Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The plaintiffs, including Palestinian NGOs, Gaza residents, and Palestinian-Americans, sought to enjoin the U.S. President and senior officials from providing military, diplomatic, and financial support to Israel in its operations in Gaza. They alleged that the U.S. violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention by being complicit in genocide through its support of Israel. The plaintiffs requested wide-ranging injunctive and declaratory relief to stop U.S. assistance to Israel and to influence Israel to cease its military actions in Gaza.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint, ruling that the claims raised non-justiciable political questions. The court found that the issues were fundamentally political and not suitable for judicial resolution, as they involved decisions constitutionally committed to the political branches of government.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs' claims presented non-justiciable political questions under the political question doctrine. The court emphasized that decisions regarding military and diplomatic support to foreign nations are constitutionally committed to the executive and legislative branches, not the judiciary. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that framing their claims as violations of legal duties circumvented the political question doctrine. The court concluded that the judiciary does not have the authority to make decisions on national security and foreign policy matters, which are the prerogatives of the political branches. The request for declaratory relief was also found to be non-justiciable for the same reasons. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "DEFENSE FOR CHILDREN INTERNATIONAL-PALESTINE V. BIDEN" on Justia Law

The case involves a congressional program that awards grants for family-planning projects, with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) setting eligibility requirements. Oklahoma, a grant recipient, expressed concerns about these requirements, citing state laws prohibiting counseling and referrals for abortions. HHS proposed that Oklahoma provide neutral information about family-planning options, including abortion, through a national call-in number. Oklahoma rejected this proposal, leading HHS to terminate the grant. Oklahoma challenged the termination and sought a preliminary injunction.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Oklahoma's motion for a preliminary injunction, determining that Oklahoma was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims. Oklahoma then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. Oklahoma argued that it would likely succeed on the merits for three reasons: (1) Congress's spending power did not allow it to delegate eligibility requirements to HHS, (2) HHS's requirements violated the Weldon Amendment, and (3) HHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The Tenth Circuit rejected these arguments, holding that:1. The spending power allowed Congress to delegate eligibility requirements to HHS, and Title X was unambiguous in conditioning eligibility on satisfaction of HHS's requirements. 2. The Weldon Amendment, which prohibits discrimination against health-care entities for declining to provide referrals for abortions, was not violated because HHS's proposal to use a national call-in number did not constitute a referral for the purpose of an abortion. 3. HHS did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in terminating Oklahoma's grant, as the eligibility requirements fell within HHS's statutory authority, and Oklahoma did not demonstrate a likely violation of HHS's regulations.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction, concluding that Oklahoma had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. View "State of Oklahoma v. HHS" on Justia Law

The case involves two Georgia non-profit organizations, New Georgia Project and New Georgia Project Action Fund (collectively referred to as "New Georgia"), and the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission. New Georgia was accused of violating the Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Act by failing to register with the Commission and disclose their campaign expenditures and sources. The Commission initiated an investigation and found "reasonable grounds" to conclude that New Georgia had violated the Act.New Georgia then filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the Act violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing the Act against New Georgia. The state appealed, arguing that the district court should have abstained from exercising its jurisdiction under the doctrine established in Younger v. Harris.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court should have abstained under the Younger doctrine. The court found that the state's enforcement action against New Georgia was ongoing and implicated important state interests, and that New Georgia had an adequate opportunity in the state proceeding to raise constitutional challenges. The court vacated the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss New Georgia's action. View "New Georgia Project, Inc. v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled that certain legislative review provisions governing the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program, a land conservation initiative, were unconstitutional. The provisions in question allowed the Joint Committee on Finance (JFC), a legislative committee, to review and potentially block expenditures exceeding $250,000 or for land acquisitions outside of a project boundary, even after the legislature had already appropriated the funds.The case was brought by Governor Tony Evers and several state departments, who argued that these provisions violated the separation of powers by allowing the legislature to intrude on the executive branch's power to execute the law. The legislative respondents defended the statutes, arguing that they were necessary for overseeing the executive branch's expenditure of state funds.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin disagreed with the legislative respondents, ruling that the provisions unconstitutionally authorized the legislative branch to impede the executive's core power to execute the law. The court held that once the legislature appropriates funds for a particular purpose, the executive branch possesses the power to distribute those funds in accordance with the purposes outlined by the legislature. The court concluded that the legislative review provisions violated the separation of powers structurally enshrined in the Wisconsin Constitution. View "Evers v. Marklein" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Larry Sapp, an Army veteran with a history of felony drug convictions, who was elected to the Sauk Village Board of Trustees in Illinois. However, his felony convictions came to the attention of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, which used two Illinois statutes to remove him from his position. These statutes bar certain felons from holding public office. Sapp challenged the constitutionality of these statutes, arguing that they violated the Eighth Amendment's clauses on Cruel and Unusual Punishment and Excessive Fines by barring him from public service and depriving him of the income a career in public service would generate.The Cook County Circuit Court rejected Sapp's arguments, ruling that the statutes' enforcement did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The court held that Sapp was ineligible to serve as a Board Trustee and removed him from his position. Sapp then filed a federal lawsuit against Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx, seeking to bar the Cook County State’s Attorney from enforcing either statute against him in future elections. He reiterated his Eighth Amendment arguments and added a new one, claiming that enforcing the statutes against him would violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Sapp’s complaint. The court did not reach the merits of Sapp's constitutional arguments, instead ruling that they were foreclosed by Illinois principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata. The court held that Sapp's federal lawsuit arose from the same group of operative facts as the State’s Attorney’s quo warranto action in Cook County Court, and thus constituted the same "cause of action" under Illinois law. As a result, Sapp was barred from raising arguments in the federal suit that were available to him in the quo warranto action. View "Sapp v. Foxx" on Justia Law

In 2021, Florida and Texas enacted statutes regulating large social-media companies and other internet platforms. The laws curtailed the platforms' ability to engage in content moderation and required them to provide reasons to a user if they removed or altered her posts. NetChoice LLC, a trade association whose members include Facebook and YouTube, brought First Amendment challenges against the two laws. District courts in both states entered preliminary injunctions.The Eleventh Circuit upheld the injunction of Florida’s law, holding that the state's restrictions on content moderation trigger First Amendment scrutiny. The court concluded that the content-moderation provisions are unlikely to survive heightened scrutiny. The Fifth Circuit, however, disagreed and reversed the preliminary injunction of the Texas law. The court held that the platforms’ content-moderation activities are “not speech” at all, and so do not implicate the First Amendment.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgments and remanded the cases, stating that neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. The Court held that the laws interfere with protected speech, as they prevent the platforms from compiling the third-party speech they want in the way they want, thus producing their own distinctive compilations of expression. The Court also held that Texas's asserted interest in correcting the mix of viewpoints that major platforms present is not valid under the First Amendment. View "Moody v. NetChoice, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Texas, who announced that due to her religious beliefs, she would not perform weddings for same-sex couples but would refer them to others who would. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct issued her a public warning for casting doubt on her capacity to act impartially due to the person's sexual orientation, in violation of Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. Hensley did not appeal this warning to a Special Court of Review (SCR) but instead sued the Commission and its members and officers for violating the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA) and her right to freedom of speech under Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution. The trial court dismissed her claims for lack of jurisdiction, and the court of appeals affirmed.The Supreme Court of Texas held that Hensley's suit was not barred by her decision not to appeal the Commission’s Public Warning or by sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the part of the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing one of Hensley's declaratory requests for lack of jurisdiction, reversed the remainder of the judgment, and remanded to the court of appeals to address the remaining issues on appeal. The court found that the SCR could not have finally decided whether Hensley is entitled to the relief sought in this case or awarded the relief TRFRA provides to successful claimants. View "HENSLEY v. STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT" on Justia Law

The case involves the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which allocated nearly $200 billion to states and the District of Columbia to assist with economic recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic. However, to accept the funds, states had to agree not to use them to "directly or indirectly offset" reductions in state tax revenue. The states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of this provision, arguing that it was unconstitutionally ambiguous and violated the Spending Clause and the anticommandeering doctrine.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the states, finding that the provision was unduly coercive and commandeered the states. It held that the amount of money at stake was too great to present the states with a real choice and that the provision unlawfully forced the states to adopt certain tax policies. The court permanently enjoined the enforcement of the provision, and the federal defendants appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the provision was impermissibly ambiguous and fell short of Congress's constitutional obligation to clearly outline the conditions for states accepting federal funding. The court held that the provision violated the Spending Clause's requirement for clarity, as it left states unable to determine the terms of the deal they were agreeing to. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the provision. View "State of Texas v. Yellen" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Joseph Brian McElroy, who was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute, a felony. The charge stemmed from a traffic stop initiated by Trooper Adams for speeding. During the stop, Trooper Adams noticed the smell of marijuana from the vehicle and observed signs of "hard travel." After verifying the driver's information and concluding that the driver was not under the influence, Trooper Adams questioned the occupants about the smell of marijuana. When they denied consent to search the vehicle, Trooper Adams deployed a canine for a sniff test, which led to the discovery of drugs and other items. McElroy filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the traffic stop was unlawfully extended without sufficient particularized suspicion.The District Court denied McElroy's motion to suppress the evidence. The court found that Trooper Adams had sufficient particularized suspicion to conduct the canine sniff based on the smell of marijuana, signs of hard travel, the occupants' nervousness, and their somewhat differing backstories. McElroy then entered a plea agreement, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reversed the District Court's decision. The court found that Trooper Adams did not have sufficient particularized suspicion to expand the traffic stop into a drug possession investigation. The court held that factors such as signs of hard travel, traveling from a known drug center in a third-party vehicle, and nervous demeanor, even when considered together, do not constitute particularized suspicion. The court also noted that the smell of marijuana itself does not constitute particularized suspicion sufficient to conclude there could be drugs in the vehicle. Therefore, the court concluded that Trooper Adams's further questioning about the marijuana smell and subsequent use of the canine sniff were unlawful. The court reversed the District Court's order denying McElroy's motion to suppress evidence and the resulting judgment of conviction and sentence. View "State v. McElroy" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of appellants, collectively referred to as "Challengers", who appealed judgments declaring section 67.1175.1 of the Missouri Statutes constitutionally invalid. This provision, in conjunction with section 67.1177, required a political subdivision to grant public money to a private entity, which was deemed to violate article VI, section 23 of the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court attempted to rectify the constitutional invalidity by modifying section 67.1175.1. The Challengers, however, argued that despite the modification, the sections still required a political subdivision to grant public money to a private entity in violation of the constitution. They further argued that the entire statutory scheme must be struck down because the sections were not severable.The circuit court had declared section 67.1175.1 constitutionally invalid because it mandated the lake area business districts to transfer tax funds to the advisory board, a private nonprofit entity. The court modified the section by removing the phrase "which shall be a nonprofit entity". The Challengers appealed this decision, arguing that the modified sections still violated the constitution.The Supreme Court of Missouri found that the circuit court erred in modifying section 67.1175.1. The court concluded that the section, as modified, and section 67.1177, still required political subdivisions to grant public money to a private entity, violating the Missouri Constitution. The court also concluded that the void provisions were not severable from the remaining provisions of the statutory scheme. As a result, the entire statutory scheme was declared constitutionally invalid. The circuit court’s judgment was reversed, and the Supreme Court entered the judgment the circuit court should have entered, declaring sections 67.1170, 67.1175, 67.1177, and 67.1170 constitutionally invalid and void in their entireties. View "Salamun v. The Camden County Clerk" on Justia Law