Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

After the Missouri General Assembly enacted Senate Bill No. 22 (SB 22) in 2025, which made several changes to statutes governing ballot summaries and judicial proceedings, a Missouri resident and taxpayer challenged its constitutionality. SB 22 as introduced focused solely on amending the process for judicial review of ballot summary statements. During the legislative process, SB 22 was amended to include provisions expanding the attorney general’s authority to appeal certain preliminary injunctions, a subject unrelated to ballot summaries, and the bill’s title was changed from “relating to ballot summaries” to “relating to judicial proceedings.” After passage by both legislative chambers and the Governor’s signature, the bill became law.The Circuit Court of Cole County reviewed the case after the plaintiff alleged SB 22 violated the Missouri Constitution’s original purpose, single subject, and clear title requirements, as well as equal protection guarantees. The circuit court found the bill did not violate the procedural constitutional provisions, but it did find that the amendment to section 526.010 (concerning the attorney general’s appellate rights) violated equal protection and was severable from the rest of the bill. The court allowed the remaining portions, primarily those addressing ballot summaries, to stand. The plaintiff appealed, challenging the findings on the procedural requirements, while the State cross-appealed on standing and equal protection.The Supreme Court of Missouri heard the case and held that the plaintiff had taxpayer standing because SB 22’s provisions resulted in a direct expenditure of public funds. Upon de novo review, the Supreme Court found that SB 22 violated the original purpose requirement of article III, section 21 of the Missouri Constitution because the added provision regarding the attorney general’s appellate rights was not germane to the bill’s original purpose. The Court further held that the offending provision could not be severed, and therefore invalidated SB 22 in its entirety, reversing the judgment of the circuit court. View "Nicholson v. State" on Justia Law

Ten nonprofit organizations that received federal grants through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ “Citizenship and Integration Grant Program” filed suit after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) froze and subsequently terminated their grant funding. The freeze and termination followed an executive order issued by the incoming President in January 2025 directing DHS to pause and review grants that funded services to undocumented immigrants, with the aim of ensuring compliance with law and preventing waste, fraud, or abuse. DHS notified grantees of the freeze in February 2025 and terminated the grants in March 2025, prompting the plaintiffs to seek a preliminary injunction to restore the program and funding.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court determined that the plaintiffs’ claims were essentially contractual—seeking disbursement of funds based on grant agreements—and thus fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not identified a reviewable “final agency action” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Additionally, it concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to provide adequate legal authority for their ultra vires and separation-of-powers claims.Reviewing the appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the relief sought by the plaintiffs was materially indistinguishable from relief denied in recent Supreme Court cases, Department of Education v. California and National Institutes of Health v. Public Health Association. It concluded that claims seeking to enforce contractual obligations to pay money must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims and that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their alternative constitutional or statutory claims. The district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction was therefore affirmed. View "Solutions in Hometown Connections v. Noem" on Justia Law

A worker was severely injured while operating a bulldozer during a nighttime firefighting operation on a fire line managed by the Oregon Department of Forestry. At the time, he was employed by a private company under contract with the state and received workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries. He also filed a lawsuit alleging that two state employees supervising the site had negligently directed operations, resulting in his injuries. The complaint sought damages from the employees and the State of Oregon, which was alleged to be vicariously liable.The Jackson County Circuit Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the individual state employees based on a provision of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.265(3), making the state the sole defendant. The court also dismissed the claims against the state under ORS 30.265(6)(a), which grants immunity to public bodies and their employees against tort claims when the injured party is covered by workers’ compensation. However, the court allowed the plaintiff’s wife’s loss of consortium claim to proceed. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the statutory immunity barred the plaintiff’s claims and did not violate the remedy clause of the Oregon Constitution.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case and reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court. The court held that the statutory immunity provision in ORS 30.265(6)(a), which entirely bars a common-law negligence action by a privately employed worker injured by a negligent state employee, exceeds the limits imposed by Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution. The court concluded that this statutory immunity unconstitutionally denies such injured persons a substantive right to a remedy by due course of law and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Crandall v. State of Oregon" on Justia Law

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