Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Augustine Perez was on federal supervised release in North Carolina, subject to conditions that allowed warrantless searches of his “person and property” by probation officers. Perez moved from a residence at Teal Drive to Lawndale Drive, reporting the change as required, but retained ownership of Teal Drive and leased it to Deanna Coleman, who moved in with her daughter. About a year later, probation officers received a tip from a confidential informant that Perez was living at Teal Drive and involved in drug trafficking. Without a warrant, officers searched both Lawndale Drive and Teal Drive on the same day. At Teal Drive, Coleman objected to the search, but officers proceeded, finding cash and items they alleged were connected to drug trafficking.In the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Perez and Coleman moved to suppress the evidence from the Teal Drive search, claiming it was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion to suppress and granted summary judgment to the government, ruling that the currency found was subject to forfeiture as drug proceeds, largely relying on the evidence seized during the search.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, vacated, and remanded. The court held that a supervised release condition permitting warrantless searches of a supervisee’s “property” does not authorize the search of real property owned by the supervisee but leased and occupied by a third party. The court further held that, to lawfully search Coleman’s residence under Perez’s supervision conditions, officers needed probable cause to believe Perez resided there. The government failed to meet this standard, rendering the search of Teal Drive unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit ordered suppression of the evidence and dismissal of the forfeiture complaint. View "US v. Perez" on Justia Law

Beecher Store, Inc., a retail liquor store in Dubuque, Iowa, was subject to compliance checks by the Dubuque Police Department. On October 15, 2022, officers sent two underage individuals into the store to attempt separate purchases of alcohol, about five minutes apart. Both purchases were made from the same employee, who checked each buyer’s ID but failed to verify their age adequately. The employee received two criminal citations for selling alcohol to minors, and pleaded guilty to both.Following these events, the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division (ABD) issued two civil penalty orders to Beecher Store, Inc.: a $500 penalty for the first violation, and a $1,500 penalty plus a thirty-day license suspension for the second violation, as mandated by Iowa Code section 123.50(3). Beecher did not contest the first penalty but challenged the second, arguing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) that the two violations were part of a single series of events and should not trigger the escalated second-violation sanctions. The ALJ rejected this argument, and the ABD affirmed the decision. Beecher then sought judicial review in the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, which denied Beecher’s petition. Beecher appealed, and the Iowa Supreme Court retained the case.The Iowa Supreme Court held that two separate sales of alcohol to two different minors, even if occurring minutes apart on the same day, constitute a first and second violation “within two years” under Iowa Code section 123.50(3). The court also rejected Beecher’s argument that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, finding the language clear and unambiguous. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, upholding the sanctions imposed by the ABD. View "Beecher Store, Inc., v. Iowa Department of Revenue Alcoholic Beverages Division" on Justia Law

Three individuals living with well-managed HIV, whose infections are controlled by daily medication and who have undetectable viral loads, sought to join or rejoin the U.S. Army. They were denied enlistment based on Department of Defense and Army policies that list HIV infection as a disqualifying medical condition, alongside numerous other chronic or communicable diseases. A nonprofit organization, Minority Veterans of America, also supported their challenge. The plaintiffs argued that these policies violate their equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment and are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court issued a permanent injunction barring the Military from denying accession to asymptomatic HIV-positive individuals with undetectable viral loads, prohibiting enforcement of HIV-specific policy provisions, and ordering reevaluation of prior decisions made under these policies. The district court concluded that the Military’s justifications—based on medical, cost, and diplomatic concerns—were irrational, arbitrary, and capricious.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the judgment. Applying rational basis review with heightened deference to military judgments, the Fourth Circuit found that the Military’s policies were rationally related to legitimate military purposes, including maintaining deployable, medically fit servicemembers, minimizing complications from chronic conditions, controlling costs, and addressing diplomatic issues with foreign host nations. The court distinguished this case from Roe v. Department of Defense, which concerned policies for current servicemembers rather than initial entry. The Fourth Circuit held that the Military’s HIV accession policy did not violate the Fifth Amendment or the APA and reversed the district court’s judgment, remanding with instructions to enter judgment for the Military. View "Wilkins v. Hegseth" on Justia Law

After an adult son sent text messages threatening a mass shooting at a local high school and referenced access to thousands of rounds of ammunition, the city police investigated the home he shared with his father. The father owned multiple firearms and large quantities of ammunition. Evidence showed the son had a history of mental health crises, including involuntary holds, and was subject to a lifetime ban from possessing firearms. Despite this prohibition, the son had access to firearms through his father, participated in shooting competitions, and had knowledge of how to access gun safes in the home. The father failed to turn in all firearms and ammunition as required by a temporary restraining order, and some safes were not adequately secured.The Superior Court of Orange County held an evidentiary hearing, where both the father and a police investigator testified. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the father’s failure to adequately secure his firearms and ammunition, combined with his son’s mental health history and credible threat of mass violence, posed a significant danger to others. The court concluded the father’s conduct enabled his son’s access to firearms and found no adequate, less restrictive alternatives to a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO). A three-year GVRO was issued against the father.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings and that the GVRO statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The court concluded the trial court reasonably interpreted statutory causation and properly considered alternatives. The father’s Second Amendment and hearsay objections were deemed forfeited for not being raised below. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order granting the GVRO. View "Anaheim Police Dept. v. Crockett" on Justia Law

Lucid Group USA, Inc., a company that sells new electric vehicles directly to consumers in other states, sought to open a retail location in Georgia. To do so, it applied for a dealer license from the Georgia Department of Revenue, which is required to sell new motor vehicles in the state. The Department denied Lucid’s application, citing Georgia’s Motor Vehicle Franchise Practices Act provisions that generally prohibit manufacturers and their affiliates from selling new motor vehicles directly to consumers or owning dealerships, thereby requiring sales to go through independent franchised dealers.Following the denial, Lucid filed suit against the State of Georgia, arguing that as applied to Lucid, these statutory provisions violate several sections of the Georgia Constitution, including the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and Article III, Section VI, Paragraph IV. Lucid also sought an injunction against enforcement of the law. The Superior Court permitted the Georgia Automobile Dealers Association to intervene and dismissed Lucid’s complaint. The court found Lucid’s due process and equal protection claims barred by Article III, Section VI, Paragraph II(c), which authorizes the legislature to regulate the motor vehicle industry “notwithstanding” those constitutional protections. The trial court also concluded Lucid had not stated a valid claim under Paragraph IV, reasoning the law was a general law with uniform operation.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. It held that Paragraph II(c) does not bar all due process and equal protection challenges, but only those regulations enacted for the purpose of preventing frauds, unfair business practices, unfair methods of competition, impositions, or other abuses upon Georgia’s citizens. The Court vacated the trial court’s dismissal of Lucid’s due process and equal protection claims and remanded for further consideration. The Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the dismissal of Lucid’s Paragraph IV claims, specifically remanding for further proceedings regarding Lucid’s challenge to the 2015 statutory amendment. View "LUCID GROUP USA, INC. v. STATE OF GEORGIA" on Justia Law

In 2014, Russia invaded and subsequently asserted control over Crimea, an area internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Ukrainian businesses operating in Crimea—including an electricity distributor and a group of petrol station owners—had their assets seized and operations transferred to Russian-controlled entities without compensation. These businesses, having made investments under Ukrainian law and while the 1998 Agreement Between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the Encouragement and Mutual Protection of Investments (“Investment Treaty”) was in effect, pursued arbitration against Russia for expropriation and treaty violations.The Ukrainian companies initiated separate arbitrations under the Investment Treaty’s arbitration clause. The arbitral tribunals found Russia liable for breaches and awarded significant damages to the companies. Russia challenged the arbitral jurisdiction and the awards in foreign courts, but those efforts were unsuccessful. The companies then filed petitions in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce the awards under the New York Convention and the Federal Arbitration Act. Russia moved to dismiss, arguing the courts lacked subject-matter and personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The District Court rejected Russia’s arguments, finding jurisdiction appropriate under the FSIA’s arbitration exception and personal jurisdiction proper upon valid service.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed whether the District Court correctly exercised jurisdiction. The appellate court held that the FSIA’s arbitration exception applied because the companies established the existence of an arbitration agreement, a qualifying arbitral award, and a treaty potentially governing enforcement. The court further held that foreign states are not entitled to the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections against personal jurisdiction. The judgments of the District Court were affirmed. View "Stabil LLC v. Russian Federation" on Justia Law

A group of residents and an association challenged actions taken by the Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1 (CID) in Boise, Idaho. The dispute arose after the CID’s board adopted resolutions in 2021 authorizing payments to a developer for infrastructure projects—such as roadways, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities—and issued a general obligation bond to finance those payments. The residents objected to the projects, arguing they primarily benefited the developer, imposed higher property taxes on homeowners, and allegedly violated the Idaho Community Infrastructure District Act (CID Act) as well as state and federal constitutional provisions. Previously, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District reviewed the matter after the residents filed a petition challenging the board’s decisions. The district court ruled in favor of the CID and the developer, concluding most of the residents’ claims were either time-barred under the CID Act’s statute of limitations or had been waived because they were not preserved before the CID board. The court also found that the remaining claims failed on their merits, holding that the challenged projects qualified as “community infrastructure,” the stormwater facilities satisfied ownership requirements, and the CID was not the alter ego of the City of Boise. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court clarified that, given the lack of formal administrative proceedings under the CID Act, the preservation doctrine did not apply to bar the residents’ arguments. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court held that any challenge to the CID’s original formation and the 2010 bond election was time-barred. The court further held that the roadways and stormwater facilities qualified as community infrastructure, the CID’s actions did not violate constitutional requirements regarding taxation or lending of credit, and the CID was not the alter ego of the city. The Supreme Court awarded costs on appeal to the CID and the developer but denied attorney fees to all parties. View "Doyle v. The Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1" on Justia Law

Eight residents of Boothbay and Boothbay Harbor challenged a school board’s refusal to put their petition for a new referendum before the voters. The underlying issue concerned a voter-approved bond to renovate local schools. After the bond passed, the residents submitted a petition containing two articles: one seeking to reconsider and repeal the prior vote, and another proposing a new, smaller bond for a different renovation project if the repeal succeeded. The school board rejected the petition, reasoning that it did not present a proper reconsideration question as required by statute and that the second article was unrelated to reconsidering the original referendum.The residents sought judicial review in the Lincoln County Superior Court under Rule 80B and also filed independent claims for a declaratory judgment and attorney fees, alleging a First Amendment violation. The Superior Court found that the petition was not a proper reconsideration petition because it included an additional article and that the independent claims were barred by the exclusivity principle. The residents then appealed.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. It held that the statute governing reconsideration petitions imposes a ministerial duty on the board to initiate a referendum if the statutory requirements are met; thus, the Superior Court had jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the residents’ petition did not comply with the statutory requirements for a reconsideration petition, as it sought affirmative repeal and included a second, unrelated article, making it ineligible for submission to voters. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the independent claims, holding there was no First Amendment violation. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Minerich v. Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor Community School District" on Justia Law

Several pharmaceutical manufacturers and a trade association challenged a Louisiana statute, Act 358, which restricts drug manufacturers from interfering with the delivery of federally discounted drugs through contract pharmacies. The statute was passed in response to manufacturers’ efforts to limit the distribution of discounted drugs under the federal 340B Program, particularly through arrangements with contract pharmacies serving vulnerable populations. The plaintiffs argued that the Louisiana law was preempted by federal law and violated several constitutional provisions, including the Takings Clause, the Contracts Clause, and the Due Process Clause’s prohibition on vagueness.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana considered three related cases together. It denied the manufacturers’ motions for summary judgment and instead granted summary judgment for the State of Louisiana and the Louisiana Primary Care Association (LPCA) on all claims. The district court also allowed LPCA to intervene in each case, over the objection of one plaintiff.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Act 358 is not preempted by federal law. It found that the federal 340B statute does not occupy the field of pharmacy regulation and does not conflict with or frustrate federal objectives, as it is silent on the use of contract pharmacies and leaves room for state regulation. The court also concluded that Act 358 does not effect a physical or regulatory taking, does not substantially impair contract rights under the Contracts Clause, and is not unconstitutionally vague. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order permitting LPCA to intervene in AbbVie’s case, finding that LPCA’s interests were adequately represented by the State and it did not show it would present a distinct defense. The court affirmed summary judgment for Louisiana on all claims. View "AstraZeneca v. Murrill" on Justia Law

After President Donald J. Trump began his second term, he issued two executive orders requiring federal agencies to end “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) programs in their grant and contracting processes. These directives included provisions for agencies to terminate DEI-related offices, positions, and funding (“Termination Provision”); to require federal grantees and contractors to certify compliance with anti-discrimination laws and the absence of DEI programs that violate those laws (“Certification Provision”); and to prepare a report on steps to deter illegal DEI programs (“Enforcement Threat Provision”). The plaintiffs—a city government and two organizations involved in higher education and academic advocacy—alleged that these provisions violated their constitutional rights and sought a preliminary injunction to halt their enforcement.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their constitutional claims and issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against most of the challenged provisions, except for the preparation of the enforcement report. The defendants appealed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted a stay of the injunction pending appeal. The plaintiffs later sought to have the injunction vacated so they could amend their complaint, but the district court denied this request.Reviewing the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Enforcement Threat Provision because their alleged injuries were too speculative and intertwined with intra-governmental processes. However, the court found the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Termination and Certification Provisions because these provisions resulted in concrete and imminent injuries, such as loss of funding or compelled changes in organizational activities.On the merits, the Fourth Circuit concluded the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their facial constitutional challenges. The court ruled that the Termination Provision was not unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment, and that the Certification Provision did not violate the First Amendment on its face. The court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Natl. Assoc. of Diversity Officers in Higher Edu. v. Trump" on Justia Law