Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A retired public employee who was a participant in the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) filed suit against the State Treasurer, challenging the constitutionality of the Energy Discrimination Elimination Act of 2022 (EDEA). The EDEA required companies doing business with the state to certify they do not boycott energy companies, and it compelled state entities, including OPERS, to divest from financial companies that used ESG (environmental, social, and governance) principles if those companies were deemed to boycott energy companies. The plaintiff claimed the Act violated several provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, particularly the requirement that public retirement system funds be used solely for exclusive purposes related to the retirement system.The District Court for Oklahoma County granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, issuing a permanent injunction preventing the Treasurer from enforcing the EDEA with respect to OPERS. The court found the Act violated multiple constitutional provisions, including the exclusive purpose clause of Article XXIII, §12 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The Treasurer appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, and the Supreme Court retained the appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that the plaintiff’s death after the case was submitted did not deprive the Court of jurisdiction. The Court concluded the plaintiff had standing as a retiree with a direct interest in OPERS. Most significantly, the Court determined that the EDEA is unconstitutional in its entirety when applied to OPERS, because it creates a dual purpose for retirement system funds, contrary to the exclusive purpose mandated by Article XXIII, §12 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed in part the District Court’s judgment, upholding the permanent injunction against enforcement of the EDEA as applied to OPERS. View "KEENAN v. RUSS" on Justia Law

This case involves several dialysis providers, a nonprofit organization, and individual patients challenging a California law (AB 290) aimed at regulating relationships between dialysis providers and nonprofits that assist patients with health insurance premiums. The law was enacted due to concerns that providers were donating to nonprofits to help keep patients on private insurance, which led to higher reimbursements for providers compared to public insurance. Key provisions of the law included capping provider reimbursements if they had a financial relationship with a nonprofit offering patient assistance, requiring disclosure of patients receiving such assistance, restricting nonprofits from conditioning assistance on patient treatment choices, mandating disclosure to patients of all insurance options, and a safe harbor for seeking federal advisory opinions.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted in part and denied in part motions for summary judgment. It upheld the constitutionality of the reimbursement cap, coverage disclosure requirement, and safe harbor provision, but found the anti-steering, patient disclosure, and financial assistance restriction provisions unconstitutional. The district court also ruled that the unconstitutional parts were severable from the remainder of the statute and rejected claims that federal law preempted the state law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the reimbursement cap, patient disclosure requirement, and financial assistance restriction violated the First Amendment because they burdened the rights of expressive association and were not narrowly tailored to serve the state’s interests. The court found the coverage disclosure requirement constitutional under the standard for compelled commercial speech, as it required only factual, uncontroversial information reasonably related to a state interest. However, it concluded that the unconstitutional provisions were not severable from the coverage disclosure requirement. The court also held challenges to the safe harbor provision moot. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. View "DOE V. BONTA" on Justia Law

KalshiEX LLC operates a federally licensed designated contract market (DCM) that allows users to trade event contracts, including those based on sports outcomes. In late 2024, after Kalshi began offering sports-related event contracts similar to those offered by a competitor, New Jersey issued a cease-and-desist letter. The state asserted that Kalshi’s activities violated the New Jersey Constitution and state gambling laws, particularly regarding betting on collegiate sports, and threatened legal action with significant penalties if Kalshi continued its operations within New Jersey.In response, Kalshi initiated proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of New Jersey’s gambling laws against its federally regulated contracts. The District Court granted the injunction, finding that Kalshi had a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the public interest favored enjoining enforcement of potentially preempted state law. New Jersey appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo, and the decision to grant the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The appellate court held that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exclusive jurisdiction over swaps, including sports-related event contracts traded on CFTC-licensed DCMs. Both field and conflict preemption principles bar New Jersey from enforcing its gambling laws against these contracts. The court concluded that Kalshi demonstrated a likelihood of success on the preemption claim, irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, and that the equities and public interest favored injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the preliminary injunction. View "Kalshiex LLC v. Flaherty" on Justia Law

A man whose only prior felony conviction had been expunged by a Missouri state court was arrested by a Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The trooper had accessed his criminal history report, which still listed the expunged conviction with a notation indicating it was “Closed Pursuant to Chapter 610 RSMo.” However, the Missouri State Highway Patrol did not train officers to understand this notation meant the conviction was expunged and could not serve as a basis for arrest. The man informed the trooper of his expungement at the scene, but she stated she had to rely on the report’s information.Following his arrest, the plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Missouri state court, asserting claims for damages and prospective relief against the Highway Patrol’s superintendent and others. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The superintendent moved to dismiss the official-capacity claim on sovereign immunity grounds and the individual-capacity failure-to-train claim on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied both motions, prompting the defendants to file an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of immunity de novo. The appellate court held that the current superintendent was a proper Ex parte Young defendant for purposes of prospective relief, as he had sufficient connection to the dissemination practices that risked future constitutional violations. The court also held that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation and deliberate indifference by the former superintendent regarding failure to train. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of sovereign and qualified immunity. View "Cunningham v. Olson" on Justia Law

A United States citizen originally from Yemen filed family-based visa petitions (Form I-130) in 2002 on behalf of several relatives, including his stepdaughter. The immigration authorities sent a notice of intent to deny these petitions and a subsequent denial letter to the address provided on the petition. The petitioner did not respond, and the petitions were denied. Twenty years later, the petitioner sued, asserting that he never received the notices because the agency had mistakenly sent them to an address where he did not live, and that this lack of notice violated the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. He attached a redacted version of his petition to his complaint, omitting the address at issue.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, initially denied the government’s motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint plausibly supported the application of the discovery rule or equitable tolling and otherwise stated a claim. However, when the government moved for judgment on the pleadings and submitted an unredacted copy of the I-130 petition showing that the petitioner himself had listed the very address to which the notices were sent, the court found this document dispositive. The petitioner did not meaningfully contest the authenticity or content of the unredacted petition, failed to appear at the hearing, and did not object to the government’s supporting affidavit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the unredacted I-130 petition conclusively refuted the petitioner’s factual claims. The court held that when a plaintiff’s own incorporated documents contradict the complaint’s allegations, those documents control. The court affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment for the government, finding that the due process and APA claims failed as a matter of law. View "Muthana v Mullin" on Justia Law

During the summer of 2025, protests erupted in Southern California in response to federal immigration raids. Protesters, legal observers, and journalists alleged that officers of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Protective Services, and Customs and Border Protection, used crowd control weapons indiscriminately against them. Multiple individuals, including members of the press and protesters, suffered significant physical injuries during these events, even when they were complying with police orders or were not near disruptive protest activity.Several individual journalists, legal observers, protesters, and two press organizations filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. They alleged violations of their First Amendment rights, specifically the right to be free from retaliation for engaging in protected activities and the right of public access to protests. The district court issued a preliminary injunction to protect the rights of protesters, journalists, and legal observers, finding that the defendants’ conduct chilled First Amendment activity. The government appealed, arguing that the injunction was overly broad and legally unsound.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their First Amendment retaliation claims, that both individual and organizational plaintiffs had standing, and that the other requirements for a preliminary injunction were met. However, the court found that the scope of the injunction was overbroad because it extended relief to non-parties and included provisions not narrowly tailored to the specific harms alleged. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction but vacated and remanded the case for the district court to craft a narrower injunction consistent with its opinion. View "LOS ANGELES PRESS CLUB V. NOEM" on Justia Law

The Montana legislature enacted a law, HB 937, and associated administrative rules that imposed new licensure and regulatory requirements specifically on abortion clinics, which were defined as facilities providing abortion-inducing drugs or performing surgical abortions to at least five patients per year. These requirements did not apply to clinics that provided identical medications and procedures exclusively for miscarriage management. Plaintiffs, including two clinics and a nurse practitioner, challenged the law and rules, arguing that they violated the equal protection and privacy rights guaranteed by the Montana Constitution. They asserted that these new requirements could force them to cease providing abortion care, thereby restricting their patients’ access to such services.After the plaintiffs filed their complaint, the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, initially granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction, preventing enforcement of HB 937 and the associated rules. The District Court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their equal protection claim, that irreparable harm was likely absent an injunction, that the balance of equities favored the plaintiffs, and that an injunction was in the public interest. The court determined that the law treated similarly situated providers—those giving identical care for either miscarriage or abortion—differently solely based on the purpose of the treatment. The court applied strict scrutiny, finding that the state had not demonstrated a compelling interest or that the law was narrowly tailored.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court held that HB 937 and the rules likely violate the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection by subjecting abortion providers to unique, burdensome licensing requirements not imposed on providers of identical miscarriage care, thus likely infringing on the fundamental right to privacy. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs met all four elements required for a preliminary injunction and affirmed the lower court’s order in its entirety. View "All Families v. State" on Justia Law

A class of inmates at the Louisiana State Penitentiary alleged that the prison’s medical care was constitutionally inadequate and that the facility failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The lawsuit began in 2015, and evidence was introduced at trial in 2018. In 2021, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issued a lengthy opinion finding systemic Eighth Amendment violations and ADA/RA noncompliance. While prison officials began making improvements ahead of a scheduled remedial trial, the district court later issued a Remedial Opinion and Order, prescribing detailed institutional changes and appointing special masters to oversee compliance.The district court’s Remedial Order required the state to bear the costs of three special masters, directed broad institutional reforms, and did not expressly adhere to the limitations imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court entered final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, retaining jurisdiction only for compliance procedures. After entry of judgment, the defendants appealed. During the appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the Remedial Order. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, subsequently reviewed whether it had appellate jurisdiction and the validity of the district court’s orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or, alternatively, § 1292(a)(1). The Fifth Circuit found that the district court’s Remedial Order violated the PLRA by failing to apply the statutory needs-narrowness-intrusiveness standard, improperly appointing multiple special masters, and requiring the state to pay their fees. The Fifth Circuit also concluded that the district court erred by disregarding ongoing improvements to prison medical care and by misapplying the standards for injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment and the ADA/RA. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Parker v. Hooper" on Justia Law

An inmate in an Arkansas maximum-security unit, who is Muslim, challenged a change in prison policy regarding meals served during Ramadan. Previously, fasting Muslims received a “double-portion” dinner after sunset and a standard breakfast before dawn. In 2023, the prison discontinued the double-portion dinner, providing only standard portions for both meals, but continued to serve them at the appropriate times for religious observance. The meals together provided at least 2,000 calories per day. The inmate often skipped the provided breakfast during Ramadan, preferring to eat commissary food instead, which he could easily obtain.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, granted summary judgment to the prison officials, concluding that the new meal policy did not violate the inmate’s rights under the Eighth Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The court found that the inmate’s allegations of hunger and physical symptoms were not corroborated by medical evidence, and that the inmate’s ability to supplement with commissary food meant he was not denied adequate nutrition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the prison’s policy did not impose a substantial burden on the inmate’s religious exercise under RLUIPA. The court emphasized that the inmate’s claimed need for 3,000 calories was not rooted in religious belief, but rather based on the institution’s general meal plan. The record showed that the meals provided were nutritionally adequate and that the inmate voluntarily skipped breakfast, supplementing from the commissary. Because the inmate failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact regarding a substantial burden on his religious exercise, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Holt v. Payne" on Justia Law

Four women incarcerated at the Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Michigan suffered from persistent, painful rashes between 2016 and 2019. Despite repeated complaints, medical staff—contracted through Corizon Health—failed to diagnose scabies, instead providing ineffective treatments and attributing the condition to environmental factors like improper laundering. It was only after an outside dermatologist intervened that scabies was correctly identified, prompting prison-wide treatment efforts. However, these efforts were delayed and, in some cases, inadequate, resulting in prolonged suffering for the affected inmates.After their experiences, the four women filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against multiple defendants, including high-level Michigan Department of Corrections officials and Wayne State University medical officers, alleging Eighth Amendment violations and state-law negligence. The district court found that the women’s complaint plausibly alleged “clearly established” Eighth Amendment violations by all defendants and denied the officials’ request for qualified immunity. The court also rejected a claim of state-law immunity, finding that the officials could be the proximate cause of the inmates’ injuries under Michigan law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denials. The Sixth Circuit held that existing precedent did not “clearly establish” that the non-treating prison officials’ reliance on contracted medical providers was so unreasonable as to violate the Eighth Amendment. Thus, it reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the federal damages claims. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of state-law immunity, finding the plaintiffs adequately pleaded proximate cause under Michigan law. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Machelle Pearson v. MDOC" on Justia Law