Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit contending that the government's "bulk data program" collection constitutes an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. The program operates pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, where section 215 of the Act empowered the FBI to request, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to enter, orders “requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism.” The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from collecting plaintiffs’ call records, but stayed its order pending appeal. After the court determined that the case was not moot, Judge Brown and Judge Williams wrote separate opinions stating the reasons for reversal. Judge Brown wrote separately to emphasize that, while plaintiffs have demonstrated it is only possible - not substantially likely - that their own call records were collected as part of the bulk-telephony metadata program, plaintiffs have nonetheless met the bare requirements of standing. Having barely fulfilled the requirements for standing at this threshold stage, plaintiffs fall short of meeting the higher burden of proof required for a preliminary injunction. Judge Williams wrote that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a “substantial likelihood” that the government is collecting from Verizon Wireless or that they are otherwise suffering any cognizable injury. They thus cannot meet their burden to show a “likelihood of success on the merits” and are not entitled to a preliminary injunction. View "Klayman v. Obama" on Justia Law

WICO was founded as a coal bunkering business before the U.S. acquired the Virgin Islands (VI) in 1917 and grew to serve as “Port Agent” for cruise lines that visit the port of Charlotte Amalie and to manage the port's Havensight Mall. In 1986, WICO began dredging St. Thomas harbor, leading to public opposition and litigation. In 1993, the VI Government purchased all of the shares of WICO. The purchase was approved by the VI Legislature. The Act stated that “the Company is hereby granted the status and authority of a public corporation and governmental instrumentality … and shall be deemed to be a public entity operating on behalf of the Government, rather than a private corporation.” All WICO shares were transferred to the VI Public Finance Authority, a public corporation and governmental instrumentality. Two former WICO employees filed suit, alleging violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed, finding that “WICO cannot be considered a purely public entity,” and that its employees are not public employees, so its conduct could not be considered to have been “under color of state law” for purposes of liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Third Circuit reversed in part, applying the 1995 Supreme Court decision, Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, to hold that WICO is a government entity for the purposes of Sprauve’s and Smith’s constitutional claims. View "Gershwain Sprauve v. West Indian Company Limited" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Duarte Nursery, Inc. sold grape rootstock. It challenged mandatory assessments it had to pay to the California Grape Rootstock Improvement Commission to help fund research for pest-resistant and drought-resistant rootstock, arguing this “Commission Law” and the Commission’s operation as an unconstitutional exercise of the state’s police power in violation of plaintiff’s liberty interests and due process rights under the federal and state Constitutions. In this appeal, instead of claiming impairment of its rights to free speech or free association, plaintiff asserted a right to refuse to help fund research that benefitted the industry as a whole. Plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief and refunds. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants, the Commission and the Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (Secretary). Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Duarte Nursery v. Cal. Grape Rootstock Improvement Comm." on Justia Law

This appeal from Custer County relates to proposed repairs and improvements to the City of Challis’ (the City) water distribution system. In 2013, the City initiated a judicial confirmation proceeding seeking approval to incur $3.2 million in debt without a public vote. The Consent of the Governed Caucus (the Caucus) challenged the constitutionality of the City’s request based upon Article VIII, section 3 of the Idaho Constitution. The district court granted the City’s request and the Caucus appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed. The Court found that the district court erred in failing to apply the legal standard for determining what constituted a "necessary" expense under the Idaho Constitution (Article III), articulated in recent case law. As such, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in finding the project "necessary" under the tests articulated by case law. The Court therefore reversed the district court's judgment in Challis' favor, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "City of Challis v. Consent of the Governed Caucus" on Justia Law

Appellee Emily Kane ran for elective office while she was employed at the Albuquerque Fire Department (the AFD) as a captain. Article X, Section 3 of the Charter of the City of Albuquerque (1989), and the City of Albuquerque Personnel Rules and Regulations Section 311.3 (2001), prohibit city employees from holding elective office. Kane sought injunctive relief to allow her to hold elective office while retaining her employment with the AFD. She argued that the employment regulations of the City of Albuquerque (the City) violated: (1) the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; (2) Article VII, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution; and (3) Section 10-7F-9 of the Hazardous Duty Officers' Employer-Employee Relations Act (the HDOA). The district court granted Kane the relief she sought, but the Supreme Court reversed. The Court found the City's employment regulations did not violate the First Amendment because they regulated conflicts of interest, and they were therefore rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of promoting administrative efficiency. In addition, the Court held these regulations did not violate Article VII, Section 2 because they constituted conditions of employment that did not add additional qualifications to elective public office. Finally, the City's employment regulations were not preempted by Section 10-7F-9 because personnel rules touched issues of local rather than general concern, and they were within the City's authority to promulgate. View "Kane v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

In 1996 (Free Press I), the Sixth Circuit held that the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, requires government agencies to honor requests for the booking photographs of criminal defendants who have appeared in court during ongoing proceedings. Despite that holding, the U.S. Marshals Service denied the Free Press’s 2012 request for the booking photographs of Detroit-area police officers indicted on federal charges. The district court, bound by Free Press I, granted summary judgment to the newspaper in the ensuing lawsuit. A Sixth Circuit panel affirmed, while urging the full court to reconsider the merits of Free Press I. The court noted FOIA Exemption 7(C) which protects a non-trivial privacy interest in keeping “personal facts away from the public eye,” and that individuals do not forfeit their interest in maintaining control over information that has been made public in some form. Criminal defendants do not forfeit their interest in controlling private information while their cases remain pending. View "Detroit Free Press, Inc v. Dept. of Justice" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether an initiative petition filed under the Optional Municipal Charter Law (known as the Faulkner Act), requiring the City of Camden to create and maintain its own police force, and enjoining the municipality from replacing its police force with a countywide police force, unlawfully restricted the municipality's legislative authority or was preempted by state fiscal statutes. Defendants, a group of City voters acting as a Committee of Petitioners (Committee), attempted to block the regionalization of the City's police services. The Committee invoked the Optional Municipal Charter Law. The Committee submitted an initiative petition for the adoption of a proposed ordinance that would have required the City of Camden to create and maintain its own police force, and would have enjoined the City from disbanding its municipal police force and replacing it with a regionalized or countywide police force. The Committee obtained, on its petition, the number of voter signatures required by the Faulkner Act. It sought to have its initiated ordinance certified by the municipal clerk, considered by the City Council, and, if not enacted by the Council, placed on the ballot for voter approval in the 2012 General Election. Plaintiffs Mayor Dana L. Redd, Camden's Mayor, and Camden's Council President Francisco Moran filed a complaint seeking to enjoin the Committee's Faulkner Act initiative. The trial court found that the proposed ordinance constituted an invalid divestment of the City's legislative authority. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a determination whether the state fiscal statutes preempt the proposed ordinance. Although the Supreme Court concurred with the Appellate Division that the proposed ordinance does not constitute an improper divestment of the municipal governing body's legislative power, it disagreed with the panel's remand of the case for further inquiry into the question of preemption. The Supreme Court found no evidence of a legislative intent to preempt the initiative and referendum procedure set forth in the Faulkner Act in either the municipal finance or police statutes cited in this appeal. Instead, the Court found a legislative intent in some of the statutes to retain the Faulkner Act's procedures, including its initiative and referendum provisions. Thus, the Committee's Faulkner Act initiative was not preempted. Notwithstanding the Court's holdings that the proposed ordinance neither effected an unlawful divestment of legislative power nor was preempted by state statutes, the relief sought by the Committee in its 2012 petition was not granted in a manner consistent with the Faulkner Act. Because the reorganization that the ordinance was intended to forestall was completed more than two years ago, the ordinance as drafted was inconsistent with then-current circumstances. Accordingly, the ordinance might no longer be supported by all of the citizens who backed it with their signatures, and it could not meaningfully be evaluated by the voters. The presence of an out-of-date ordinance on the ballot would contravene the Faulkner Act's objective that voters be presented with a clear, understandable proposed ordinance that they may accept or reject as they see fit. Accordingly, The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Appellate Division's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of a judgment barring the Camden Municipal Clerk from certifying the Committee's petition. View "Redd v. Bowman" on Justia Law

Duit, an Oklahoma highway contractor, contracted with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (ASHTD) to reconstruct I-30 between Little Rock and Benton. Duit encountered soil conditions that, it alleges, differed materially from information provided by the ASHTD during bidding. Duit’s claims for compensation were denied by the ASHTD, the Arkansas State Claims Commission, and the General Assembly. Duit sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing the “in re Young” exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Duit alleged violations of the Federal Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. 101, and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses and sought to “enjoin Defendants from accepting federal aid … until . . . they fully comply with the federally mandated differing site clause.” The court dismissed the FAHA claim because that statute is enforced exclusively by an executive agency, dismissed the due process claim because Duit’s interest in future highway contracts is not a protected property interest and because the state appeals process for claim denials satisfies procedural due process requirements. The court declined to dismiss the equal protection claim, concluding Duit sufficiently alleged that the Commission treated out-of-state-contractor Duit differently from similarly situated in-state contractors without a rational reason. The Eighth Circuit held that Duit lacks standing to bring its equal protection claim and that the court erred in not dismissing that claim. View "Duit Constr. Co. Inc. v. Bennett" on Justia Law

In 2007, the Oklahoma legislature created the Oklahoma License Plate Design Task Force to update the design of the standard Oklahoma vehicle license plate. The task force also viewed the redesign as an opportunity to “market Oklahoma as a tourist destination.” In 2008, the task force chose a design that included an image of a Native American man shooting an arrow towards the sky, and featured the words “Native America.” The image was based on a sculpture by a local artist which depicted the story of a young Apache warrior who fired an arrow that was blessed by a medicine man into the heavens; as the tale goes, the arrow carried prayers for rain to the Spirit World. Plaintiff-appellant Keith Cressman, professed "historic Christian beliefs," and objected to the license plate design, because in his view, taught that there were “multiple gods” and that “the arrow is an intermediary for prayer.” Finding the license plate image to be irreconcilable with his beliefs, plaintiff tried various means to avoid displaying it. Concealing a state-issued license plate was a misdemeanor under Oklahoma law. To avoid the image, plaintiff obtained specialty plates for his vehicles, paying a fee above that of a standard license plate (ranging from eighteen to thirty-eight dollars). Plaintiff sought reimbursement of that vanity-plate-fee from the State of Oklahoma, or be allowed to cover the image on the standard plate. When he did not receive a response to these requests, plaintiff brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil-rights lawsuit, alleging that he was forced to display the Native American image (and thereby communicate its allegedly pantheistic message) in violation of his free-speech, free-exercise, and due-process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He sought an injunction prohibiting state officials from prosecuting him for covering the image on his license plate or, alternatively, an order requiring the Oklahoma Tax Commission to provide him with a specialty license plate at the same cost as a standard license plate. Defendants filed motions to dismiss based on a lack of standing and a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court found that plaintiff had standing, but nonetheless dismissed the complaint. In a prior appeal, the Tenth Circuit determined that plaintiff had standing and that he had stated a plausible compelled-speech claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage. On remand, and after a bench trial, the district court concluded that a reasonable person would not understand the vehicle license plate image to convey the pantheistic message to which plaintiff objected; it thus held that he was not compelled to speak. The Tenth Circuit affirmed: "Mr. Cressman has repeatedly stated, both before this court and the district court, that he does not object to this message. His lack of objection to the only message that a reasonable observer would discern from the image is fatal to his compelled-speech claim; he has not been compelled to express a view he otherwise would not." View "Cressman v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Missouri Municipal League (MML) filed this lawsuit challenging the validity of Mo. Rev. Stat. 302.341.2, as enacted in House Bill 103 (HB103), claiming that HB103 violated the bill-passage requirements in article III, sections 21 and 23 of the Missouri Constitution and that HB103 violated various substantive provisions of the constitution. The circuit court granted the State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment for the State. MML appealed. After this case was briefed, argued, and submitted, the General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 5 (SB5), which repealed the language in section 302.341.2 that formed the basis for MML’s claims. The Supreme Court dismissed MML’s appeal, as all of MML’s procedural and substantive claims had become moot. View "Miss. Municipal League v. State" on Justia Law