Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs in this case are the sons of Roberto Clemente, a renowned Puerto Rican baseball player, and two corporations they control. The dispute centers on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s use of Clemente’s name and image on commemorative license plates and vehicle registration tags. Proceeds from these items were designated to fund a new “Roberto Clemente Sports District,” a public project that would replace an earlier initiative, Ciudad Deportiva, originally founded by Clemente. The plaintiffs allege that they hold trademark rights in Clemente’s name and that the Commonwealth’s actions were unauthorized and caused public confusion, with many mistakenly believing the Clemente family benefited financially from the program.The plaintiffs brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Commonwealth, several high-ranking officials, and the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority. Their claims included trademark infringement, false association, false advertising, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, as well as a takings claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Commonwealth and the Authority moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign and qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. The district court granted both motions, dismissing all federal claims on immunity and merits grounds, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over non-federal claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the Authority and all claims against the Commonwealth and its officials in their official capacities. It also affirmed dismissal of the false advertising and takings claims. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the Lanham Act claims for trademark infringement, false endorsement, and dilution against the Commonwealth officials in their personal capacities, holding those claims were plausibly alleged and not barred by qualified immunity at this stage, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Clemente Properties, Inc. v. Pierluisi-Urrutia" on Justia Law

Diamond Sands Apartments, LLC owns and operates a 360-unit apartment complex in Las Vegas, Nevada, where units are leased for long-term stays under agreements prohibiting unauthorized subletting. Clark County received numerous complaints regarding short-term rentals in certain units, which included disturbances such as loud parties. The County investigated and verified that some units were being rented for short-term stays through Airbnb. After notifying Diamond Sands of the violations and conducting follow-up inspections, the County issued two administrative citations assessing $2,000 fines for each violation, as permitted under its ordinance, which prohibits unauthorized short-term rentals and allows for fines between $1,000 and $10,000 per violation.Diamond Sands filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, raising facial and as-applied challenges to the County’s ordinance under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The company sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the ordinance unconstitutionally penalized property owners for short-term rental activity conducted by tenants. The district court denied Diamond Sands’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the fines were not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the violations and that Diamond Sands had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion and underlying legal issues de novo. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion, finding that Diamond Sands bore some culpability due to its knowledge and failure to prevent ongoing violations. The fines imposed were at the low end of the authorized range, and the ordinance aimed to deter harm to residents. The court also determined that Diamond Sands had not shown the ordinance was unconstitutional in every application. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. View "DIAMOND SANDS APARTMENTS, LLC V. CLARK COUNTY NEVADA" on Justia Law

The petitioner is an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence of 45 years to life for first degree murder, who challenged the timing of his initial youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051. His main contention was that, under regulations adopted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) following Proposition 57 and Assembly Bill 965, only educational merit credits are counted toward advancing his youth parole eligible date (YPED), whereas a wider range of credits—including good conduct, milestone completion, rehabilitative achievement, and extraordinary conduct credits—may be applied to advance the minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) for other indeterminately sentenced inmates. The petitioner claimed this distinction deprived him of thousands of days of credit and delayed his parole hearing compared to similarly situated inmates.Previously, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District summarily denied the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. The California Supreme Court then granted review, transferring the case back to the Court of Appeal with instructions to issue an order to show cause and reconsider the petitioner’s claims.Upon review, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District considered both statutory and constitutional arguments, including equal protection and due process claims. The court applied rational basis review to the equal protection claim, emphasizing the deferential standard and the need for a rational relationship between the regulatory distinction and a legitimate state interest. The court concluded that limiting credits for youth offender parole hearings to educational merit credits serves administrative and operational needs, promoting certainty and stability in scheduling, and is rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives. The court found no merit to the statutory, equal protection, or due process challenges and denied habeas corpus relief, discharging the petition. View "In re Thai" on Justia Law

After Oklahoma entered into a Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry in 1998, the state created the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund (TSET) through a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2000. TSET was established to manage and disburse funds from the settlement for health-related programs, especially those targeting tobacco prevention and cessation. The TSET Board of Directors was designed to be independent, with seven members appointed by various state officials for staggered, fixed seven-year terms, ensuring geographic and political diversity and preventing control by any single authority.During the 2025 legislative session, the Oklahoma Legislature passed HB 2783, amending the statute governing the TSET Board. The new law allowed directors to serve at the pleasure of their appointing authority, subject to a maximum seven-year term, effectively converting the Board members’ tenure from fixed terms to at-will appointments. TSET challenged this amendment, claiming it violated the Oklahoma Constitution’s requirement for fixed seven-year terms.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case in its original jurisdiction because of its statewide importance and the need for a prompt decision. The Court found the constitutional language in Article X, Section 40(D) to be clear and unambiguous, requiring staggered, fixed seven-year terms for TSET directors with no provision for at-will removal. The Court held that HB 2783 was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the constitutional mandate for fixed terms and undermined the independence of the Board. Accordingly, the Court granted declaratory relief, invalidating HB 2783. View "TOBACCO SETTLEMENT ENDOWMENT TRUST FUND v. STITT" on Justia Law

Several individuals who reside in DeKalb County, Georgia, outside the city limits of Atlanta, opposed the construction of a new public safety training facility on city-owned land and wished to collect signatures for a referendum petition to repeal the city ordinance authorizing the lease for the facility. Atlanta’s municipal code required that signature gatherers for such petitions be residents of the City of Atlanta. Because they did not meet this residency requirement, the plaintiffs filed suit against the City, arguing that the restriction violated their First Amendment rights. They sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the residency requirement, as well as other relief connected to the signature collection process.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining Atlanta from enforcing the residency requirement for signature gatherers. The court also ordered the City to issue new petitions without the residency restriction and restarted the 60-day signature collection period, while counting previously collected signatures. The City appealed the injunction and obtained a stay from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm sufficient for injunctive relief. The court specified that, under Kemp v. City of Claxton, 496 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1998), Georgia law does not allow the use of a referendum petition to challenge or repeal a city ordinance unless it amends the city charter. Because the plaintiffs could not lawfully utilize the referendum process for their intended purpose, they lacked a right to the process and consequently could not show irreparable injury. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Baker v. City of Atlanta" on Justia Law

Indiana amended its laws in 2022 to prohibit and criminalize the use of telehealth and telemedicine for abortions, requiring that abortion-inducing drugs be dispensed and consumed in person by a physician in a hospital or qualified surgical center. The Satanic Temple, a Massachusetts-based religious nonprofit, operates a telehealth abortion clinic serving only patients in New Mexico but seeks to extend these services to its Indiana members. It does not run, nor intends to operate, an in-person abortion clinic in Indiana or maintain ties to Indiana hospitals or surgical centers. The Temple filed suit against the Indiana Attorney General and Marion County Prosecutor, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the criminal statute (§ 16-34-2-7(a)) and to obtain declaratory relief under Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana reviewed the case and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The court found that the Satanic Temple failed to identify any specific member who suffered an injury from the challenged law, thus lacking associational standing. It also held that the Temple itself lacked standing, as it could not show an injury in fact and could not demonstrate that favorable relief would redress its alleged harms due to other Indiana laws independently barring its intended conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Seventh Circuit held that the Satanic Temple lacked both associational and individual standing. The Temple failed to identify a specific injured member and relied only on statistical probabilities and generalized claims of stigmatic injury, which were insufficient. Additionally, the Temple did not present concrete plans to violate the law, and even if § 16-34-2-7(a) were enjoined, other statutes would independently prevent its telehealth abortion services in Indiana. Thus, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Satanic Temple, Inc. v Rokita" on Justia Law

Several trusts and entities purchased properties in Nevada that were subject to deeds of trust held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. After unsuccessful attempts in state court to extinguish the deeds of trust and quiet title, each property remained encumbered. Between 2022 and 2024, foreclosure proceedings were initiated on these properties, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac acting through their conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). In response, the plaintiffs brought suit against the FHFA and its Director, seeking to prevent foreclosure and challenging the constitutionality of the FHFA’s funding mechanism under the Appropriations Clause and the nondelegation doctrine.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada reviewed the case. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary relief, then dismissed their amended complaint with prejudice, finding that the FHFA’s funding structure was constitutional. The court determined that the Recovery Act, which created the FHFA and provides for its funding via regulatory assessments rather than Congressional appropriations, met constitutional standards by specifying both a source and purpose for the funds. The court also found that the Recovery Act’s limitation to “reasonable costs” provided an intelligible principle, satisfying the nondelegation doctrine. Leave to amend was denied as futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing, but rejected their arguments on the merits. It concluded that the FHFA’s funding mechanism, as established by the Recovery Act, does not violate the Appropriations Clause because it identifies a source and purpose for expenditures, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited. It further held the mechanism does not violate the nondelegation doctrine, as the statute provides an intelligible principle. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed. View "DAISEY TRUST v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY" on Justia Law

After the Texas Legislature passed the Election Protection and Integrity Act of 2021 (“S.B.1”), a sweeping law that amended numerous aspects of the state’s election procedures, multiple groups of plaintiffs—including civil rights and voter advocacy organizations—challenged thirty-eight provisions of the law. They alleged violations of various constitutional amendments, the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act, naming state officials including the Texas Secretary of State and Attorney General as defendants.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity and lack of standing. The district court addressed the motions on a provision-by-provision basis, concluding that the Secretary and Attorney General were sufficiently connected to the enforcement of most challenged provisions to overcome sovereign immunity under Ex parte Young, and that plaintiffs had standing to sue. It denied the motions to dismiss for the majority of the claims, although it dismissed others as moot, for lack of standing, or for failure to state a claim. The defendants appealed the denials.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held it had appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory sovereign immunity appeals. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the VRA claims were not barred by sovereign immunity. For the constitutional and other statutory claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court determined that the Secretary of State is a proper defendant only for those provisions she directly enforces—such as those involving the design of forms and sanctioning of registrars—and not for those enforced by other officials. Similarly, it held the Attorney General could be sued only for one provision authorizing civil penalties. The court affirmed standing for claims against provisions enforced by these officials. View "Un del Pueblo Entero v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Parker Noland operated a construction debris removal business in Flathead County, Montana, but was ordered by the Montana Public Service Commission to cease operations due to lacking a required Class D motor carrier certificate. Noland formed PBN LLC and applied for the certificate, but withdrew his application after finding the administrative process—including requests for sensitive financial information by competitors—too burdensome. He then limited his business to activities not requiring the certificate. Subsequently, Noland filed suit in the Eleventh Judicial District Court of Flathead County, seeking a declaratory judgment that two provisions of the Montana Motor Carrier law, known as the public convenience and necessity (PCN) provisions, were unconstitutional under both the Montana and United States Constitutions.The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the State of Montana and Evergreen Disposal, Inc., which had intervened. The court held that Noland lacked standing to bring an as-applied constitutional challenge, reasoning he sought to vindicate only a future injury and had not shown how the statutes would be unconstitutionally applied to him. However, the court found Noland had standing to bring a facial challenge, but ruled against him, concluding the provisions were not facially unconstitutional because some applicants had previously received Class D certificates.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the District Court’s rulings de novo. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision that Noland lacked standing for an as-applied challenge, holding that he failed to demonstrate a concrete injury or how the statutes were applied to him. The Court reversed the District Court’s denial of Noland’s facial challenge, holding that he had standing to challenge the statute’s constitutionality on its face, since the procedural requirements themselves could constitute injury regardless of outcome. The case was remanded for further consideration of the facial constitutional challenges. View "Noland v. State" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs owned and operated a hotel that had a record of serious structural and safety problems, including a window and a stone falling from the building, and repeated failures to correct code violations. After a fire occurred without activation of the sprinkler system, a follow-up inspection revealed that several fire code violations remained unaddressed, along with new violations. Based on these findings, the city’s building administrator ordered the hotel to be closed immediately, citing imminent safety risks. The owners sought to appeal and demanded hearings, but the city cited the COVID-19 pandemic as a reason for delay and directed them to other appellate avenues. The closure order was lifted once the most urgent hazards were remedied, and the owners eventually fixed all violations.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to the city and the building administrator, finding no violations of procedural due process or the Fifth Amendment, and that qualified immunity protected the administrator in his individual capacity. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the procedural due process provided for the closure, the application of qualified immunity, and asserting that the closure constituted a regulatory taking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that, even assuming a protected property interest existed, the risk of erroneous deprivation was low due to specific regulations and the availability of prompt post-deprivation remedies. The court also found that swift action in the face of public safety threats justified summary administrative action without additional pre-deprivation process. Regarding qualified immunity, the court determined that no clearly established law prohibited the administrator’s conduct. Finally, the court held that the temporary closure was a lawful exercise of police power and did not amount to a compensable regulatory taking. View "reVamped LLC v. City of Pipestone" on Justia Law