Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Scott Surovell filed a verified petition for writ of mandamus requesting documents pertaining to various aspects of executions conducted in Virginia from the Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”) through the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“VFOIA”). After a hearing, the circuit court ordered VDOC to produce some of the requested documents. VDOC appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in requiring production of the documents at issue, whether in redacted form or in full. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court ordering VDOC to produce the requested documents at issue and to redact current and prior execution manuals, holding (1) the circuit court must make a de novo determination of the propriety of withholding the documents at issue to such an extent such disclosure would jeopardize security, but in doing so, the circuit court must accord “substantial weight” to VDOC’s determinations; (2) because the Court was unable to decipher what weight the circuit court afforded VDOC’s expert testimony, the matter must be remanded to the circuit court to apply the standard articulated herein to the facts; and (3) the circuit court erred to the extent it ordered redaction because VDOC is not required to redact exempt documents. View "Dep’t of Corr. v. Surovell" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and its Freedom of Information Officer, received a request under the Freedom of Information Act from Ron Robillard for records concerning Amy Archer Gillian, who was convicted of second degree murder for the arsenic poisoning of a resident of her nursing home. Plaintiffs disclosed some, but not all, of the requested records. The Freedom of Information Commission determined that Gilligan’s medical and dental records were not exempt from disclosure. The trial court sustained Plaintiffs’ appeal as to those records. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs had standing to appeal the decision of the Commission; and (2) the documents at issue were medical records related to the diagnosis and treatment of a patient and were, therefore, psychiatric records exempt from disclosure pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-146e. View "Freedom of Info. Officer, Dep’t of Mental Health & Addiction Servs. v. Freedom of Info. Comm’n" on Justia Law

Claimant Roxanne Moran appealed a superior court's dismissal of her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Claimant, a former employee of the Vermont State Hospital, separated from state service and applied for ordinary disability-retirement benefits in November of 2011. The Medical Review Board denied benefits, and claimant requested an evidentiary hearing after which benefits were again denied. Claimant then pursued an appeal to the superior court under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 75. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, and claimant appealed. On appeal, claimant argued that because the superior court had jurisdiction over the appeal the Rule 75 action should not have been dismissed. In the alternative, claimant argued that, even if the superior court did not have jurisdiction to review the Board's decision, her timely filed Rule 75 complaint was sufficient to preserve the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4. In addition to its brief directly responding to claimant's arguments on appeal, the State also filed a motion to dismiss a portion of the appeal as untimely. Finding no reversible error and that the superior court indeed lacked jurisdiction to hear claimant's appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Moran v. Vermont State Retirement Board" on Justia Law

This appeal stems from a dispute between outdoor advertising companies and the City over certain billboards with digital displays. Plaintiff Summit Media filed a motion seeking, among other things, an order that “[a]ll digital displays and sign structures” identified in the trial court's April 2013 order “shall be demolished and removed . . . .” Real parties CBS Outdoor wished to resume the use of their sign structures to display static advertising, as they had before the illegal digital conversion. The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to demolish the signs and denied plaintiff's request for attorney fees. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to require either the demolition of the structural improvements or the removal of the digital equipment, and that plaintiff offers no persuasive authority for its claim. Further, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff had a personal financial stake in this litigation that was sufficient to warrant its decision to incur significant attorney fees and costs in the vigorous prosecution of this lawsuit. View "Summit Media v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Charles Jernegan committed suicide at the David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma (“Jail”). His mother, Plaintiff-Appellee Carolyn Cox, brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against Defendant-Appellant Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz. Sheriff Glanz moved for summary judgment, asserting the defense of qualified immunity. The district court denied the Sheriff’s motion (without mentioning qualified immunity) based on the existence of genuinely disputed material facts. In this interlocutory appeal, Sheriff Glanz argued to the Tenth Circuit that extant caselaw at the time of Jernegan’s suicide did not clearly establish that he could be held liable as a supervisor under the circumstances of this case: Jernegan denied having a suicidal intent during booking and no Jail staff members detected a basis for referring him for additional mental-health screening based on their interactions with him. The Sheriff also argued that none of the policies or procedures he had implemented at the Jail could be characterized as the moving force behind any alleged violation of Jernegan’s constitutional rights. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that under the facts of this case, the district court erred in denying the Sheriff's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds on Cox's individual-capacity claim. As for Cox's official-capacity claim, the Court concluded that the district court’s denial of the motion for summary judgment was indisputably not a final decision amenable to interlocutory review: "Our assumption of jurisdiction over the court’s resolution of the official-capacity claim would therefore only be appropriate if we invoked our discretionary power to exercise pendent jurisdiction over this claim. Sheriff Glanz, however, has not relied upon this generally disfavored doctrine; furthermore, we discern no legally cognizable basis for exercising pendent appellate jurisdiction under the circumstances of this case." The Sheriff's appeal of the denial of his motion for summary judgment on Cox's official-capacity claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Cox v. Glanz" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit contending that the government's "bulk data program" collection constitutes an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. The program operates pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, where section 215 of the Act empowered the FBI to request, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to enter, orders “requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism.” The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from collecting plaintiffs’ call records, but stayed its order pending appeal. After the court determined that the case was not moot, Judge Brown and Judge Williams wrote separate opinions stating the reasons for reversal. Judge Brown wrote separately to emphasize that, while plaintiffs have demonstrated it is only possible - not substantially likely - that their own call records were collected as part of the bulk-telephony metadata program, plaintiffs have nonetheless met the bare requirements of standing. Having barely fulfilled the requirements for standing at this threshold stage, plaintiffs fall short of meeting the higher burden of proof required for a preliminary injunction. Judge Williams wrote that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a “substantial likelihood” that the government is collecting from Verizon Wireless or that they are otherwise suffering any cognizable injury. They thus cannot meet their burden to show a “likelihood of success on the merits” and are not entitled to a preliminary injunction. View "Klayman v. Obama" on Justia Law

WICO was founded as a coal bunkering business before the U.S. acquired the Virgin Islands (VI) in 1917 and grew to serve as “Port Agent” for cruise lines that visit the port of Charlotte Amalie and to manage the port's Havensight Mall. In 1986, WICO began dredging St. Thomas harbor, leading to public opposition and litigation. In 1993, the VI Government purchased all of the shares of WICO. The purchase was approved by the VI Legislature. The Act stated that “the Company is hereby granted the status and authority of a public corporation and governmental instrumentality … and shall be deemed to be a public entity operating on behalf of the Government, rather than a private corporation.” All WICO shares were transferred to the VI Public Finance Authority, a public corporation and governmental instrumentality. Two former WICO employees filed suit, alleging violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed, finding that “WICO cannot be considered a purely public entity,” and that its employees are not public employees, so its conduct could not be considered to have been “under color of state law” for purposes of liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Third Circuit reversed in part, applying the 1995 Supreme Court decision, Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, to hold that WICO is a government entity for the purposes of Sprauve’s and Smith’s constitutional claims. View "Gershwain Sprauve v. West Indian Company Limited" on Justia Law

Duit, an Oklahoma highway contractor, contracted with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (ASHTD) to reconstruct I-30 between Little Rock and Benton. Duit encountered soil conditions that, it alleges, differed materially from information provided by the ASHTD during bidding. Duit’s claims for compensation were denied by the ASHTD, the Arkansas State Claims Commission, and the General Assembly. Duit sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing the “in re Young” exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Duit alleged violations of the Federal Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. 101, and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses and sought to “enjoin Defendants from accepting federal aid … until . . . they fully comply with the federally mandated differing site clause.” The court dismissed the FAHA claim because that statute is enforced exclusively by an executive agency, dismissed the due process claim because Duit’s interest in future highway contracts is not a protected property interest and because the state appeals process for claim denials satisfies procedural due process requirements. The court declined to dismiss the equal protection claim, concluding Duit sufficiently alleged that the Commission treated out-of-state-contractor Duit differently from similarly situated in-state contractors without a rational reason. The Eighth Circuit held that Duit lacks standing to bring its equal protection claim and that the court erred in not dismissing that claim. View "Duit Constr. Co. Inc. v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Robert Dumler was arrested for driving under the influence and transported to the sheriff’s office. On several occasions before a breath alcohol test was administered Dumler requested that he be permitted to confer with an attorney. The requesting officer never gave Dumler an opportunity to confer with an attorney, and Dumler did not repeat his request for an attorney after he failed his breath test. The suspension of Dumler’s driving privileges was upheld in administrative proceedings. Dumler petitioned the district court for review, arguing that his statutory right to counsel was violated. The district court denied relief. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that because Dumler did not ask to consult with an attorney after he failed to breath test, he had not invoked his statutory right to an attorney and, therefore, that right was not violated. The Supreme Court remanded with directions, holding (1) the district court applied an incorrect legal standard on the question of whether Dumler’s post-testing right to counsel was violated, and therefore, a remand was required; and (2) suppression of the alcohol testing result is the appropriate remedy for the denial of a driver’s statutory right to counsel. Remanded. View "Dumler v. Kan. Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

Appellant suffered a workplace injury to his back and applied for permanent partial disability. The Workers’ Compensation Division denied benefits. Appellant requested a contested case hearing. During discovery, the Division served interrogatories and requests for production requesting information regarding Appellant’s work history since the time of his injury. Appellant objected to a number of the interrogatories and requests, asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The hearing examiner compelled Appellant to answer the discovery, but Appellant continued to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The hearing examiner dismissed the contested case as a discovery sanction. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant was justified in asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because he reasonably believed his answers to the discovery requests could be used in a criminal prosecution against him; and (2) the hearing examiner abused his discretion by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing the case as a discovery sanction without engaging in the proper balancing of Appellant’s and the Division’s conflicting interests. View "Debyah v. State, ex rel., Dep’t of Workforce Servs." on Justia Law