Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A sheriff in Jefferson County was placed on the local prosecutor’s Brady-Giglio list after a series of events involving a use-of-force incident and subsequent interactions about the department’s response. The prosecutor believed the sheriff’s conduct during the internal investigation, including delays in communication and reluctance to provide details about disciplinary actions, raised concerns about the sheriff’s credibility and truthfulness. After being placed on the list, which could affect his ability to testify in court and threaten his law enforcement career, the sheriff sought reconsideration but was unsuccessful. He then petitioned for judicial review under an Iowa statute that permits officers to challenge their placement on a Brady-Giglio list.The Iowa District Court for Jefferson County conducted an in camera review and found that while the sheriff’s actions were not fully transparent, they did not amount to deceit or dishonesty. The court ordered the sheriff’s removal from the Brady-Giglio list and rejected the county attorney’s arguments that the underlying statute was unconstitutional on due process and separation-of-powers grounds. The county attorney appealed, raising constitutional challenges to the statute rather than contesting the district court’s factual findings.The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed the case and affirmed the district court. It held that the statutory scheme allowing judicial review of Brady-Giglio list placements does not interfere with a prosecutor’s due process obligations to defendants, since it does not prevent disclosure of exculpatory or impeachment material in individual cases. The court also concluded that the statute does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine, since it does not invade core prosecutorial functions such as charging decisions or trial strategy. The court declined to address a void-for-vagueness challenge, finding it was not preserved. The judgment ordering the sheriff’s removal from the Brady-Giglio list was affirmed. View "Richmond v. Jefferson County Attorney" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a regional fishermen’s association and the federal government concerning changes to catch limits for several fish species in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. The association, representing commercial fishermen allegedly harmed by reduced catch limits, challenged the legality of the Framework Adjustment 65 Final Rule and its implementing regulations. At the core of the association’s argument was the claim that the involvement of the New England Fishery Management Council in the development of these rules violated the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The association argued that the Council exercised significant authority in the regulatory process but its members were not properly appointed as federal officers.The United States District Court for the District of Maine reviewed the case. It concluded that the association had standing due to the economic injury suffered by its members. The district court rejected the primary constitutional claim, holding that the Council’s role was advisory and final binding authority rested solely with the Secretary of Commerce, who promulgated the regulations. The court did, however, agree with the association in part, finding certain unrelated statutory provisions unconstitutional, but determined that this did not entitle the association to its requested relief. The district court severed those statutory provisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard the appeal. After reviewing the statutory framework and the specific facts, the court held that the Council’s role was advisory and did not amount to the exercise of significant federal authority under the Appointments Clause. The harm to the association’s members derived from the Secretary’s independent decision to promulgate the binding regulations, not from the Council’s recommendations. The First Circuit affirmed the denial of injunctive and declaratory relief and reversed the district court’s severance of the unrelated statutory provisions. View "New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association v. Lutnick" on Justia Law

A private company specializing in the disposal of wastewater from oil and gas fracking leased land in an urban area and constructed two saltwater-injection wells. After two earthquakes were recorded near the wells, the State of Ohio determined the company’s activities caused the seismic events and temporarily suspended operations at both wells. One well was later permitted to resume limited operations, but the suspension of the second well remained until 2021. The company had been aware of seismicity risks before acquiring its leasehold and warned investors of possible regulatory shutdowns.After the suspension, the company pursued administrative and judicial challenges, including an appeal to the Ohio Oil and Gas Commission and the Tenth District Court of Appeals, both of which upheld the State’s actions. The company then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, claiming a regulatory taking of its property. The Eleventh District initially denied relief, but following multiple remands from the Supreme Court of Ohio, it ultimately found no total taking but did find a compensable partial regulatory taking under the Penn Central analysis, ordering the State to initiate eminent-domain proceedings.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed whether the suspension order constituted a total or partial regulatory taking. The court held that the company failed to prove it was deprived of all economically beneficial use, rejecting the total taking claim. The court further held that, under a proper balancing of the Penn Central factors, the State’s actions did not amount to a compensable partial taking. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Eleventh District’s denial of the total takings claim, reversed its partial takings finding, and denied the writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Mertz" on Justia Law

In this case, Montgomery County, Maryland, enacted amendments to its County Code in 2021 and 2022 regulating firearms. The amendments expanded the definition of “place of public assembly,” prohibited the possession of firearms (including “ghost guns”) in or within 100 yards of such places, and removed exceptions for state-issued handgun permit holders. The amendments also imposed new restrictions concerning minors’ access to firearms and regulated ghost guns and their components. The petitioners, two businesses and eight individuals, claimed these provisions were preempted by state law, not a valid local law, and amounted to an unconstitutional taking.After removal to federal court and a partial remand, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County ruled in favor of the challengers, finding the county’s provisions preempted by state law, not a local law, and an unconstitutional taking, and issued declaratory and injunctive relief. The Appellate Court of Maryland remanded for further analysis of preemption and takings issues, particularly concerning the expansion of “place of public assembly.”The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case, holding that new issues may only be properly added by amending the complaint, not through summary judgment motions. The Court determined that Criminal Law § 4-209(b)(1) authorizes charter counties to regulate firearms in limited contexts (with respect to minors, law enforcement, and within 100 yards of certain public places), and that this authority was not abrogated by other state preemption statutes. The Court found Montgomery County’s regulation valid for parks, places of worship, schools, libraries, courthouses, legislative assemblies, recreational and multipurpose exhibition facilities, and polling places, but invalid for hospitals, health centers, long-term care, childcare facilities, government buildings as broadly defined, and generalized gatherings. The Court also clarified the scope of local regulation regarding minors and found no unconstitutional taking occurred. The judgment of the Appellate Court was vacated and remanded with instructions for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Engage Armament v. Montgomery Cnty." on Justia Law

A Montana ballot initiative, known as BI-9, sought to amend the state constitution by creating a new section that would define and limit the powers of “artificial persons,” such as corporations and other entities, by prohibiting them from spending money or anything of value to influence electoral outcomes. The initiative arose after a previous attempt (BI-4) by the same proponents was rejected for violating the state’s constitutional separate-vote requirement. The Montana Attorney General again found BI-9 legally insufficient, determining that it combined multiple unrelated constitutional changes in a single proposal and therefore violated Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution.After the Attorney General’s finding, the proponents petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Montana for declaratory judgment, challenging the Attorney General’s assessment. The Attorney General argued that BI-9 not only added new material to the constitution but also limited the powers of artificial persons, affected a wide range of entities beyond corporations, and implicitly amended other constitutional provisions, all of which, in his view, required separate votes.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the initiative and disagreed with the Attorney General’s conclusions. The Court held that BI-9 constituted a single constitutional amendment under Article XIV, Section 11, because the proposal’s various components were closely related and did not amount to “logrolling” or voter deception. The Court distinguished the current proposal from prior rejected initiatives and found that the specification of affected entities and the consequences of political spending restrictions did not require separate votes. The Court reversed the Attorney General’s rejection of BI-9 and ordered him to prepare and forward a ballot statement to the Secretary of State. View "Transparent Election Initiative v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

An administrative law judge (ALJ) at the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a protective order during a dispute between Qualcomm and Apple, requiring recipients of confidential business information, including expert witness Gregory Sidak, to return or destroy that information after the case ended. However, the ALJ who issued the order had been appointed solely by the ITC chairman, not by the full commission as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The ITC later ratified the ALJ’s appointments but did not ratify past actions taken by those ALJs. Years after the underlying case ended, the ITC began investigating Sidak for allegedly violating the protective order’s requirements. Sidak participated in the investigation by exchanging letters and affidavits, but eventually sued, arguing that the protective order was void because it was issued by an unconstitutionally appointed ALJ and never ratified, and sought to enjoin the ITC from enforcing it against him.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia found in Sidak’s favor, holding that the protective order could not lawfully be used as the basis for the investigation or for imposing sanctions on him. It permanently enjoined the ITC from taking further action against Sidak based on the challenged order. The ITC appealed the district court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Sidak had standing, that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, and that Sidak had a right of action under the Constitution. The court further held that Sidak’s challenge was both timely and ripe, rejecting the ITC’s arguments that the claim was either too early or too late. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting permanent injunctive relief. View "J. Sidak v. United States International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

John Mercer was charged with two counts of driving while intoxicated (DWI) in Garland County, Arkansas, in 2017. He pled no contest to both charges in 2018. The Garland County District Court imposed fines, required alcohol education, and placed Mercer on at least six months of probation, which included a $25 monthly probation fee and conditions such as random drug and alcohol testing. Mercer made several probation-fee payments as a result. Mercer later filed a lawsuit, alleging that probation and associated fees in DWI cases are not authorized under Arkansas law and therefore constitute an illegal exaction. He also asserted federal and state due-process claims, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and repayment of the fees collected.The Garland County District Court moved to dismiss Mercer’s complaint in the Garland County Circuit Court, arguing that it was entitled to sovereign immunity under the Arkansas Constitution. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, rejecting the sovereign immunity defense. After further proceedings and amended complaints, the district court again sought dismissal, but the circuit court denied the motion. The district court then filed an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, challenging the denial of sovereign immunity.The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that Mercer’s illegal-exaction claim may proceed because the Arkansas Constitution expressly authorizes such claims, overriding sovereign immunity. The court also held that Mercer’s federal due-process claim survives dismissal, as state sovereign immunity cannot categorically bar federal causes of action in state courts of general jurisdiction. However, the court ruled that Mercer’s Arkansas Civil Rights Act claim is barred by sovereign immunity, as there is no constitutional authorization for such suits against the state. The court affirmed the circuit court’s order in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "GARLAND COUNTY DISTRICT COURT v. MERCER" on Justia Law

Scott Martin operated a business in Harris County, Texas, gathering contact information of criminal defendants from public court records and selling it to private attorneys. His business relied primarily on access to bail bond orders, which contained defendants’ addresses and other contact details. In June 2023, the then-presiding judge of the Harris County Criminal Courts at Law issued an administrative order instructing the district clerk to keep the contents of certain bond orders in misdemeanor cases confidential, making only the title, filing date, and page enumeration available to the public. This significantly reduced the information Martin could access, leading to substantial business losses. Martin unsuccessfully sought reconsideration of the order and then filed suit, asserting constitutional and statutory claims and seeking injunctive relief and damages.The case was heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The defendants, including the district clerk and judges, moved to dismiss, arguing the order did not violate any constitutional right and that they were immune from suit. The district court, after a hearing, granted the motion to dismiss. The court determined that under Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., Martin’s First Amendment claim failed because the order merely restricted access to government information, not speech. It also found no plausible claim under the Sixth Amendment or Texas law, and concluded Martin had no property interest in the information.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that restricting access to the information in government possession does not violate the First Amendment, and Martin’s other constitutional and state law arguments lacked merit. The court also rejected Martin’s ultra vires claim, finding the judge acted within her statutory authority. Thus, the dismissal was affirmed. View "Martin v. Burgess" on Justia Law

A Wisconsin statute enacted in 2023 required that electronic nicotine delivery systems (such as vapes and e-cigarettes) could only be sold in the state if they had received premarket authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), were pending FDA review as of specified dates, or did not contain nicotine. The law also imposed financial penalties and authorized private lawsuits against violators. Several businesses and consumers involved in the manufacture, distribution, retail, and use of these products challenged the statute, arguing that federal law granting the FDA authority over tobacco products preempted the Wisconsin statute. They also asserted that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause, and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent enforcement.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court found that the Wisconsin law was not preempted by federal statutes, specifically the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The court concluded that Congress had not intended to preempt states from imposing additional or more stringent requirements on the sale of tobacco products, and that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or that the balance of equities favored an injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the text and structure of the relevant federal statutes, including the TCA’s preservation and savings clauses, demonstrated that Congress did not preempt state authority to regulate, or even prohibit, the sale of tobacco products. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their preemption claim. View "Wisconsinites for Alternatives to Smoking v. Casey" on Justia Law

Eighteen transgender women incarcerated in federal women’s prisons challenged a federal executive order that directed the Attorney General to ensure that “males”—defined by biological sex assigned at conception—are not detained in women’s facilities. These plaintiffs were a small group of transgender women whom the Bureau of Prisons had, after individualized assessments, placed in women’s facilities. Each had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, received long-term hormone therapy, and some had undergone gender-affirming surgeries. The plaintiffs alleged that transferring them to men’s prisons would expose them to grave risks of violence, abuse, and psychological harm.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs preliminary injunctive relief, blocking their transfers and requiring the government to maintain their housing in women’s facilities. The district court found that transgender women are at a significantly higher risk of harm in men’s facilities and that the government was aware of these risks. The court also rejected government arguments that judicial review was barred or that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, holding instead that no effective administrative remedy was available.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that judicial review of constitutional claims was not barred by statute and that the government had not shown exhaustion of available administrative remedies. However, the court vacated the preliminary injunctions, finding that the district court’s broad, categorical reasoning was not defended by the plaintiffs on appeal, who instead advanced more individualized grounds. The record did not contain the necessary factual findings as to each plaintiff’s specific vulnerabilities. The case was remanded for further proceedings, and the expired injunctions were dismissed as moot. View "Doe v. Blanche" on Justia Law