Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Michigan's electricity market regulations, specifically the Individual Local Clearing Requirement (ILCR), which mandates that electricity retailers in Michigan's lower peninsula procure a certain percentage of their capacity from within that region. Plaintiffs, including Energy Michigan and the Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity (ABATE), challenged the ILCR on the grounds that it violates the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan initially dismissed the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) on Eleventh Amendment grounds but allowed the case to proceed against individual commissioners. The court denied summary judgment motions from both sides, finding that there were factual disputes regarding whether the ILCR discriminated against interstate commerce. After a three-day bench trial, the district court concluded that the ILCR did not violate the Commerce Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the ILCR is facially discriminatory because it requires electricity to be generated within a specific geographic region, effectively favoring in-state over out-of-state electricity. The court held that this discrimination necessitates strict scrutiny, which the district court did not properly apply. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the ILCR can survive strict scrutiny by proving it is the only means to achieve the state's goal of ensuring a reliable energy supply. View "Energy Michigan, Inc. v. Public Service Commission" on Justia Law

Zillow, Inc., a for-profit corporation, requested property tax data from several Kentucky property valuation administrators (PVAs) under Kentucky’s Open Records Act (KORA). The PVAs classified Zillow’s requests as having a commercial purpose and quoted fees amounting to thousands of dollars. Zillow sued, arguing that KORA’s fee structure, which distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial purposes and includes exceptions for newspapers, radio, and television stations, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky held that the commercial/non-commercial distinction did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments but found the newspaper exception unconstitutional. The court severed the newspaper exception from the statute, resulting in both Zillow and newspapers being subject to enhanced fees. The Kentucky Press Association and American City Business Journals intervened and, along with Zillow, appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the commercial-fee statute did not violate the First Amendment as applied to Zillow. It determined that the distinction between commercial and non-commercial purposes was content-neutral and did not impermissibly discriminate based on the content of Zillow’s speech. The court reversed the district court’s order declaring the newspaper exception unconstitutional, vacated the permanent injunction, and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment to the PVAs. View "Zillow, Inc. v. Miller" on Justia Law

Danny Fox, an active-duty servicemember, purchased a property in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2015. The City of Norfolk determined the property was unsafe and uninhabitable, repeatedly notifying Fox of building code violations. Despite these notices, Fox did not make the necessary repairs. In December 2018, the city demolished the house, deeming it a public nuisance. Fox subsequently sued the city, claiming inverse condemnation, among other things, arguing the property was not a nuisance and that the city's actions were pretextual to increase its tax base.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The court held that Fox's federal constitutional claims were barred by the statute of limitations. It also ruled that Fox's inverse condemnation claim failed because, whether or not the property was a nuisance, he could not demonstrate the city's public use requirement. The court found no evidence to support Fox's claim that the city's actions were pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Fox's inverse condemnation claim failed regardless of whether the property was a nuisance. If the property was a nuisance, the city had the authority to abate it without compensation. If it was not a nuisance, Fox could not show a public use, a necessary element for an inverse condemnation claim. The court also found that Fox provided no evidence to support his pretext argument. Thus, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the city. View "D.A. Realestate Investment, LLC v. City of Norfolk" on Justia Law

Justin and Jared Brackett own and operate two restaurants in Harwich, Massachusetts: Ember Pizza, Inc. and The Port Restaurant and Bar, Inc. Both establishments held liquor and entertainment licenses issued by the town. Allegedly, they violated Harwich's noise ordinance and Massachusetts COVID-19 restrictions, leading to suspensions and restrictions on their permits. In response, they sued Harwich, several town officials, and other individuals in federal district court, asserting various federal and state claims.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts largely granted the defendants' dispositive motions, rejecting all of Ember and The Port's claims. The court also denied their request for leave to amend their complaint, finding that an amendment would be futile. Ember and The Port then appealed the district court's decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's rulings. The appellate court held that Ember and The Port failed to state a plausible claim for relief under federal law, including their First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and procedural due process claims. The court also found that the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act claims and common law claims, including civil conspiracy and defamation, were inadequately pleaded. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendments would not have cured the deficiencies in the original complaint. View "3137, LLC v. Town of Harwich" on Justia Law

Three plaintiffs, including a Virginia citizen, a Virginia entity, and an out-of-state entity, challenged Virginia Senate Bill 903, which regulates the retail sale of hemp products based on their total tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration. The plaintiffs argued that the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp with a delta-9 THC concentration of no more than 0.3%, preempts the more restrictive Virginia law. They also claimed that the Virginia law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their preemption arguments, as the 2018 Farm Bill does not expressly preempt state laws regulating hemp more stringently. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that they were licensed processors under Virginia law, thus lacking standing to challenge the provision preventing Virginia processors from selling hemp products to others who would use them in violation of the total THC standard. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' Dormant Commerce Clause claims, finding no evidence that the Virginia law discriminates against or unduly burdens interstate commerce.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the sales restriction provision, as they did not allege sufficient facts showing they were licensed processors. The court vacated the district court's order regarding this claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice. However, the court affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief concerning the total THC standard, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on their preemption and Dormant Commerce Clause claims. View "Northern Virginia Hemp and Agriculture, LLC v. Commonwealth of Virginia" on Justia Law

A service-disabled veteran and his company, MJL Enterprises, LLC, alleged that the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 8(a) Business Development Program discriminated against him based on race. The program uses a race-conscious presumption to determine social disadvantage, which the plaintiffs argued was unconstitutional. They sought a declaration that the program's racial classifications were unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case, ruling it moot due to changes in the 8(a) Program following an injunction in another case, Ultima Services Corp. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. The district court also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to demonstrate economic disadvantage and could not establish social disadvantage without the presumption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s ruling on mootness, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the case was not moot because the changes to the 8(a) Program were not final and could be appealed. However, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal based on lack of standing. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an injury in fact, as they did not show they were "able and ready" to bid on 8(a) Program contracts due to their inability to meet the program’s social and economic disadvantage requirements. The court also found that the plaintiffs could not establish causation or redressability, as their ineligibility for the program was not solely due to the race-conscious presumption.The Fourth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue and affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Hierholzer v. Guzman" on Justia Law

Robert Mann, a taxpayer, filed a lawsuit against the State of California and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), challenging CHP’s vehicle impound policies. Mann argued that the impoundment of vehicles without a warrant and inadequate notice procedures constituted illegal expenditures of public funds. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent what he characterized as wasteful, unlawful, and unconstitutional law enforcement policies. The trial court granted a permanent injunction requiring CHP to consider vehicle owners’ ability to pay towing and storage fees during impound hearings and vehicle release procedures, and to revise its notice form to advise owners of procedures for retrieving impounded vehicles.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially reviewed the case. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, the trial court granted a motion for judgment against Youth Justice Coalition and entered judgment in favor of defendant Warren A. Stanley, who had retired before the trial. The court found that Stanley, as a former public officer, was no longer a proper defendant. The trial court issued a permanent injunction requiring CHP to revise its vehicle impound procedures, including considering the ability to pay and revising notice forms.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the injunction improperly required CHP to contravene valid statutes, relied on inapplicable case law, conflicted with the existing statutory scheme, and mandated unnecessary revisions to its notice procedures. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in requiring CHP to conduct ability-to-pay hearings and revise its notice forms, as these requirements were not mandated by due process and conflicted with statutory provisions. The judgment was reversed, and costs on appeal were awarded to the appellant. View "Mann v. State of Cal." on Justia Law

Two Starbucks employees, Echo Nowakowska and Tristan Bussiere, were terminated after engaging in labor organizing activities. Starbucks claimed the terminations were due to policy violations and poor performance. However, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that the terminations were motivated by the employees' organizing activities, violating Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRB sought enforcement of its order, while Starbucks cross-petitioned for review on several issues, including the constitutionality of the NLRB's administrative law judges (ALJs) and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the NLRB's conclusions.The ALJ concluded that Starbucks failed to prove it would have terminated the employees absent their organizing activities. The ALJ found substantial evidence that the terminations and reduction in hours were motivated by anti-union animus, supported by internal communications and the timing of disciplinary actions. The NLRB adopted the ALJ's findings and ordered Starbucks to reinstate the employees and compensate them for lost earnings and benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Starbucks' constitutional challenge to the ALJ removal protections and found that Starbucks failed to demonstrate injury from these protections. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the NLRB's conclusions that the terminations and reduction in hours were due to the employees' organizing activities. Additionally, the court upheld the NLRB's finding that Starbucks knew about the employees' recording activities before their terminations, precluding the use of after-acquired evidence to limit remedies.However, the court vacated the portion of the NLRB's order requiring Starbucks to compensate the employees for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, finding it exceeded the Board's authority under the NLRA. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. View "NLRB v. Starbucks Corp" on Justia Law

Chesla A. Scott challenged the Idaho Department of Labor's service of three determination notices, claiming she did not receive them while temporarily working out-of-state. The Department mailed the notices to her last known address, and Scott missed the fourteen-day appeal period. When she attempted to appeal, the Department's Appeals Examiner dismissed her appeal as untimely. Scott argued that the Department's service by mail did not meet constitutional due process requirements.The Appeals Examiner conducted a hearing and concluded that Scott's appeal was untimely under Idaho Code section 72-1368(3) and (5). The Idaho Industrial Commission affirmed this decision, denying Scott's request for a new hearing and conducting a de novo review of the record. The Commission also concluded that Scott had not timely filed her appeal.Scott appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that the Department's service by mail was constitutionally inadequate. The Court reviewed whether Scott exhausted her administrative remedies and preserved her constitutional challenge. The Court held that Scott had exhausted her administrative remedies and preserved her due process claim, allowing it to be reviewed.The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the Department's mailing of the determination notices was reasonable under all the circumstances and did not violate due process. The Court found that the Department's method of service was reasonably calculated to provide notice, and Scott's failure to receive the notices was not due to any fault of the Department. The Court did not award attorney fees to either party but awarded costs to the Department. View "Scott v. Home Depot USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Orange City passed an ordinance requiring periodic inspections of rental properties. If entry for inspection is refused, the ordinance allows the city inspector to seek legal remedies, including obtaining an administrative search warrant. Certain owners and renters of rental units challenged the ordinance, claiming it violated article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution because it did not require the city to show traditional probable cause before seeking a warrant.The Iowa District Court for Sioux County ruled in favor of the challengers, declaring the ordinance's mandatory inspection requirement unconstitutional and enjoining the city from seeking administrative warrants under the ordinance. The court awarded nominal damages to the plaintiffs.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the lower court's ruling. The court noted that in a facial challenge, the challenger must prove that the ordinance is unconstitutional in all its applications. The court found that there are scenarios where the ordinance could operate constitutionally, such as when traditional probable cause is present, when non-warrant legal remedies are pursued, or when inspections are conducted by certified third-party inspectors, exempting the property from city inspections. Therefore, the facial challenge could not succeed.The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The main holding was that the ordinance's inspection regime could operate constitutionally in certain circumstances, thus the facial challenge to the ordinance failed. View "Singer v. City of Orange City" on Justia Law