from nonpublic schools in secular subjects,” and authorized $22 million in spending during the 1970-71 school year. Plaintiffs allege that “nonpublic schools” meant “religious schools”; opposition to 1970 PA 100 resulted in Proposal C. In 2000, Michigan voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have amended the section to authorize “indirect” support of non-public school students and create a voucher program for students in underperforming public school districts to attend nonpublic schools.Plaintiffs brought unsuccessful free exercise claims, alleging they have funded Michigan Education Savings Program plans and wish to use those plans to pay for their children’s religious school tuition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of their equal protection claim that section 2, while facially neutral, creates a political structure that unconstitutionally discriminates against religion because religious persons and schools cannot lobby their state representatives for governmental aid or tuition help without first amending the state constitution. View "Hile v. State of Michigan" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States on Petitioner's claims brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and to the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department (SCSD) on Petitioner's claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act (RHA), 29 U.S.C. 794, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12132, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment as to Petitioner's FTCA claims.Petitioner filed this action setting forth FTCA claims against the United States based on the treatment to which he was allegedly subjected while he was in immigration custody, as well as claims brought under the RHA and the ADA based on the alleged discrimination against him owing to his disability during his detention. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The First Circuit vacated the judgment in part, holding that the district court (1) erred in granting summary judgment to the United States as it pertained to Petitioner's FTCA claims; but (2) did not err in awarding summary judgment to SCSD on Petitioner's RHA and ADA claims. View "Thiersaint v. Dep't of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

Governor DeSantis signed into law the Individual Freedom Act, also called the Stop W.O.K.E. Act. Seven professors and one student from public universities in Florida challenged the law in the district court as violative of their civil rights. Plaintiffs served subpoenas on fourteen non-party legislators—thirteen co-sponsors of the Act and one legislator who supported the bill during a Florida House of Representatives debate. The district court partially granted and partially denied the legislators’ motion. After the legislators appealed, the district court stayed the discovery order pending the resolution of this appeal. At issue on appeal is whether a common-law privilege shields state legislators from a discovery request made for the purpose of determining the legislators’ motives in passing a law.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that factual documents are within the scope of the privilege, which is unqualified in this kind of lawsuit. The court explained that according to Plaintiffs’ response to the Florida legislators’ motion to quash the subpoena, the plaintiffs served the subpoenas on the legislators to “determine whether there was a discriminatory motive behind the [Act].” By Plaintiffs’ own admission, the subpoenas’ purpose was to uncover the legislators’ motives in passing the law. “The privilege applies with full force against requests for information about the motives for legislative votes and legislative enactments.” So, the privilege applies with its usual force against the discovery of even the factual documents in the Florida legislators’ possession. Accordingly, the court held that the district court abused its discretion when it determined otherwise. View "Leroy Pernell, et al. v. Robert Alexander Andrade, et al." on Justia Law