Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A Florida minister and licensed clinical Christian psychologist, who had provided court-mandated batterers’ intervention program (BIP) services for decades, sought certification from the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) to continue offering these services to individuals ordered by courts to attend BIPs following domestic violence convictions. The DCF denied his application because his curriculum incorporated a faith-based approach and addressed issues such as substance abuse and anger management, which conflicted with state regulations prohibiting faith-based ideology and requiring a specific psychoeducational model. The provider had previously operated without proper certification and had been denied certification in the past for similar reasons.After the DCF’s 2022 denial, the provider filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging that the regulation violated his rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of DCF, holding that court-ordered BIPs constitute government speech, and thus the state could set their content without implicating the First Amendment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the curriculum and presentation of court-ordered BIPs are government speech. The court found that the state has historically used BIPs to communicate its own message, that participants would reasonably associate the program’s content with the government, and that the state exercises substantial control over the content. Because the programs are government speech, the provider’s Free Speech and Free Exercise claims could not proceed. The court also rejected the facial challenge to the regulation and affirmed the District Court’s judgment. View "Nussbaumer v. Secretary, Florida Dept of Children and Families" on Justia Law

Two pharmaceutical companies challenged a federal program created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which directs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure prescription drugs lacking generic competition. Under this program, manufacturers of selected drugs must either negotiate a price with CMS or face steep excise taxes on all sales of those drugs, unless they withdraw all their products from specific Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both companies had drugs selected for negotiation and, while litigation was pending, agreed to participate and reached negotiated prices.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey resolved the cases on cross-motions for summary judgment, as the parties agreed there were no material factual disputes. The District Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that the program did not violate the Takings Clause, the First Amendment, or the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. The companies appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit consolidated the appeals.The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s orders. It held that participation in Medicare and the negotiation program is voluntary, so there is no physical taking under the Fifth Amendment. The court found that economic incentives to participate do not amount to legal compulsion. It also held that the program’s requirements do not compel speech in violation of the First Amendment, as any speech involved is incidental to the regulation of conduct and participation is voluntary. Finally, the court concluded that the program does not impose unconstitutional conditions, as any compelled speech is limited to the contracts necessary to effectuate the program and does not restrict speech outside those contracts. The court affirmed summary judgment for the government. View "Bristol Myers Squibb Co v. Secretary United States Department of HHS" on Justia Law

A physician licensed in Florida worked at a weight management clinic, where he was responsible for maintaining a federal registration to dispense controlled substances. After a report of missing controlled substances at the clinic, local police and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) began investigating. The investigation revealed that the physician had issued numerous prescriptions for controlled substances without proper documentation of a doctor-patient relationship, failed to maintain required records, did not properly report or store controlled substances, and dispensed medication in violation of labeling requirements. The physician claimed that another clinic employee had forged his signature on some prescriptions and denied personal wrongdoing.The DEA issued an Order to Show Cause, notifying the physician of its intent to revoke his registration and deny pending applications, citing violations of federal and state law. The physician submitted a Corrective Action Plan but did not request a hearing. The DEA Administrator reviewed the evidence, including expert testimony and the physician’s admissions, and found that the physician’s continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. The Administrator revoked the registration and denied all pending applications, emphasizing the physician’s failure to accept responsibility and the inadequacy of his proposed corrective measures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the DEA’s final order under an abuse of discretion standard, deferring to the agency’s factual findings if supported by substantial evidence. The court held that the physician received adequate procedural due process, as he was given notice and an opportunity for a hearing, which he declined. The court also rejected the argument that the DEA was required to find knowing or intentional misconduct under Ruan v. United States, holding that such a mens rea requirement does not apply to administrative revocation proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 824. The petition for review was denied. View "Ashraf v. Drug Enforcement Administration" on Justia Law

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded $16 billion in grants to five nonprofit organizations to support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as part of a larger $27 billion congressional appropriation under the Inflation Reduction Act. The grants were structured through agreements between the nonprofits and EPA, with Citibank acting as a financial agent to hold and disburse the funds. After concerns arose regarding conflicts of interest, lack of oversight, and last-minute amendments to the grant agreements, EPA terminated the grants in early 2025. Citibank, following an FBI recommendation, froze the accounts associated with the grants. The nonprofits sued, seeking to prevent the termination and to restore access to the funds.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction, ordering EPA and Citibank to continue funding the grants. The district court found it had jurisdiction, concluding the plaintiffs’ claims were not essentially contractual and thus did not need to be brought in the Court of Federal Claims. The court determined the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional, regulatory, and arbitrary and capricious claims, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs’ regulatory and arbitrary and capricious claims were essentially contractual, meaning jurisdiction lay exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims, not the district court. The court also held that the constitutional claim was meritless. The equities and public interest, the appellate court concluded, favored the government’s need for oversight and management of public funds. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

Several small businesses and a coalition of states challenged a series of executive orders issued by the President that imposed new tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all goods imported from most countries. These tariffs, referred to as the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs, were imposed in response to declared national emergencies related to drug trafficking and trade imbalances. The executive orders directed changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, resulting in significant increases in import duties on products from Canada, Mexico, China, and other major trading partners.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT), arguing that the President exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing these tariffs. The CIT granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose the challenged tariffs and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The government appealed, and the Federal Circuit consolidated the cases, stayed the injunction pending appeal, and heard the matter en banc.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, holding that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate” importation does not include the power to impose tariffs of the type and scope at issue. The court found that IEEPA does not mention tariffs, duties, or taxes, and contrasted it with other statutes where Congress has explicitly delegated tariff authority to the President with clear limitations. The court also concluded that the government’s interpretation would raise serious constitutional concerns under the major questions and non-delegation doctrines. The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s declaratory judgment that the executive orders were invalid, but vacated the universal injunction and remanded for the CIT to reconsider the scope of injunctive relief in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump" on Justia Law

After the Nebraska Legislature enacted L.B. 77, which allowed concealed carry without a permit and limited local regulation of weapons, the mayor of Lincoln issued an executive order prohibiting weapons in city-owned properties. This order was quickly amended but maintained similar restrictions, including criminal and civil penalties for violations. Several longstanding city ordinances also regulated firearms and other weapons, such as prohibiting weapons in parks, requiring reporting of firearm sales, and banning certain devices and knives. The Nebraska Firearms Owners Association (NFOA) and four individual plaintiffs, all regular concealed carriers, alleged that these local measures conflicted with state law and deterred them from activities they would otherwise pursue, such as carrying firearms in parks or purchasing certain items.The plaintiffs filed suit in the District Court for Lancaster County, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The City moved to dismiss, arguing lack of standing. The district court dismissed the case entirely, finding that neither the NFOA nor the individuals had standing because none had been prosecuted or directly affected by enforcement of the challenged laws. The court relied on federal precedent, including Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, but concluded that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were too speculative or abstract.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the NFOA lacked associational standing because it failed to allege its authority to represent its members. However, the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the executive order and most ordinances, as they alleged a credible and imminent threat of prosecution sufficient for a preenforcement challenge. The court affirmed the dismissal as to the NFOA and the challenge to the vehicle storage ordinance, but reversed and remanded as to the individual plaintiffs’ challenges to the executive order and other ordinances. View "Nebraska Firearms Owners Assn. v. City of Lincoln" on Justia Law

Lauren Richwine, through her business Death Done Differently, provides services as a “death doula,” assisting clients and their families with end-of-life planning, emotional support, and guidance on funeral arrangements. Richwine is not a licensed funeral director, and her website notes that her services are performed under the supervision of a licensed funeral director. In 2021, a complaint was filed with the Indiana Public Licensing Agency alleging that Richwine was practicing funeral services without a license. Following an investigation, the Indiana Attorney General sought a cease-and-desist order from the State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service, which was approved. The order prohibited Richwine and her company from advertising or providing certain services related to funeral planning, community death care, and support with funeral homes.After the cease-and-desist order was issued, Richwine and Death Done Differently filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, arguing that enforcement of the Indiana statute against them would violate their First Amendment rights. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of the statute against the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs had waived their rights by signing the cease-and-desist agreement and that federal abstention doctrine barred the suit. The district court rejected these arguments, finding no clear and unmistakable waiver of federal rights and no ongoing state proceeding that would justify abstention.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the Indiana statute, as applied to Richwine and Death Done Differently, burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further the state’s interests in public health, safety, and consumer protection. The court found that the statute’s restrictions on the plaintiffs’ speech and advertising likely violate the First Amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Richwine v. Matuszak" on Justia Law

A university revoked a student’s bachelor’s degree in social work after being informed by a state agency that, during her internship, she accessed confidential information in a state database without authorization. The university retroactively changed her grade for the internship course to failing, notified her that her degree and diploma were invalid, and initiated disciplinary proceedings. The student, who had already graduated and obtained a social work license, challenged the university’s actions, arguing that her procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the student’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that she did not have a protected property interest in her degree, grade, or the disciplinary process, and that, even if such an interest existed, the university provided adequate process. The court also concluded that she failed to plausibly allege that she was unable to pursue a career in social work, and held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because any rights at issue were not clearly established.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the student’s university degree is a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and that the university failed to provide adequate process before revoking it. Specifically, the court found that the student plausibly alleged she was denied sufficient time to present her defense and was not allowed to cross-examine university-affiliated witnesses at her conduct hearing. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the procedural due process claim on these grounds and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the dismissal of the substantive due process claim and the grant of qualified immunity to the defendants for monetary relief. The appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction was dismissed as moot. View "DUDLEY V. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a Nebraska resident, received Medicaid benefits administered by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS). In April 2024, she was sent a notice stating her Medicaid eligibility was ending due to income exceeding program standards. The notice informed her of her rights to request a conference or appeal and outlined the process for a fair hearing. She did not appeal the termination, and her coverage ended on May 1, 2024. Subsequently, she filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, alleging that the termination notices failed to meet due process requirements and seeking class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, including reinstatement of benefits until proper notice was provided.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska considered only her individual claims, as she did not challenge the court’s decision to exclude class claims on appeal. The district court denied her request for a temporary restraining order, finding she was unlikely to succeed because her claims sought retroactive relief barred by sovereign immunity and because the notices likely satisfied due process. The court then dismissed her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding she had not alleged an ongoing violation of federal law and was not seeking prospective relief, as required to invoke the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s alleged due process violation was a discrete past event—the issuance of the notice and termination of benefits—not an ongoing violation. The court further held that the relief sought was retrospective, not prospective, and thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court concluded that the Ex parte Young exception did not apply, and affirmed the dismissal. View "Filyaw v. Corsi" on Justia Law

In 2023, the Maine Legislature enacted the Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, requiring employers to remit quarterly premiums into a state fund beginning January 1, 2025. The program allows covered individuals to take up to twelve weeks of leave for qualifying reasons, with benefits paid from the fund. Employers may apply to substitute an approved private plan that provides substantially equivalent benefits, which exempts them from further premium payments. The Maine Department of Labor adopted rules implementing the PFML program, including a provision that all employers must pay nonrefundable premiums for the first quarter of 2025, even if they later obtain approval for a private plan. Employers could begin applying for private plan approval after April 1, 2025, due to the time needed for insurers to develop compliant policies.The Maine State Chamber of Commerce and Bath Iron Works challenged the Department’s rule requiring nonrefundable premiums, arguing it conflicted with the PFML Act and constituted an unconstitutional taking under both the Maine and U.S. Constitutions. The Kennebec County Superior Court accepted a consented-to motion to report three legal questions to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court: whether the rule conflicted with the Act or was arbitrary and capricious, and whether it constituted a taking under state or federal law.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court accepted the report and held that the Department’s rules do not conflict with the PFML Act and are not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful. The Court found that the statute unambiguously requires employers to remit premiums until a private plan is approved, and the rules reasonably implement the legislative intent. Additionally, the Court determined that the obligation to pay premiums does not constitute a cognizable taking of private property under either the Maine or U.S. Constitution. The Court answered all three reported questions in the negative and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Maine State Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law