Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Crusader Gun Group, L.L.C. applied for a Federal Firearms License (FFL) in November 2020, with Alan Aronstein identified as the president and responsible person. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) denied the application, citing Aronstein's history of willfully violating federal firearms laws through his previous roles in other firearms businesses. These violations included over 6,000 recordkeeping errors, failure to report the theft or loss of firearms, and possession of unlawful machine guns. Crusader requested a hearing, but the ATF upheld its decision, leading Crusader to seek judicial review.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in favor of the ATF. The court found that the ATF was authorized to deny the application based on Aronstein's willful violations of federal firearms laws. Crusader's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, prompting an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the ATF was authorized to deny Crusader's FFL application under 18 U.S.C. § 923(d)(1)(C) because Aronstein, as the responsible person, had willfully violated federal firearms laws. The court also rejected Crusader's due process claims, noting that adequate procedural safeguards were in place, including notice, a hearing, and the opportunity for judicial review. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to stay discovery, as the administrative record was sufficient for summary judgment. The court concluded that the ATF's denial of the FFL application was lawful and supported by substantial evidence. View "Crusader Gun Group v. James" on Justia Law

Steve Winder became suicidal after discovering Facebook messages between his wife and her ex-husband. His wife, Latrisha, who was out of state, called her mother, Lou Anne, and the Young County Sheriff’s Department for a welfare check after Steve sent pictures of himself holding a gun to his head. Deputy Joshua Gallardo arrived at the scene, and after hearing Steve shout from within, opened the front door. Lou Anne indicated that Steve was armed. Deputy Gallardo then fatally shot Steve after ordering him to put the gun down.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the case at the 12(b)(6) stage. The court found that Steve’s suicidality and possession of a gun created exigent circumstances excusing the need for a warrant. It also ruled that an objectively reasonable officer in Deputy Gallardo’s position would not need to wait for Steve to point the gun at him before using deadly force, thus defeating the excessive force claim. Additionally, the court found no underlying constitutional violation to support claims for supervisory or Monell liability and ruled that Title II of the ADA does not support claims where police officers face exigent circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and that Deputy Gallardo’s use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court also found no basis for supervisory or Monell liability due to the absence of an underlying constitutional violation. Lastly, the court ruled that the ADA claims were foreclosed by the exigent circumstances and that there was no evidence that Steve was discriminated against by reason of his disability. View "Winder v. Gallardo" on Justia Law

The Tuscaloosa City Council passed an ordinance limiting the maximum occupancy of certain restaurants, affecting a sports bar owned by CMB Holdings Group. The ordinance required establishments with restaurant liquor licenses to maintain occupancy limits based on their configuration as restaurants, not as bars or entertainment venues. This change reduced the sports bar's maximum occupancy from 519 to 287, negatively impacting its revenue. CMB Holdings Group sued the City of Tuscaloosa, the mayor, city council members, and the fire marshal, alleging racial discrimination and other claims.The Tuscaloosa Circuit Court dismissed most of CMB's claims, including those for money damages against the City and personal-capacity claims against the mayor and councilors due to legislative immunity. The court also dismissed claims for procedural and substantive due process, equal protection, and others, leaving only claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Alabama Constitution's Contracts Clause. CMB requested the court to alter or amend its judgment or certify it as final for appeal purposes. The court denied the request to alter or amend but granted the Rule 54(b) certification, allowing CMB to appeal the dismissed claims.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and determined that the Rule 54(b) certification was improper. The court found that the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims were closely intertwined, particularly regarding whether the ordinance affected vested rights or mere privileges and whether it served a legitimate public interest. The court concluded that separate adjudication could lead to inconsistent results and dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment. View "CMB Holdings Groupv. City of Tuscaloosa" on Justia Law

The case involves the District Attorney (DA) of Philadelphia, who challenged articles of impeachment passed by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The articles were transmitted to the Senate on the last day of the 206th General Assembly session. The DA argued that the articles became null and void upon the session's expiration, and the new Senate could not conduct a trial based on them.The Commonwealth Court initially denied the DA's request for summary relief, ruling that the impeachment articles did not expire with the session's end. The court also found that the DA, as a local official, could be impeached under the Pennsylvania Constitution. However, the court agreed with the DA that some articles of impeachment did not allege conduct amounting to "misbehavior in office" and that certain articles intruded on the judiciary's exclusive authority to govern attorney conduct.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case. The court first addressed the justiciability of the issue, concluding that it had the authority to determine whether the impeachment articles expired with the session's end. The court emphasized that the Constitution must be read as an integrated whole, and the General Assembly's powers, including impeachment, are limited to the duration of its session.The court held that the articles of impeachment became null and void upon the expiration of the 206th General Assembly session. Consequently, the Senate of the 207th General Assembly could not conduct a trial based on those articles. The court reversed the Commonwealth Court's order denying the DA's request for summary relief on this issue. View "Krasner v. Ward" on Justia Law

Two commercial fishermen, Raymond Lofstad and Gus Lovgren, challenged the constitutionality of the appointment process for members of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The Council, which oversees fisheries from New York to Virginia, had approved an amendment lowering the catch limits for certain fish species, which the Secretary of Commerce subsequently approved. The fishermen argued that the Council members, who were not appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate, exercised significant authority and thus should be considered "Officers of the United States" under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled against the fishermen, holding that the Council members did not exercise significant authority and were therefore not officers. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, reasoning that the Council's role was merely advisory and did not involve significant authority.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo and found that the Council members did exercise significant authority, particularly through their power to veto certain actions by the Secretary of Commerce. The court held that these veto powers made the Council members principal officers who should have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. To remedy the constitutional violation, the court severed the Council's pocket-veto powers, reducing the members to mere employees who do not require such appointments. The court reversed the District Court's summary judgment for the government and rendered judgment for the fishermen. View "Lofstad v. Secretary United States Department of Commerce" on Justia Law

The case involves James Harper, who challenged an IRS "John Doe" summons issued to Coinbase, a cryptocurrency exchange, seeking records of numerous customers, including Harper. Harper argued that the IRS's actions violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and did not meet statutory requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The IRS had issued the summons to investigate potential tax noncompliance among Coinbase users.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire dismissed Harper's complaint. The court found that Harper lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in his Coinbase account information and that the records were Coinbase's property, not Harper's. The court also concluded that the IRS summons was reasonable and that Harper had received constitutionally adequate process. Additionally, the court dismissed Harper's statutory challenge, ruling it was an improper collateral attack on prior district court proceedings that had enforced the summons and found it met statutory standards.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Harper lacked a protectable interest under the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. It held that Harper had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information he voluntarily provided to Coinbase and that the records were Coinbase's property. The court also found that Harper's due process claim failed because he had no protected liberty interest in the confidentiality of his financial information. Finally, the court ruled that the IRS summons was not "final agency action" under the APA, thus not subject to judicial review.The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Harper's complaint, concluding that Harper's constitutional and statutory claims were without merit. View "Harper v. Werfel" on Justia Law

The case involves Robert Holman, who challenged a debt-relief program under the American Rescue Plan Act that provided benefits to "socially disadvantaged" farmers and ranchers based on racial categories. Holman, a farmer, argued that he was excluded from the program solely due to his race and sought a preliminary injunction to halt the program. The district court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the program did not meet the strict scrutiny standard required for racial classifications under the Fifth Amendment. However, before a final judgment was reached, Congress repealed the program, leading Holman to seek attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied Holman's request for fees, ruling that he was not a "prevailing party" under the EAJA because the preliminary injunction did not provide him with lasting relief. The court also noted that the injunction was temporary and revocable, and thus did not materially alter the legal relationship between the parties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court did not definitively rule on whether Holman was a "prevailing party" but found that the Government's position during the litigation was "substantially justified" under the EAJA. The court noted that the Government had presented substantial evidence to defend the program's constitutionality, including historical discrimination against minority farmers by the USDA. The court concluded that a reasonable person could find the Government's position justified, thereby precluding Holman's entitlement to attorney's fees and expenses. View "Holman v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

The case involves the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, which establishes a framework to regulate horseracing through the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, a private nonprofit corporation. The Authority is responsible for creating and enforcing rules related to horseracing, subject to oversight by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Bill Walmsley, Jon Moss, and the Iowa Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of rules under the Act, arguing that the Act was unconstitutional.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional challenges. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Act's rulemaking structure does not violate the private nondelegation doctrine because the FTC has ultimate discretion over the rules governing the horseracing industry. The court also found that the Act does not unconstitutionally delegate executive power to the Authority, as the FTC has pervasive oversight and control over the Authority's enforcement activities. Additionally, the court concluded that the Act provides an intelligible principle for the FTC to follow, thus not violating the public nondelegation doctrine. Finally, the court determined that the Authority's board members are not officers of the United States and therefore not subject to the Appointments Clause.The Eighth Circuit concluded that Walmsley did not demonstrate a fair chance of success on the merits, and thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. The order of the district court was affirmed. View "Walmsley v. FTC" on Justia Law

A proposed constitutional amendment in Ohio seeks to repeal Articles XI and XIX of the Ohio Constitution and add Article XX, changing the standards and procedures for drawing electoral districts. The amendment would create a 15-member redistricting commission responsible for adopting redistricting plans. Citizens Not Politicians, a coalition aiming to end gerrymandering, and other relators challenged the ballot language and title adopted by the Ohio Ballot Board and Secretary of State Frank LaRose, arguing they were misleading.The Ohio Ballot Board approved the ballot language by a three-to-two vote. Relators filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the board to adopt new language and title. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case, focusing on whether the ballot language and title would mislead, deceive, or defraud voters. The court found that sections five and eight of the ballot language were misleading. Section five inaccurately limited judicial review to a "proportionality standard," and section eight failed to mention the public's right to participate in the redistricting process through public meetings and hearings.The Supreme Court of Ohio granted a limited writ of mandamus, ordering the Ohio Ballot Board and Secretary of State to reconvene and adopt revised ballot language addressing these defects. The court denied the writ in all other respects, finding the remaining sections of the ballot language and the ballot title to be factually accurate and not misleading. The motion for leave to withdraw the answer was granted, and the motion to strike was denied as moot. View "State ex rel. Citizens Not Politicians v. Ohio Ballot Bd." on Justia Law

Three Libertarian Party candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives were disqualified from the 2024 general election ballot by the State Objection Panel for failing to comply with Iowa's statutory nomination requirements. The candidates, Nicholas Gluba, Charles Aldrich, and Marco Battaglia, were nominated at a party convention after no Libertarian candidates filed for the primary election. However, the party did not follow the required process for selecting delegates to the convention, which included holding precinct caucuses and county conventions on separate days and notifying county auditors of the delegates.The Iowa District Court for Polk County upheld the Panel's decision, finding that the Libertarian Party did not comply with Iowa Code section 43.94, which mandates that county convention delegates' terms begin the day after their election at precinct caucuses. The court ruled that strict compliance with this law was necessary, and the party's failure to follow the process invalidated the nominations. The court also rejected arguments that the objectors lacked standing and that the Panel's decision violated the candidates' First Amendment rights.The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling. The court held that the statutory requirements for nominating candidates by convention must be strictly followed and that the Libertarian Party's failure to comply with these requirements justified the disqualification of the candidates. The court also found that the objectors had standing to challenge the nominations and that the Panel's decision did not violate the candidates' First Amendment rights. The court emphasized that the election laws are designed to ensure a fair and orderly process for candidate nominations. View "Gluba v. State Objection Panel" on Justia Law