Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Rhode Island Truck Center, LLC (RITC) filed a protest against Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA) for allegedly violating Rhode Island General Laws § 31-5.1-4.2(a). DTNA had granted a franchise to Advantage Truck Raynham, LLC (ATG Raynham) in Raynham, Massachusetts, which RITC claimed was within its "relevant market area" as defined in their franchise agreement. RITC argued that DTNA failed to provide the required statutory notice before establishing the new dealership.The Dealers' Hearing Board determined it lacked jurisdiction over RITC's protest, citing the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. RITC then filed an administrative appeal in the Superior Court, which DTNA removed to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The District Court concluded that the Dealer Law could not be applied extraterritorially without violating the Commerce Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit certified a question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court to determine whether a "relevant market area" under § 31-5.1-4.2(a) could extend beyond Rhode Island's borders.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the certified question de novo and concluded that the statute's plain language and legislative intent allowed a "relevant market area" to extend beyond state borders. The Court noted that the statute's definition of "relevant market area" includes a 20-mile radius or the area defined in the franchise agreement, whichever is greater, without limiting it to within Rhode Island. The Court emphasized that the legislature's intent was to provide dealers with a protective area that could extend beyond state lines, especially given Rhode Island's small geographic size. Thus, the Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, allowing the "relevant market area" to extend beyond Rhode Island's borders. View "Rhode Island Truck Center, LLC v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC" on Justia Law

The Institute for Free Speech (IFS), a nonprofit organization that provides pro bono legal services for First Amendment litigation, sought to represent a Texas politician and a political committee in challenging a Texas election law. This law requires political advertising signs to include a government-prescribed notice. IFS refrained from entering into representation agreements due to fear of prosecution under the Texas Election Code, which prohibits corporations from making political contributions, including in-kind contributions such as pro bono legal services.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed IFS's complaint for lack of Article III standing, concluding that IFS's claims were not ripe and that qualified immunity barred the individual-capacity claims. The district court assumed IFS had standing but found that the claims were not ripe because the prospective clients did not yet qualify as a candidate and a political committee. The court also concluded that sovereign immunity did not bar the official-capacity claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that IFS had standing to pursue its claims. The court found that IFS had demonstrated a serious intent to engage in constitutionally protected conduct, that its proposed conduct would violate Texas law, and that there was a substantial threat of enforcement. The court also concluded that IFS's claims were ripe for adjudication, as the prospective clients qualified as a candidate and a political committee under Texas law.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of standing and ripeness. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the individual-capacity claims based on qualified immunity, as the right to provide pro bono legal services in this context was not clearly established. The court also affirmed that the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity applied, allowing the official-capacity claims to proceed. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Institute for Free Speech v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 57, which amended the California Constitution to allow the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the department) to award credits for good behavior and rehabilitative or educational achievements. The department adopted regulations to award credits beyond statutory limits and to use credits to advance indeterminately-sentenced inmates’ minimum eligible parole dates. The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and several family members of crime victims challenged these regulations through a petition for writ of mandate.The Superior Court of Sacramento County denied the writ in part and granted it in part, invalidating the department’s regulations to the extent they allowed the use of credits to advance an indeterminately-sentenced inmate’s minimum eligible parole date. Both the department and the petitioners appealed the decision.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Proposition 57 properly removed statutory restraints on the department’s authority to award credits, allowing the regulations to supersede contrary statutes. However, the court also held that the department may use credits to advance indeterminately-sentenced inmates’ minimum eligible parole dates only if permitted by existing law, as Proposition 57 is silent on this issue. The court remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to modify the writ of mandate and enter a modified judgment. View "Criminal Justice Legal Foundation v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation" on Justia Law

Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, operates a dispensary in Florissant, an incorporated city in St. Louis County. After Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment legalizing non-medical marijuana and allowing local governments to impose a 3 percent sales tax, both Florissant and St. Louis County enacted such a tax. Robust collected and remitted the tax to Florissant but not to St. Louis County. The Missouri Department of Revenue notified Robust that it must also remit the tax to St. Louis County. Robust sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the constitutional amendment only allows a village, town, or city in an incorporated area to impose the tax, not a county.The Circuit Court of St. Louis County granted summary judgment in favor of St. Louis and St. Charles Counties, finding that the definition of "local government" includes a county in an incorporated area. The court reasoned that excluding counties from the definition would frustrate the amendment's purpose of protecting public health. Robust appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case de novo and found that the plain language of the constitutional amendment distinguishes between incorporated and unincorporated areas. The court held that in an incorporated area, only a village, town, or city can impose the 3 percent sales tax, while in an unincorporated area, only a county can impose the tax. The court vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case to enter judgment in favor of Robust, ruling that St. Louis County cannot impose the tax on sales within Florissant. View "Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC v. St. Louis County" on Justia Law

CoreCivic, Inc. has contracted with the federal government since 1996 to operate a private immigration detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey. In 2023, CoreCivic planned to renew its contract, but New Jersey passed a law (AB 5207) prohibiting new, expanded, or renewed contracts for civil immigration detention. CoreCivic sued, arguing that the law violates the Supremacy Clause by infringing on intergovernmental immunity and being preempted by federal law. The United States supported CoreCivic, emphasizing the detention center's critical role in federal immigration enforcement.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of CoreCivic. The court found that AB 5207 interferes with the federal government's discretion in detaining aliens, violating intergovernmental immunity and being preempted by federal law. New Jersey appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that AB 5207 directly regulates the federal government by effectively banning contracts for immigration detention, a core federal function. The court emphasized that the law's impact on federal operations is substantial, as it would cripple ICE's ability to detain and remove aliens efficiently. The court concluded that New Jersey's law violates intergovernmental immunity and is unconstitutional as applied to CoreCivic. View "CoreCivic, Inc. v. Governor of New Jersey" on Justia Law

A healthcare provider, Neurological Surgery Practice of Long Island, PLLC, provides out-of-network medical services governed by the No Surprises Act. This Act requires out-of-network providers to seek compensation from the patient’s healthcare plan rather than billing patients directly. If a provider and a healthcare plan cannot agree on a compensation amount, an independent dispute resolution (IDR) process is used. Neurological Surgery alleges that a backlog of disputes has resulted in unpaid or delayed reimbursements due to the Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor failing to implement the Act properly, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Neurological Surgery’s claims. The court concluded that the claims were moot due to the reopening of the IDR portal, Neurological Surgery lacked standing to compel the Departments to enforce the Act’s deadlines on third parties, and the claims regarding the Departments’ failure to certify a sufficient number of arbitrators and provide guidance on New York’s surprise billing law were foreclosed by the APA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, agreeing that the challenge to the pause of the IDR portal was moot since the portal was operational. The court also held that Neurological Surgery lacked standing to compel the Departments to enforce deadlines on healthcare plans and IDR entities, as the injury was caused by third parties, not the Departments. Additionally, the court found that the challenge to the Departments’ failure to certify a sufficient number of IDR entities was foreclosed by the APA, as the Act did not specify discrete actions required by the Departments. Lastly, the court held that the challenge to the Departments’ failure to issue guidance on New York’s surprise billing law failed to state a claim under the APA. View "Neurological Surgery v. Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

The case involves the Trump administration's "Remain in Mexico" policy, also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which required asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. southern border to stay in Mexico while their claims were processed. The policy was first implemented in 2019, causing significant hardships for asylum seekers, including unsafe living conditions and limited access to legal representation. The Biden administration terminated the policy in 2021, but the second Trump administration sought to reimplement it in January 2025.The Central District of California reviewed the case and granted an emergency stay of the policy's reimplementation, citing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutional rights. The district court found that the policy severely impeded asylum seekers' access to legal representation and created dangerous conditions for them in Mexico. The government appealed the stay, arguing that it interfered with its discretionary authority to manage immigration and foreign policy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal and partially granted the government's motion for a stay pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit limited the district court's stay to apply only to the current and future clients of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef), allowing the government to reimplement the policy for other asylum seekers. The court found that ImmDef had standing to challenge the policy and that the reimplementation likely violated the APA by infringing on asylum seekers' statutory rights to apply for asylum with the assistance of counsel. View "Immigrant Defenders Law Center v. Noem" on Justia Law

In early 2025, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) implemented a new policy prohibiting NIH from funding certain categories of scientific research grants. Two groups of plaintiffs, including private research organizations, individual researchers, and several states, sued, alleging that the new policy and the resulting grant terminations violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the U.S. Constitution. They argued that the policy was arbitrary and capricious, as the prohibited research categories were undefined and the rationale for discontinuing the research was circular.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a trial on the merits and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the agencies' actions to be "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious." The court set aside the new policy and related grant terminations as illegal under the APA. The court found that the decisions were based on circular reasoning, lacked a rational connection to the facts, and ignored significant reliance interests. The government then moved for a stay of the district court's order pending appeal, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to review the agency action under the APA and to grant declaratory relief. The court found that the district court's orders did not enforce a contractual obligation to pay money but rather provided declaratory relief that set aside agency actions as arbitrary and capricious. The court also determined that the grant terminations were reviewable under the APA and that the Department had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court denied the Department's motion for a stay, concluding that the balance of equities and the public interest favored the plaintiffs. View "American Public Health Assn v. National Institutes of Health" on Justia Law

The case involves the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) suing Maria T. Vullo, the former Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), alleging that Vullo violated its First Amendment rights. The NRA claimed that Vullo engaged in coercive and retaliatory actions against the NRA by pressuring financial institutions and insurers to sever ties with the NRA, thereby infringing on its free speech and equal protection rights. Vullo argued that she was entitled to qualified immunity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied Vullo's motion to dismiss the NRA's First Amendment claims, finding that the NRA had sufficiently stated a claim and that Vullo was not entitled to qualified immunity at that stage. Vullo appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit initially reversed the district court's decision, holding that the NRA failed to state a First Amendment claim and that Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity. The NRA then petitioned the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to address whether the NRA had stated a plausible First Amendment claim. The Supreme Court concluded that the NRA had plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation and remanded the case to the Second Circuit to reconsider the issue of qualified immunity.Upon reconsideration, the Second Circuit concluded that Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity. The court reasoned that, although the general principle that a government official cannot coerce a private party to suppress disfavored speech was well established, it was not clearly established that Vullo's conduct—regulatory actions directed at the nonexpressive conduct of third parties—constituted coercion or retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity and remanded the case for the district court to enter judgment dismissing the remaining claims against Vullo. View "Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo" on Justia Law

A toll road operator in Loudoun County, Virginia, sought to increase toll rates, arguing that the State Corporation Commission (the Commission) misapplied statutory criteria and that denying the increase would constitute an uncompensated taking under the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions. The toll road, known as the Dulles Greenway, was built with private funds and has faced financial difficulties due to lower-than-expected traffic volumes. The operator, Toll Road Investors Partnership II, L.P. (TRIP II), has refinanced its debt multiple times and has previously received approval for toll increases.The Commission had previously approved several toll increases but denied TRIP II's latest application. The Commission's decision was based on the statutory criteria that toll rates must be reasonable to the user in relation to the benefit obtained, must not materially discourage use of the roadway, and must provide the operator no more than a reasonable return. The Commission found that TRIP II's proposed toll increase did not meet the "reasonable benefit to the user" or "material discouragement" criteria. The Commission also noted that TRIP II had significant cash reserves and had not made equity distributions since 2006 due to indenture restrictions.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case and affirmed the Commission's decision. The Court held that the Commission's findings were supported by credible evidence and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The Court also rejected TRIP II's argument that the denial of the toll increase constituted an unconstitutional taking, noting that the Commission had acted within its authority and had considered the overall circumstances, including the public's interest and the financial condition of TRIP II. The Court concluded that the Commission's decision did not violate the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. View "Toll Road Investors Partnership II v. SCC" on Justia Law