Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In 2004, a fourteen-year-old girl was sexually assaulted in Anoka County, Minnesota. She provided evidence for a rape kit, which was submitted to the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office. Detective Johnson was assigned to her case and assured her mother that no DNA was obtained, though in reality the kit was never tested. The suspect was charged but not convicted. In 2015, it was discovered that the Sheriff’s Office had hundreds of untested rape kits, including hers. Sixteen years after the assault, her kit was finally tested, revealing DNA evidence implicating the original suspect, and criminal charges were pursued again.After these events, she brought suit against Anoka County, Sheriff Stuart, and Detective Johnson in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. She asserted claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Minnesota Constitution for equal protection violations, a claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, a “failure to train” claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state tort claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The district court dismissed her MHRA and negligence claims but allowed the other claims to proceed, finding she had standing in light of Eighth Circuit precedent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring her federal constitutional claims for alleged failures to investigate or train, following Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit precedent holding that crime victims generally lack standing to challenge law enforcement or prosecutorial discretion in investigating crimes, even when alleging class-based discrimination. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment on the federal claims and remanded with instructions to dismiss those claims for lack of standing. The court remanded the IIED claim for the district court to determine whether standing existed for that state-law claim. View "Doe v. Anoka County" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are residents of Hillman Ridge Road in Brown County, Ohio. They experienced a cessation of direct mail delivery to their homes after 2017, following an incident involving a neighbor and a mail carrier. As a result, they were required to retrieve their mail from a distant location and travel to a nearby town for parcels. Other delivery services continued to serve their properties, and the Postal Service continued direct delivery on similar roads in the area. The plaintiffs argued that the Postal Service’s refusal to deliver directly to their homes constituted unconstitutional, unreasonable discrimination.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, naming the United States Postal Service and two officials as defendants. They asserted a “class of one” equal protection claim, alleging that the Postal Service’s actions violated their constitutional rights. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court held that the plaintiffs’ dispute belonged exclusively before the Postal Regulatory Commission, not in federal district court, and granted the dismissal. Plaintiffs then appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. It held that Congress intended for claims concerning unreasonable discrimination in mail service—such as those under 39 U.S.C. § 403(c)—to be addressed first by the Postal Regulatory Commission under the administrative procedures of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The court found that the statutory scheme precludes district court jurisdiction over such claims, even those framed as constitutional issues. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that plaintiffs must pursue their claim through the Commission before seeking judicial review. View "Klein v. USPS" on Justia Law

A town administrator in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, was terminated by a newly elected faction on the town’s Board of Supervisors. The administrator, who had served since 2008, claimed his firing was retaliation for cooperating with a state Department of Justice investigation into alleged corruption by a newly elected supervisor. That supervisor had previously been involved in litigation against the town and was later indicted, though ultimately acquitted, on unrelated corruption charges. The administrator’s relationship with the new board members deteriorated, and he was perceived as politically aligned with their rivals and critical of their policies.The administrator sued the Town and individual supervisors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting First Amendment retaliation. The supervisor also filed a counterclaim alleging the administrator had set him up for prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants in both actions, finding the administrator’s termination did not violate the First Amendment and that qualified immunity applied due to unclear precedent regarding the firing of policymaking officials for political speech. The court also rejected the supervisor’s counterclaim, finding no evidence of state action or differential treatment required for an equal protection class-of-one claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because existing precedent did not clearly establish that firing a policymaking official under these circumstances violated the First Amendment. The court also affirmed dismissal of the counterclaim, finding neither a viable First Amendment retaliation nor an equal protection claim. View "March v. Wolff" on Justia Law

A veteran who served in the Marine Corps, including a tour in Vietnam, began experiencing fatigue and underwent a medical evaluation at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center in 2010. His blood tests showed elevated lymphocyte counts. However, VA physicians in Florida diagnosed him with monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), not chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and did not inform him of a CLL diagnosis. Years later, after his condition worsened and he relocated to Tennessee, a VA oncologist diagnosed him with CLL and retroactively opined that his medical records met the diagnostic criteria for CLL since 2010. The veteran then applied for VA disability compensation. The VA assigned a 100% disability rating with an effective date of January 29, 2016, the date his claim was filed.The veteran appealed, arguing for an earlier effective date due to the alleged misdiagnosis and failure to inform him about his CLL. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals partially granted his request, assigning an effective date of January 29, 2015, but declined to go earlier, finding that the law did not allow equitable considerations to affect the effective date under 38 U.S.C. § 5110. The veteran then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, raising arguments that the VA should be equitably estopped from enforcing § 5110’s effective date restrictions, and that those restrictions were unconstitutional as applied to him. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s decision.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court. The Federal Circuit held that equitable estoppel cannot override the effective date limitations of 38 U.S.C. § 5110, and that § 7331 does not create a statutory precondition to enforcement of § 5110. It also held that the statute’s effective date limitations were not unconstitutional as applied to the veteran’s circumstances. View "LEY v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

A commercial property owner that operates a large shopping mall in Nassau County, New York, was fined approximately $4.8 million by county officials for failing to provide financial information as required under the county’s Annual Statement of Income and Expenses (ASIE) Law. This law mandates commercial property owners to report financial data to county assessors or face a fine calculated as a percentage of the property’s market value. The property owner did not submit the required statements for two consecutive years and was subsequently notified of the fine.After receiving notice of the penalty, the property owner filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, rather than pursuing remedies under state law or contesting the fine through state administrative proceedings. The owner argued that the ASIE Law and the resulting penalty violated the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and several state laws. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Nassau County and its officials, finding that the fine was not excessive, that adequate procedural due process was available through an Article 78 state court proceeding, and that the ASIE Law did not violate substantive due process. The district court also denied the owner’s motion for sanctions against the county, finding no evidence of bad faith or egregious conduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to business entities, including trusts, and that the fine imposed was not grossly disproportional to the offense. The court further found that the available procedures satisfied due process requirements and that the ASIE Law was rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The denial of sanctions was also upheld. View "The Retail Property Trust v. Nassau Cnty. Dep't of Assessment" on Justia Law

A South Carolina lender originates loans only within South Carolina but has extended credit to individuals with Pennsylvania addresses. Although the lender does not operate in Pennsylvania, it has engaged in activities connected to Pennsylvania, such as perfecting liens, collecting payments, and repossessing vehicles located in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities investigated the lender’s practices involving Pennsylvania residents, issuing subpoenas and ultimately initiating a formal administrative enforcement proceeding for alleged violations of Pennsylvania’s usury laws.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted summary judgment for the lender, finding Pennsylvania’s subpoena violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that Pennsylvania could investigate and apply its usury laws to conduct connected to Pennsylvania. Afterward, Pennsylvania enforced its subpoena and initiated the administrative enforcement proceeding. The lender responded by filing suit in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, seeking to enjoin both the enforcement proceeding and a new subpoena, raising constitutional claims including those under the Dormant Commerce Clause.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed the lender’s complaint, holding that claims related to the enforcement proceeding were barred by issue preclusion or, alternatively, by Younger abstention. Claims challenging the second subpoena were dismissed as unripe due to lack of present injury.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of claims challenging the administrative enforcement proceeding under Younger abstention, finding it was a quasi-criminal civil enforcement proceeding and that state interests and procedures were sufficient. The court also affirmed dismissal of claims challenging the second subpoena on ripeness grounds, but vacated the judgment insofar as those claims were dismissed with prejudice, remanding with instructions to dismiss them without prejudice. View "TitleMax of South Carolina, Inc. v. Spicher" on Justia Law

Halil Demir, a naturalized U.S. citizen and Executive Director of an international aid organization, frequently travels for work and has received security clearances for certain events. Since 2016, Demir experienced extended airport screening, leading him to suspect wrongful inclusion on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist and its Selectee List. After submitting five inquiries through the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP), he received generic responses that neither confirmed nor denied his watchlist status. Demir then filed suit, alleging violations of his substantive and procedural due process rights and challenging the adequacy of DHS TRIP procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Demir’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that, under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, challenges to TSA orders—including those relating to DHS TRIP—must be brought directly in a federal court of appeals. It reasoned that Demir’s claims were essentially contesting a TSA decision, as reflected in the DHS TRIP determination letter, and thus should have originated in the Court of Appeals.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that § 46110 does not apply to Demir’s challenges to his inclusion on the Terrorist Watchlist and Selectee List, as the TSA does not control these lists—the FBI’s Threat Screening Center does. Thus, the district court has jurisdiction over those claims, and the appellate court reversed and remanded them for consideration on the merits. However, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Demir’s challenge to the DHS TRIP program itself, holding that the program constitutes an “order” under § 46110 and must be initially reviewed in a court of appeals. View "Demir v Mullin" on Justia Law

The case involves two individuals, Michelle Przybocki and Ketan Vakil, and Vakil’s company, Gourmend Foods, LLC. Przybocki suffers from a digestive condition that requires her to follow a low-FODMAP diet, and Vakil, on medical advice, founded Gourmend Foods to produce and sell low-FODMAP food products. Both plaintiffs wish to see FODMAP levels disclosed on food labels. They allege that federal regulations enforced by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit food companies from including FODMAP information on product labels, which they claim violates their First Amendment rights—Przybocki’s right to receive information and Vakil and Gourmend’s right to speak. Gourmend’s proposed beef broth label, regulated by the USDA, was rejected due to its inclusion of FODMAP information.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. It found that Vakil and Gourmend lacked standing against the FDA because they were already selling FODMAP-labeled products and had not received warnings from the agency. The court also concluded Przybocki lacked standing as a listener, finding she had not sufficiently alleged that other food producers would provide FODMAP information absent the regulations and that she was not injured by the chilling of Gourmend’s speech. Additionally, Vakil and Gourmend’s claims against the USDA were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims against the FDA and Przybocki’s claims against the USDA. The Ninth Circuit held that Przybocki adequately pleaded standing as a listener and that Vakil and Gourmend sufficiently pleaded standing as speakers for a pre-enforcement challenge against the FDA. In a separate memorandum disposition, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Vakil and Gourmend’s claims against the USDA for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. View "PRZYBOCKI V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE" on Justia Law

Northland Management & Construction, LLC developed four lots in a Missouri subdivision, including Lot 9. The City of Parkville had approved the subdivision’s Sixth Plat, which contemplated grading Lot 9 at a continuous slope to its southern property line. During construction, Northland filled in an existing swale, installed piers to stabilize the home, and created a new swale that diverted stormwater runoff to both Lot 9 and neighboring Lot 3. The City became concerned about erosion and water flow, ultimately requiring Northland to seek a grading permit under Section 520 of the municipal code. Northland refused, believing the permit was unnecessary due to the approved plat. The City denied a final Certificate of Occupancy (CO), prompting Northland to file suit for the CO and damages for the inability to sell Lot 9 at full value.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri held a bench trial, where it ruled in favor of Northland on its Missouri state law inverse condemnation and equal protection claims. The court ordered the City to issue a final CO and awarded damages based on the difference in the lot’s value with and without a CO. The City complied with the order but appealed, challenging both the legal and factual bases for the district court’s rulings and the calculation of damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s findings that Northland graded Lot 9 consistent with the approved plat and accepted practice, and that the City’s application of Section 520 was unreasonable. The appellate court also upheld the equal protection claim, finding Northland was treated differently from similarly situated property owners without rational basis. However, the court reversed the damages award, holding that compensation must reflect only the temporary diminution in value during the period the CO was withheld, and remanded for recalculation of damages. View "Northland Management & Construction, LLC v. City of Parkville" on Justia Law

Several vape industry businesses and a vape user challenged a North Carolina law that restricts the sale of vape products lacking approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). North Carolina’s statute, enacted in 2024, requires manufacturers to certify annually to the North Carolina Department of Revenue that their vape products either have FDA approval, were on the market by August 8, 2016 with a timely FDA application, or are exempt due to superficial changes. Products not listed in the resulting state directory cannot be sold in North Carolina, and violations can result in fines, product seizure, or lawsuits for deceptive trade practices.Before reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the plaintiffs sued North Carolina officials in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, arguing that the state law was preempted by federal law and violated the Equal Protection Clause. They sought a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law, relying only on the preemption argument. The district court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had standing due to the threat of economic harm but were unlikely to succeed on the merits because the federal Tobacco Control Act did not preempt North Carolina’s regulation of vape product sales.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the commercial plaintiffs had standing due to the risk of substantial economic harm from enforcement of the law. On the merits, the court concluded that North Carolina’s law was not preempted by the relevant federal statutes. The state law was found to regulate sales, an area expressly preserved for state regulation by the federal Tobacco Control Act’s savings clause, and did not amount to impermissible enforcement of the FDA’s exclusive authority under federal law. The denial of a preliminary injunction was therefore affirmed. View "Vapor Technology Association v. Wooten" on Justia Law