Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In the case of City of St. Louis and Heather Taylor (“Appellants”) versus State of Missouri (“State”), the Supreme Court of Missouri analyzed Senate Bill No. 26 (“SB 26”) that was challenged for being unconstitutional. SB 26, introduced in December 2020 and signed into law in July 2021, contained 88 sections related to public safety, including procedures for imposing discipline on law enforcement officers and provisions for the offense of “unlawful traffic interference.”Appellants argued that SB 26 violated the Missouri Constitution on several grounds, including that it violated the original-purpose and single-subject rules, that it created an unfunded mandate, that it imposed additional duties on officers and employees of a constitutional charter city, that it used public funds for private purposes, and that it created unequal treatment between law enforcement officers and other city employees.The Supreme Court of Missouri found that the City had sufficiently pleaded the elements of a Hancock Amendment violation, which prohibits the state from requiring new or expanded activities by counties and other political subdivisions without full state financing. Therefore, the circuit court's judgment was reversed on this point and the case was remanded for further proceedings.However, the court affirmed the judgment with respect to Appellants' other points. It found that SB 26 had the same purpose as enacted as introduced, did not impose new duties on city employees or allocate funds for public purposes, and had a rational basis for treating law enforcement officers differently from other city employees. The court also found that SB 26 did not violate the original-purpose and single-subject rules, did not impose additional duties on officers and employees of a constitutional charter city, did not use public funds for private purposes, and did not create unequal treatment between law enforcement officers and other city employees. View "City of St. Louis v. State" on Justia Law

In this case, the City of Laramie, Wyoming, sued the University of Wyoming and its Board of Trustees, challenging the drilling and operation of certain water wells. The city argued that the university was in violation of a 1965 deed covenant prohibiting the drilling of one of the wells and was also in violation of a city ordinance. The city also claimed that legislation exempting the university from this city ordinance was unconstitutional. The district court dismissed some of the city's claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the university on the remaining claims. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the university was protected by sovereign immunity from the city's attempts to enforce the deed covenant. It also held that the state law exempting the university from the city ordinance was constitutional. The court further noted that the law precluded the city from enforcing its ordinance against the university. View "City of Laramie, Wyoming v. University of Wyoming" on Justia Law

In a case before the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, the plaintiffs, two police officers injured in a shooting, filed a suit against Chester Arms, LLC (the seller of the firearm used in the shooting), and the New Hampshire Department of Safety (DOS) (which conducted the background check for the sale of the firearm). The suit accused Chester Arms of negligent entrustment and DOS of negligent entrustment and negligence per se. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants on the basis of immunity under state law. The court of appeals affirmed the lower court's decision.The court of appeals found that the state law barring lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and sellers for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful use of their products by a third party was constitutional and not preempted by federal law. The court found that the law was designed to safeguard citizens' fundamental right to bear arms by limiting suits against the firearms industry, thereby protecting its solvency and ensuring law-abiding citizens have access to firearms. The court also found that the law did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional right to equal protection or right to a remedy.Regarding the suit against DOS, the court found that DOS had not been negligent in its background check as the shooter was not disqualified from owning a firearm at the relevant time under federal law. Therefore, the court concluded that any alleged error in the trial court's immunity analysis was harmless as DOS was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Hardy v. Chester Arms, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, the Idaho State Athletic Commission and the Idaho Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses sought a declaratory ruling that provisions of the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requiring legislative approval of pending administrative fee rules violated the Idaho Constitution. They also sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the Office of the Administrative Rules Coordinator to publish the Athletic Commission’s 2022 administrative rules in the Idaho Administrative Code. The Idaho Supreme Court held that it had jurisdiction to consider the case, but dismissed the petition for a declaration of unconstitutionality and denied the petition for a Writ of Mandamus. The court concluded that the APA requirement for legislative approval of pending administrative rules did not violate the Idaho Constitution's separation of powers, enactment, presentment, or administrative rules provisions. In reaching this conclusion, the court emphasized that administrative rulemaking authority was a legislative delegation, not a constitutional power, and that the legislature was free to modify the process by which administrative rules were enacted. View "Idaho State Athletic Commission v. Office of the Administrative Rules Coordinator" on Justia Law

In South Carolina, two hospitals, Walterboro Community Hospital and Trident Medical Center, appealed an Administrative Law Court (ALC) order which approved the certificate of need (CON) for the Medical University Hospital Authority (MUHA). MUHA had applied for a CON to construct a new general hospital in Berkeley County to address capacity issues at its existing hospital in Charleston. The appellant hospitals raised four issues against ALC's decision: 1) the ALC's dismissal of certain errors in the review by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), 2) a misinterpretation of the State Health Plan by the ALC, 3) the ALC's approval of MUHA's application conditional on the closure of a freestanding emergency department planned by MUHA, and 4) the appeal bond required by South Carolina law is unconstitutional.The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the ALC's decision and held that despite errors in DHEC's review process and decision, the ALC's de novo review rendered these errors harmless. The court also agreed with ALC's interpretation of the State Health Plan and found no issue in the ALC's condition of approval. The court further held that the appeal bond requirement was not unconstitutional, as the appellant hospitals were statutory affected persons and there was a rational basis for different treatment for a party opposing an approved CON and a party appealing the denial of its own CON application. However, the court did instruct that the appeal bond be voided and returned to Trident Medical Center. View "Walterboro Comm Hospital v. SCDHEC" on Justia Law

In the state of Illinois, a group of active and retired members of local police and firefighter pension funds filed a complaint against the Governor and other officials, challenging the constitutionality of Public Act 101-610. This Act amended the Illinois Pension Code and consolidated all local police and firefighter pension fund assets into two statewide pension investment funds. The plaintiffs claimed the Act violated two provisions of the Illinois Constitution: the pension protection clause and the takings clause. They argued that the Act diminished their pension benefits by diluting their voting power and control over investment decisions, and by imposing costs associated with the Act's implementation, including repayment of any transition loans. The Supreme Court of Illinois disagreed with the plaintiffs, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The court ruled that the Act does not violate the pension protection clause because the ability to vote in local pension board elections and control local pension fund investments are not constitutionally protected benefits. They also ruled that the Act does not violate the takings clause because the plaintiffs do not have a private property right in the funds that are to be transferred to the new statewide funds. The Act only changes how local fund assets are managed and invested without affecting the ultimate use of those assets to pay the benefits of local fund members. Thus, the Act remains in effect. View "Arlington Heights Police Pension Fund v. Pritzker" on Justia Law

The case was an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit against a lower court's decision that the structure of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs, By Two, L.P., and Consumers’ Research, argued that the CPSC's structure violated the separation-of-powers doctrine because the President could only remove the CPSC's commissioners for cause. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs, but the appellate court reversed this decision.The appellate court held that the CPSC's structure was constitutional and did not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. The court based its decision on the Supreme Court's precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which allowed for-cause removal protections for commissioners of independent agencies like the CPSC. The court noted that while the CPSC does exercise substantial executive power, this alone does not remove it from the protection of the Humphrey’s Executor exception. The court also pointed out that the CPSC's structure was not novel or lacking historical precedent, which further supported its constitutionality.The court emphasized that any changes to the Humphrey’s Executor exception would have to be made by the Supreme Court, not the lower courts. Until such a change occurred, the CPSC's structure remained constitutional. Thus, the court reversed the district court's decision and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. View "Consumers’ Research v. Consumer Product Safety Commission" on Justia Law

In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a state statute that limits reimbursement of reestablishment expenses in condemnation proceedings to $50,000. The appellant, Applied Building Sciences, Inc., an engineering firm, was forced to move its operations when its leased building was condemned for public use by the South Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Public Railways. The company sought reimbursement for reestablishment expenses exceeding $560,000 but was limited by state statute to $50,000. The company argued that the cap was unconstitutional under the Takings Clauses of the South Carolina and United States Constitutions. The court found that reestablishment expenses are separate from damages awardable as just compensation under both constitutions, thus upholding the constitutionality of the statutory cap. The court affirmed the lower court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Commerce, Division of Public Railways. View "Applied Building Sciences v. SC Dept of Commerce" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between American Precision Ammunition, L.L.C. (APA) and the City of Mineral Wells in Texas. APA and the City entered into a Tax Abatement Agreement ("Agreement") where the City promised to gift APA $150,000 and provide APA ten years of tax abatements. However, the City terminated the Agreement, claiming that the $150,000 gift was illegal under the Texas Constitution. APA sued the City for breach of contract, violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA), and denial of federal due process and due course of law under the Texas Constitution. The district court dismissed all claims, and APA appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. It held that the Agreement was illegal and unenforceable under Texas law because the City's contractual obligation to "gift" APA $150,000 constitutes a gratuitous payment of public money. The court also dismissed APA's TOMA claim as moot because there was no "agreement" to reinstate given that the Agreement was unenforceable. Furthermore, the court found that APA's due process claims failed because the promise for the $150,000 gift was void and did not constitute a contract, and therefore, APA had no protected property interest in the gift. Even assuming that APA had a property interest in the tax abatements, the court held that APA's due process and due course of law claims still fail because Texas law affords APA sufficient opportunity to pursue that claim in state court. View "American Precision v. Mineral Wells" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the defendant, Thomas O’Lear, was convicted of healthcare fraud, making a false statement in connection with healthcare services, and aggravated identity theft. O’Lear ran a company that provided mobile x-ray services to residents in nursing homes. However, he used the company to defraud Medicare and Medicaid programs by billing for fictitious x-rays using the identities of nursing-home residents. When an audit revealed the fraud, O’Lear attempted to conceal it by forging staff names and duplicating x-rays in the patient files.On appeal, O’Lear raised several questions. Firstly, he questioned whether his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated by excluding individuals who had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 from the jury pool. The court ruled that the unvaccinated do not qualify as a “distinctive group” that can trigger Sixth Amendment concerns. Secondly, O’Lear questioned whether the nursing-home residents were “victims” of his fraud under a “vulnerable victims” sentencing enhancement, even though the monetary losses were suffered by Medicare and Medicaid. The court ruled that the residents were indeed victims, as O’Lear had used their identities and health records without their permission, which constituted taking advantage of them.O’Lear also challenged his two aggravated-identity-theft convictions and objected to his 180-month sentence on various grounds, but these arguments were also dismissed by the court. Ultimately, the court affirmed O’Lear's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. O'Lear" on Justia Law