Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., and its subentities sought an exemption from Wisconsin's unemployment compensation taxes, claiming they were controlled by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior and operated primarily for religious purposes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the exemption, ruling that the organizations did not engage in proselytization or limit their services to Catholics, and thus were not operated primarily for religious purposes.The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development initially denied the exemption request, but an Administrative Law Judge reversed this decision. The Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission then reinstated the denial. The state trial court overruled the commission, granting the exemption, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the organizations' activities were secular and not primarily religious, and that the statute did not violate the First Amendment.The United States Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's application of the statute violated the First Amendment. The Court found that the statute imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines, subjecting it to strict scrutiny. The Court concluded that the statute, as applied, could not survive strict scrutiny because the State failed to show that the law was narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. The judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission" on Justia Law

In October 2016, BAS, LLC purchased commercial property in Paragould, Arkansas, listing its mailing address as 3735 Winford Drive, Tarzana, California. BAS failed to pay property taxes for 2017 and 2018, leading the Greene County Clerk to certify the property to the Commissioner of State Lands for nonpayment. The Commissioner sent a notice of the upcoming tax sale to the Tarzana address via certified mail in August 2021, but did not receive a physical return receipt. USPS tracking data indicated the notice was delivered. In June 2022, the Commissioner sent another notice to the Paragould property, which was returned undelivered. The property was sold in August 2022, and BAS filed a lawsuit contesting the sale, alleging due process violations and unlawful taking.The Greene County Circuit Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Commissioner violated BAS’s due process rights, thus preventing a determination on sovereign immunity. The Commissioner appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and concluded that the Commissioner’s efforts to notify BAS were constitutionally sufficient. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and determined that the Commissioner’s actions met due process requirements. The court held that BAS failed to allege an illegal or unconstitutional act to overcome sovereign immunity. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court’s decision and granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. View "Land v. BAS, LLC" on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Education announced a reduction in force (RIF) on March 13, 2025, affecting about half of its employees. Subsequently, twenty-one states and several labor organizations and school districts filed lawsuits against the Secretary of Education, the Department, and the President, claiming that the RIF violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They also sought an injunction against the transfer of certain functions out of the Department, announced by the President on March 21, 2025.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts consolidated the cases and granted the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, determining that the RIF and the transfer of functions were likely ultra vires and violated the APA. The court concluded that the actions were arbitrary and capricious, lacking a reasoned explanation and failing to consider the substantial harms to stakeholders.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the appellants' motion for a stay pending appeal. The court found that the appellants did not make a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits, particularly regarding the APA claims. The court also determined that the plaintiffs would suffer substantial injury without the injunction, as the RIF made it effectively impossible for the Department to carry out its statutory functions. The court concluded that the public interest favored maintaining the injunction to ensure the Department could fulfill its legal obligations. View "New York v. McMahon" on Justia Law

The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) challenged an Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) policy requiring immigration judges to obtain prior approval before speaking publicly on immigration-related issues. NAIJ argued that this policy violated the First and Fifth Amendment rights of its members. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) provided the exclusive remedy for such claims, requiring them to be brought through the administrative procedures established by the CSRA.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case, determining that the CSRA's comprehensive scheme for reviewing personnel actions against federal employees precluded the district court from exercising jurisdiction. The district court held that NAIJ's members must pursue their claims through the CSRA's administrative process, which includes review by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and potential judicial review by the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that while the CSRA generally precludes district court jurisdiction over such claims, the current functionality and independence of the MSPB and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) were in question. The court noted that recent events, including the removal of the Special Counsel and the lack of a quorum in the MSPB, raised concerns about whether the CSRA's adjudicatory scheme was functioning as Congress intended. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to conduct a factual inquiry into whether the CSRA continues to provide a functional and independent review process, as required for the jurisdiction-stripping scheme to apply. View "Natl Assn of Immigration Judges v. Owen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Mansoor Hamoud Hadwan, a natural-born U.S. citizen, has been stranded in Yemen for twelve years. In 2013, he visited the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, to apply for immigration paperwork for his children. During this visit, embassy staff retained his Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) and U.S. passport. Nine months later, the U.S. Department of State formally revoked both documents, alleging they were fraudulently obtained. Hadwan was unable to attend his hearing challenging the revocation.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the State Department's decision to revoke Hadwan's documents. The court found that Hadwan had waived most of his arguments by not presenting them at the agency hearing, which he was not permitted to attend. The court also found that the State Department's hearing process did not violate due process requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and found that the State Department erred in two ways. First, the decision to uphold the revocation was arbitrary and capricious, violating the Administrative Procedure Act, because it failed to consider material, undisputed facts about Hadwan’s English literacy, which raised doubts about the reliability of his alleged confession statement. Second, the State Department violated Hadwan’s constitutional due process rights by revoking his documents without providing him an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner. The court reversed the district court's judgment and the State Department's decision, ordering the State Department to return Hadwan’s CRBA and expired passport so he may reapply for a new passport if he chooses. View "Hadwan v. US Dep't of State" on Justia Law

Karla Smith and Holly Bladel sued Iowa state officials and the State of Iowa after Iowa opted out of federal unemployment programs established during the Covid-19 pandemic. These programs, created under the CARES Act, provided various unemployment benefits. Iowa initially participated in these programs but decided to end its participation in June 2021. Smith and Bladel claimed that this decision violated the U.S. Constitution, the Iowa Constitution, and Iowa state law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa dismissed the case, ruling that the defendants were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and that the plaintiffs lacked a constitutionally protected property interest in the CARES Act benefits. Smith and Bladel appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Smith's official-capacity claims against Iowa and its officials, as the claims did not fall under the Ex parte Young exception for ongoing violations of federal law. The court also found that Smith lacked a protected property interest in the CARES Act benefits because Iowa had the discretion to opt out of the programs. Consequently, Smith's due process claim against the Governor and Director in their individual capacities failed. Additionally, the court ruled that Smith's state law claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and her request for declaratory relief was inappropriate as it sought to address past actions rather than future conduct. The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed all of Smith's claims. View "Smith v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Belinda Fitzpatrick owns two adjacent homes in Lansing, Michigan. In September 2021, Ingham County Animal Control received a complaint about Fitzpatrick harboring up to 30 chickens in unsanitary conditions. Officer Kyle Hanney from Animal Control investigated and observed severe unsanitary conditions, including a strong odor of ammonia and chicken feces throughout the house. Hanney obtained a warrant to search both homes for evidence of animal neglect and cruelty. He invited Matthew Simon, a local housing-code official, to join the search. Simon concluded that both homes were unfit for human occupancy and placed red tags on them, prohibiting entry until cleaned.Fitzpatrick sued Officer Hanney, Simon, and the City of Lansing, alleging violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Simon moved to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Simon’s motion, concluding that Simon had plausibly violated Fitzpatrick’s clearly established constitutional rights. Simon then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Simon was entitled to qualified immunity on Fitzpatrick’s Fourth Amendment claims because it was not clearly established that Simon needed a separate warrant for housing-code violations when he was searching for the same conditions as authorized by Hanney’s warrant. The court also held that Simon was entitled to qualified immunity on Fitzpatrick’s Fourteenth Amendment claims, as the unsanitary conditions in her homes constituted exigent circumstances justifying immediate eviction without prior notice. The court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims against Simon. View "Fitzpatrick v. Hanney" on Justia Law

Ryan Castaneira, a U.S. citizen, filed a Form I-130 petition to obtain permanent residency for his spouse, a Mexican national. USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the petition due to Castaneira's prior convictions in Georgia for crimes that appeared to qualify as "specified offenses against a minor" under the Adam Walsh Act. Castaneira argued that his convictions involved an undercover officer, not a minor, and thus should not be considered offenses against a minor. He also challenged the agency's use of the "beyond any reasonable doubt" standard to prove he posed no risk to his spouse.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Castaneira's claims. The court held that his prior convictions fell within the statutory definition of "specified offense against a minor" and that the Adam Walsh Act's grant of "sole and unreviewable discretion" to USCIS precluded judicial review of the evidentiary standard applied by the agency. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the standard of proof used by USCIS in making the no-risk determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling in part, agreeing that Castaneira's prior convictions were covered by the Adam Walsh Act. However, the appellate court vacated the District Court's jurisdictional ruling regarding the evidentiary standard. The court held that while USCIS's ultimate no-risk determinations are unreviewable, challenges to the agency's departure from its own binding precedent, such as the standard of proof, are reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether USCIS violated its own precedent by applying the "beyond any reasonable doubt" standard. View "Castaneira v. Noem" on Justia Law

The Texas Attorney General alleged that Annunciation House, a nonprofit organization in El Paso, was unlawfully harboring illegal aliens. The Attorney General sought to examine the organization's records and initiate quo warranto proceedings, which could lead to the revocation of its charter. Annunciation House, which provides shelter to immigrants and refugees, was served with a records request by state officials, who demanded immediate compliance. Annunciation House sought legal relief, arguing that the request violated its constitutional rights.The 205th Judicial District Court in El Paso County granted a temporary restraining order and later a temporary injunction against the Attorney General's records request. The court also denied the Attorney General's motion for leave to file a quo warranto action, ruling that the statutes authorizing the records request were unconstitutional and that the allegations of harboring illegal aliens did not constitute a valid basis for quo warranto. The court further held that the statutes were preempted by federal law and violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case on direct appeal. The court held that the trial court erred in its constitutional rulings and that the Attorney General has the constitutional authority to file a quo warranto action. The court emphasized that it was too early to express a view on the merits of the underlying issues and that the usual litigation process should unfold. The court also held that the statutes authorizing the records request were not facially unconstitutional and that the trial court's injunction against the Attorney General's records request was improper. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "PAXTON v. ANNUNCIATION HOUSE, INC." on Justia Law

A group of appellants, including Firearms Owners Against Crime and two firearms dealers, filed a case against the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) Commissioner, alleging that PSP was not complying with the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act. The appellants claimed that PSP was intentionally understaffing its Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) Operations Section, leading to significant delays in background checks for firearm purchases, sometimes exceeding seven hours. They argued that these delays violated the statutory requirement for "instantaneous" or "immediate" background checks and caused financial harm to firearms dealers due to canceled transactions.The Commonwealth Court initially issued a preliminary injunction, finding that PSP had a statutory duty to employ sufficient personnel to ensure compliance with the Act and that the delays were causing financial harm to the dealers. However, the court later sustained PSP's preliminary objections, ruling that the statute did not specify a mandatory timeframe for background checks and that the operational decisions regarding staffing were discretionary. The court also dismissed the appellants' request for a refund of the $2.00 background check fee, as the statute did not provide for such refunds.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and held that while the statute did not require "instantaneous" responses, it did mandate that PSP provide results as quickly as possible with available resources. The court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's denial of injunctive and mandamus relief, as these would compel affirmative action barred by sovereign immunity. However, the court reversed the denial of declaratory relief, allowing the appellants to seek a judicial declaration of PSP's duties under the Act. The court also vacated the order denying leave to amend the petition, allowing the appellants to include new allegations regarding PSP's response to the preliminary injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Firearms Owners v. Comm'r of PSP" on Justia Law