Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Michael Reynolds sued the Defendants-appellees, Mary Fallin, Governor of the State of Oklahoma; Ken Miller, Treasurer of the State of Oklahoma; Preston Doerflinger, State Director of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services and various unnamed state attorneys for their alleged involvement with the three general appropriation bills. The state moved to dismiss the case which was later granted by the district court. Reynolds' principle argument on appeal was that three types of sections in the challenged general appropriation bills were substantive laws and did not constitute appropriations and were as a result, unconstitutional. Reynolds challenged the "TRANSFER" sections of the general appropriation bills that transferred money from one fund to the Special Cash Fund of the State Treasury. He also challenged sections of the three general appropriation bills that provided authorization to transfer money from one fund to another and those that provide authorization to expend money. Having found no merit as to any of Reynolds' assertions of unconstitutionality, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the district court's granting of Appellees' motion to dismiss. View "Reynolds v. Fallin" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Legislature adopted Labor Code section 1782, which prohibits a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a public construction project if the city has a charter provision or ordinance that authorizes a contractor to not comply with the state prevailing wage laws. Several charter cities, the cities of El Centro, Fresno, Vista, Carlsbad and El Cajon (the Cities), filed a petition for an alternative or peremptory writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants the State of California, David Lanier in his official capacity as the Secretary of the State of California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, Christine Baker in her official capacity as the State of California Director of Industrial Relations and Julie A. Su in her official capacity as the State of California Labor Commissioner. Among other things, the Cities sought a writ of mandate to prevent the enforcement of section 1782. The trial court denied relief and entered a judgment in favor of defendants. In this case, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment upholding the constitutionality of section 1782 against the Cities' "home rule" challenge. View "City of El Centro v. Lanier" on Justia Law

Maryland Underground Damage Prevention Authority cited Reliable Contracting Company for violating Md. Code Ann. Pub. Util. Cos. 12-101, under which advance notice must be given to the one-call system of certain types of excavation, and imposed a civil monetary penalty. Reliable Contracting petitioned for judicial review, asserting that the Authority’s enabling statute conferred judicial power on a non-judicial body in violation of separation of powers principles. Reliable Contracting also contended that the statute failed to provide adequate guidance to the Authority for the assessment of such penalties. The circuit court upheld the constitutionality of the statute. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded, holding (1) the Authority is an administrative agency in the executive branch of State government that exercises quasi-judicial powers subject to judicial review, and therefore, its enabling law is not contrary to the State Constitution’s Judicial Vesting Clause or Separation of Powers Clause; and (2) because the Authority is an administrative agency, Md. Code Ann. State Gov't 10-1001 provides guidelines for the exercise of its discretion in assessing civil penalties. View "Reliable Contracting Co. v. Underground Facilities Damage Prevention Auth." on Justia Law

Illinois has four public pension plans for Chicago city employees; all subject to the pension protection clause of the Illinois Constitution: “Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.” The funds provide traditional defined benefit plans. As with state-funded pensions, for employees hired before 2011, annuity payments were subject to 3% automatic annual increases beginning after the member’s first full year of retirement, and compounded annually. For later-hires, the annuity adjustments were tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Before Public Act 98-641, employees contributed 8.5% of their salary toward their pension. The city contributed based on a fixed multiplier, paid largely from property tax proceeds.The pensions were inadequate to cover benefits. The funds are on “a path of insolvency.” Public Act 98-641, effective in 2014, was based on a finding that financial crisis could not be addressed by increased funding alone. Under the Act, the city’s contribution progressively increases beginning in 2021; employee contributions are also increased. For two city funds, the Act: reduces the annual benefit increase to the lesser of three percent or half the annual unadjusted percentage increase in the CPI; removes the compounding component; eliminates increases in specific years, and postpones the initial increase. The Illinois Supreme Court found the Act unconstitutional. Nothing in the legislative process that led to its enactment constituted a waiver of members’ rights under the pension protection clause.Whether members may be “better off” under the Act is not for the General Assembly to decide unilaterally. View "Jones v. Mun. Employees' Annuity & Benefit Fund" on Justia Law

Garden City appealed from a final judgment finding it liable for violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1981; 42 U.S.C. 1983; and the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs cross-appealed from the 2012 grant of summary judgment by the same district court in favor of Nassau County. The court held that plaintiffs have Article III standing and plaintiffs' claims are also not moot; the district court did not commit clear error in finding that Garden City’s decision to abandon R‐M zoning in favor of R‐T zoning was made with discriminatory intent, and that defendants failed to demonstrate they would have made the same decision absent discriminatory considerations; the court affirmed the judgment insofar as it found plaintiffs had established liability under 42 U.S.C. 3604(a) of the FHA based on a theory of disparate treatment; the court held that 24 C.F.R. 100.500(c) abrogated the court's prior precedent as to the burden‐shifting framework of proving a disparate impact claim; the court vacated the judgment insofar as it found liability under a disparate impact theory, and remanded for further proceedings; the court held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ disparate treatment claims against Nassau County at the summary judgment stage because plaintiffs have not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the County had legal responsibility for Garden City’s adoption of R‐T zoning; the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' disparate treatment claims against Nassau County at the summary judgment stage; and the court remanded with respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 804(a) and Title VI relating to Nassau County’s “steering” of affordable housing. View "MHANY Mgmt., Inc. v. City of Nassau" on Justia Law

In 2010 the IRS began to pay unusual attention to applications for exemption from federal taxes under Internal Revenue Code 501(c) coming from groups with certain political affiliations. It used "inappropriate criteria" to identify organizations with "Tea Party’" in their names, expanded the criteria to include "Patriots and 9/12," and gave heightened scrutiny to organizations concerned with “government spending, government debt or taxes,” “lobbying to ‘make America a better place to live[,]’” or “criticiz[ing] how the country is being run[.]” The IRS used a “‘Be On the Lookout’ listing” for more than 18 months. Applicants flagged by the criteria were sent to a “team of specialists,” where they experienced significant delays and requests for unnecessary information. The IRS demanded that many groups provide names of donors; a list of issues important to the organization and its position regarding such issues; and political affiliations. After the release of the Inspector General’s report, the plaintiffs sued, citing the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the First and Fifth Amendments, and the Internal Revenue Code’s prohibition on the unauthorized inspection of confidential “return information,” 26 U.S.C. 6103(a), 7431. Plaintiffs sought discovery of basic information relevant to class certification. The district court ordered production of “Lookout” lists. A year later, the IRS had not complied, but sought a writ of mandamus. The Sixth Circuit denied that petition and ordered the IRS to comply. View "United States v. NorCal Tea Party Patriots" on Justia Law

Petitioner California Cannabis Coalition, a California nonprofit corporation, and Nicole De La Rosa and James Velez (collectively, CCC), appealed after a trial court denied CCC’s petition for writ of mandate. CCC’s writ petition requested the trial court to order the City of Upland and city clerk, Stephanie Mendenhall, (collectively, the City) to hold a special election on CCC’s medical marijuana dispensary initiative (Initiative). CCC argued the trial court erred in ruling CCC’s Initiative could not be voted on during a special election under Article XIIIC (Article 13C), section 2 of the California Constitution, because the Initiative imposes a charge on medical marijuana dispensaries, which in effect was a general tax rather than a regulatory fee. CCC objected to the trial court requiring the Initiative to be placed on the next general election ballot, instead of presenting it to the voters earlier by holding a special election. CCC further argued the City council prematurely determined, before the election on the Initiative, that the Initiative constituted a tax rather than a regulatory fee. CCC sought a writ of mandate to compel the City to hold a special election on the Initiative. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded Article 13C, section 2 did not apply to CCC’s Initiative. "Article 13C, sections 1 and 2 refer to taxes imposed by local government. Article 13C is silent as to taxes imposed by initiative. Article 2, sections 8 and 11 of the California Constitution and Elections Code sections 1405 and 9214, on the other hand, provide the people with initiative powers and state procedures for holding elections on initiatives." The Court therefore denied the writ petition. View "CA Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland" on Justia Law

The Northeast Mental Health-Mental Retardation Commission challenged the validity of a ninety-nine-year fixed-lease agreement with a private contractor, V.M. Cleveland. The Commission contracted to pay Cleveland $18,000 per month over a ninety-nine-year period to build and to lease a facility on land owned by the Commission. Payments continued uninterrupted for ten years, until the Commission became concerned about the agreement’s legality. The Commission stopped making payments and sought to rescind the agreement. The chancellor found that the agreement was enforceable and ordered the Commission to pay Cleveland $612,000 in back rent. The Commission appealed, arguing that the agreement’s ninety-nine-year duration rendered the agreement voidable at the Commission’s discretion as a matter of law due to the rule against binding successors. The Commission also argued that the specific terms of the agreement were unreasonable, illegal, or both, and thus void ab initio as a matter of law. The Supreme Court found that the agreement at issue here violated the common-law rule against binding successors, and as such reversed the chancellor’s judgment and rendered judgment in the Commission’s favor. View "Northeast Mental Health - Mental Retardation Commission v. Cleveland" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether the legislature's amendment to a business and occupation (B&O) tax exemption, applied retroactively, violated a taxpayer's rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, collateral estoppel, or separation of powers principles. Taxpayer Dot Foods contended that it should have remained eligible for a B&O tax exemption pursuant to the Washington Supreme Court's decision in "Dot Foods, Inc. v. Department of Revenue," (215 P.3d 185 (2009) (Dot Foods I)), despite an intervening, contrary amendment to the applicable law. Because Dot Foods I did not encompass the tax periods at issue in this case, the Supreme Court held that retroactive application of the legislative amendment to Dot Foods did not violate due process, collateral estoppel, or separation of powers principles. View "Dot Foods, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

ATBS and its owner filed a First Amendment retaliation claim against the City of Jackson, alleging that the mayor, acting through city employees, ended support for a development project proposed by ATBS after Hewitt had made public statements claiming corruption in city government. The district court entered judgment as a matter of law (JML) to the city. The court concluded that the city council was the final policymaker with ultimate authority to approve (or reject) project funding. The mayor did not have final authority over individual funding decisions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Advanced Tech. Bldg. Solutions LLC. v. Jackson, Mississippi" on Justia Law