Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a challenge to the ward map adopted by the Jersey City Ward Commission following the 2020 federal census. The Commission found a 59% population deviation between the most and least populous wards, which exceeded the maximum allowed by the Municipal Ward Law (MWL). The Commission created a new map with a 1.8% deviation and revised the boundaries of all six wards. Plaintiffs, including individuals and community organizations, argued that the new map failed to meet the MWL’s compactness requirement and violated equal protection principles under the New Jersey Constitution. They also claimed a violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA).The trial court concluded that the Commission’s map created sufficiently compact wards under the MWL and dismissed the plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional claims. The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the MWL claims, remanding for factfinding on whether the Commission’s determination of compactness had a rational basis. It affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection and NJCRA claims.The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the MWL, equal protection, and NJCRA claims. The Court held that the Commission’s map was a proper exercise of its discretion under the MWL. It found that the Commission was not required to use mathematical measures of compactness or consider communities of interest in its determination. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s remand for additional factfinding, reinstating the trial court’s judgment on the MWL claim. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection and NJCRA claims, concluding that the Commission’s compliance with the MWL negated the equal protection claim and that no statutory or constitutional violation occurred to support the NJCRA claim. View "Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission" on Justia Law

Gary Perez and Matilde Torres, members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church, believe that certain religious services must be conducted at a specific site within Brackenridge Park in San Antonio, Texas. The City of San Antonio planned improvements to the park, including tree removal and bird deterrence, which Perez and Torres argued would destroy their sacred worship space. They sued the City, claiming violations of their religious rights under the First Amendment, the Texas Constitution, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and a new clause in the Texas Constitution that prohibits limiting religious services.The federal district court granted limited relief, allowing the Church access for certain ceremonies but did not enjoin the City's improvement plans. Perez appealed, and the Fifth Circuit initially affirmed the district court's decision but later withdrew its opinion and certified a question to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding the scope and force of the new Texas Religious Services Clause.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the Texas Religious Services Clause imposes a categorical bar on governmental limitations of religious services, regardless of the government's interest in the limitation. However, the Court also concluded that the scope of the clause is not unlimited and does not extend to the government's preservation and management of publicly owned lands. The Court emphasized that the clause does not require the government to provide or maintain natural elements necessary for religious services on public property. The case was remanded to the federal courts for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "PEREZ v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO" on Justia Law

Promenade D’Iberville, LLC, the owner and developer of a large retail shopping center in D’Iberville, Mississippi, discovered soil issues during construction in 2009. The problems were linked to the use of OPF42, a soil stabilizer containing bed ash from Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA), a Florida public utility. Promenade filed a lawsuit in 2010 in the Harrison County Circuit Court against several parties, including JEA, alleging damages from the defective product.The Harrison County Circuit Court granted JEA’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing sovereign immunity based on California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt (Hyatt III). The court also held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause and comity principles required dismissal due to Florida’s presuit notice and venue requirements. Promenade appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and found that Hyatt III does not apply to JEA, as it is not an arm of the State of Florida but an instrumentality of the City of Jacksonville. The court also determined that neither the Full Faith and Credit Clause nor comity principles mandated dismissal. The court held that Promenade should be allowed to proceed with its claims against JEA in Mississippi, seeking damages similar to those allowed under Mississippi’s constitution for property damage.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial court’s judgment of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "The Promenade D'Iberville, LLC v. Jacksonville Electric Authority" on Justia Law

Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., and its subentities sought an exemption from Wisconsin's unemployment compensation taxes, claiming they were controlled by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior and operated primarily for religious purposes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the exemption, ruling that the organizations did not engage in proselytization or limit their services to Catholics, and thus were not operated primarily for religious purposes.The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development initially denied the exemption request, but an Administrative Law Judge reversed this decision. The Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission then reinstated the denial. The state trial court overruled the commission, granting the exemption, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the organizations' activities were secular and not primarily religious, and that the statute did not violate the First Amendment.The United States Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's application of the statute violated the First Amendment. The Court found that the statute imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines, subjecting it to strict scrutiny. The Court concluded that the statute, as applied, could not survive strict scrutiny because the State failed to show that the law was narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. The judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission" on Justia Law

In October 2016, BAS, LLC purchased commercial property in Paragould, Arkansas, listing its mailing address as 3735 Winford Drive, Tarzana, California. BAS failed to pay property taxes for 2017 and 2018, leading the Greene County Clerk to certify the property to the Commissioner of State Lands for nonpayment. The Commissioner sent a notice of the upcoming tax sale to the Tarzana address via certified mail in August 2021, but did not receive a physical return receipt. USPS tracking data indicated the notice was delivered. In June 2022, the Commissioner sent another notice to the Paragould property, which was returned undelivered. The property was sold in August 2022, and BAS filed a lawsuit contesting the sale, alleging due process violations and unlawful taking.The Greene County Circuit Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Commissioner violated BAS’s due process rights, thus preventing a determination on sovereign immunity. The Commissioner appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and concluded that the Commissioner’s efforts to notify BAS were constitutionally sufficient. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and determined that the Commissioner’s actions met due process requirements. The court held that BAS failed to allege an illegal or unconstitutional act to overcome sovereign immunity. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court’s decision and granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. View "Land v. BAS, LLC" on Justia Law

The U.S. Department of Education announced a reduction in force (RIF) on March 13, 2025, affecting about half of its employees. Subsequently, twenty-one states and several labor organizations and school districts filed lawsuits against the Secretary of Education, the Department, and the President, claiming that the RIF violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They also sought an injunction against the transfer of certain functions out of the Department, announced by the President on March 21, 2025.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts consolidated the cases and granted the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, determining that the RIF and the transfer of functions were likely ultra vires and violated the APA. The court concluded that the actions were arbitrary and capricious, lacking a reasoned explanation and failing to consider the substantial harms to stakeholders.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the appellants' motion for a stay pending appeal. The court found that the appellants did not make a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits, particularly regarding the APA claims. The court also determined that the plaintiffs would suffer substantial injury without the injunction, as the RIF made it effectively impossible for the Department to carry out its statutory functions. The court concluded that the public interest favored maintaining the injunction to ensure the Department could fulfill its legal obligations. View "New York v. McMahon" on Justia Law

The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) challenged an Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) policy requiring immigration judges to obtain prior approval before speaking publicly on immigration-related issues. NAIJ argued that this policy violated the First and Fifth Amendment rights of its members. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) provided the exclusive remedy for such claims, requiring them to be brought through the administrative procedures established by the CSRA.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case, determining that the CSRA's comprehensive scheme for reviewing personnel actions against federal employees precluded the district court from exercising jurisdiction. The district court held that NAIJ's members must pursue their claims through the CSRA's administrative process, which includes review by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and potential judicial review by the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that while the CSRA generally precludes district court jurisdiction over such claims, the current functionality and independence of the MSPB and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) were in question. The court noted that recent events, including the removal of the Special Counsel and the lack of a quorum in the MSPB, raised concerns about whether the CSRA's adjudicatory scheme was functioning as Congress intended. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to conduct a factual inquiry into whether the CSRA continues to provide a functional and independent review process, as required for the jurisdiction-stripping scheme to apply. View "Natl Assn of Immigration Judges v. Owen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Mansoor Hamoud Hadwan, a natural-born U.S. citizen, has been stranded in Yemen for twelve years. In 2013, he visited the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, to apply for immigration paperwork for his children. During this visit, embassy staff retained his Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) and U.S. passport. Nine months later, the U.S. Department of State formally revoked both documents, alleging they were fraudulently obtained. Hadwan was unable to attend his hearing challenging the revocation.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the State Department's decision to revoke Hadwan's documents. The court found that Hadwan had waived most of his arguments by not presenting them at the agency hearing, which he was not permitted to attend. The court also found that the State Department's hearing process did not violate due process requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and found that the State Department erred in two ways. First, the decision to uphold the revocation was arbitrary and capricious, violating the Administrative Procedure Act, because it failed to consider material, undisputed facts about Hadwan’s English literacy, which raised doubts about the reliability of his alleged confession statement. Second, the State Department violated Hadwan’s constitutional due process rights by revoking his documents without providing him an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner. The court reversed the district court's judgment and the State Department's decision, ordering the State Department to return Hadwan’s CRBA and expired passport so he may reapply for a new passport if he chooses. View "Hadwan v. US Dep't of State" on Justia Law

Karla Smith and Holly Bladel sued Iowa state officials and the State of Iowa after Iowa opted out of federal unemployment programs established during the Covid-19 pandemic. These programs, created under the CARES Act, provided various unemployment benefits. Iowa initially participated in these programs but decided to end its participation in June 2021. Smith and Bladel claimed that this decision violated the U.S. Constitution, the Iowa Constitution, and Iowa state law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa dismissed the case, ruling that the defendants were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and that the plaintiffs lacked a constitutionally protected property interest in the CARES Act benefits. Smith and Bladel appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Smith's official-capacity claims against Iowa and its officials, as the claims did not fall under the Ex parte Young exception for ongoing violations of federal law. The court also found that Smith lacked a protected property interest in the CARES Act benefits because Iowa had the discretion to opt out of the programs. Consequently, Smith's due process claim against the Governor and Director in their individual capacities failed. Additionally, the court ruled that Smith's state law claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and her request for declaratory relief was inappropriate as it sought to address past actions rather than future conduct. The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed all of Smith's claims. View "Smith v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Belinda Fitzpatrick owns two adjacent homes in Lansing, Michigan. In September 2021, Ingham County Animal Control received a complaint about Fitzpatrick harboring up to 30 chickens in unsanitary conditions. Officer Kyle Hanney from Animal Control investigated and observed severe unsanitary conditions, including a strong odor of ammonia and chicken feces throughout the house. Hanney obtained a warrant to search both homes for evidence of animal neglect and cruelty. He invited Matthew Simon, a local housing-code official, to join the search. Simon concluded that both homes were unfit for human occupancy and placed red tags on them, prohibiting entry until cleaned.Fitzpatrick sued Officer Hanney, Simon, and the City of Lansing, alleging violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Simon moved to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Simon’s motion, concluding that Simon had plausibly violated Fitzpatrick’s clearly established constitutional rights. Simon then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Simon was entitled to qualified immunity on Fitzpatrick’s Fourth Amendment claims because it was not clearly established that Simon needed a separate warrant for housing-code violations when he was searching for the same conditions as authorized by Hanney’s warrant. The court also held that Simon was entitled to qualified immunity on Fitzpatrick’s Fourteenth Amendment claims, as the unsanitary conditions in her homes constituted exigent circumstances justifying immediate eviction without prior notice. The court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims against Simon. View "Fitzpatrick v. Hanney" on Justia Law