Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress established the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to help eligible small businesses maintain payroll through government-mandated shutdowns. The program, administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), provided for government-guaranteed loans to qualifying businesses, with the possibility of loan forgiveness if certain conditions were met. Bruckner Truck Sales received a $10 million PPP loan, but the SBA later determined that Bruckner was not eligible for the loan. Despite conceding its ineligibility, Bruckner refused to return the funds and instead claimed entitlement to loan forgiveness under the CARES Act.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas reviewed the case after Bruckner challenged the SBA’s denial of forgiveness. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, holding that the CARES Act does not entitle ineligible borrowers to loan forgiveness. The court also denied Bruckner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding that the SBA’s interpretation of the statute was correct and that the agency’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the CARES Act limits loan forgiveness to borrowers who were eligible for the underlying PPP loan. The court rejected Bruckner’s arguments that the SBA’s rule was retroactive, that the agency violated the Chenery doctrine, and that the district court improperly deferred to the agency’s interpretation. The court concluded that neither the text nor the structure of the CARES Act supports forgiveness for ineligible borrowers, and affirmed the denial of loan forgiveness and the requirement to return the funds. View "Bruckner Truck Sales v. Guzman" on Justia Law

CPI Security Systems, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Vivint Smart Home, Inc., alleging that Vivint engaged in deceptive practices to lure away CPI’s customers. Vivint sales representatives falsely claimed that Vivint had acquired CPI, that CPI was going out of business, or that Vivint needed to upgrade CPI’s equipment. These tactics led many CPI customers to switch to Vivint, causing significant losses for CPI. A jury found Vivint liable for violating the Lanham Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), and for committing the common-law torts of unfair competition and tortious interference with contracts. The jury awarded CPI $49.7 million in compensatory damages and $140 million in punitive damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina upheld the jury’s verdict. Vivint appealed, raising several issues, including the requirement of CPI’s reliance on false statements for the UDTPA claim, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the damages award, the application of North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages, and the admission of prejudicial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found no reversible error. The court held that CPI was not required to prove its own reliance on Vivint’s false statements to establish a UDTPA claim, as the claim was based on unfair competition rather than fraud. The court also found that the evidence presented by CPI was sufficient to support the jury’s damages award. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court correctly applied North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages by considering the total compensatory damages awarded. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vivint’s motion to bifurcate the trial or in its evidentiary rulings. The reassignment of the trial judge post-trial did not warrant a new trial. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc." on Justia Law

Crowley Government Services, Inc. ("Crowley") entered into a contract with the Department of Defense United States Transportation Command ("USTRANSCOM") in 2016 to provide transportation coordination services, which involved hiring motor carriers to transport freight. The General Services Administration ("GSA"), not a party to the contract, began auditing Crowley's bills under a provision of the Transportation Act of 1940, claiming Crowley overbilled USTRANSCOM by millions of dollars. GSA sought to recover these overcharges by garnishing future payments to Crowley.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Crowley's Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") claims, holding that the claims were essentially contractual and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. The D.C. Circuit reversed, finding that Crowley's suit was not a contract claim and remanded the case. On remand, the District Court held that GSA could audit both carriers and non-carriers but agreed with Crowley that the USTRANSCOM Contracting Officer's interpretations governed any GSA audits. The court enjoined GSA from issuing Notices of Overcharge ("NOCs") contrary to the Contracting Officer's determinations.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and held that 31 U.S.C. § 3726(b) allows GSA to audit only bills presented by carriers and freight forwarders. The court found that Crowley is not a carrier because it does not physically transport freight nor is it contractually bound to help perform the movement of goods. Consequently, the court reversed the District Court's decision on the scope of § 3726(b) and remanded for further proceedings, permanently enjoining GSA from conducting postpayment audits of Crowley's bills. View "Crowley Government Services, Inc. v. General Services Administration" on Justia Law

Anthony Rojas, a student at the University of Florida, filed a class action lawsuit against the University of Florida Board of Trustees. Rojas claimed that the University breached its contract by suspending on-campus services and closing facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite students being required to pay mandatory fees for these services. He also alleged that the University failed to refund these fees. The complaint included a spring 2020 tuition statement, a general statement of tuition and fee estimates for the 2019-2020 academic year, and the University’s financial liability agreement.The trial court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim but denied the University’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim, ruling that the complaint adequately pleaded the existence of an express contract. The University appealed, and the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the claims were barred by sovereign immunity. The First District concluded that the contract alleged by Rojas did not constitute an express written contract sufficient to overcome sovereign immunity.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case and quashed the First District’s decision. The Court held that the waiver-by-contract doctrine does not preclude claims based on the breach of implied covenants or conditions that do not conflict with express contract provisions. The Court found that the First District erred in requiring extraordinary specificity in government contracts and in failing to recognize permissible implied covenants. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Rojas v. University of Florida Board of Trustees" on Justia Law

A resident taxpayer of Omaha challenged the City of Omaha's contract for residential solid waste collection, alleging it was an illegal expenditure of public funds and violated the Integrated Solid Waste Management Act (ISWMA). The contract, awarded to FCC Environmental Services Nebraska, LLC (FCC-Nebraska), included a yard waste sticker program where residents could purchase stickers for additional yard waste disposal.The district court for Douglas County granted summary judgment in favor of the City and FCC-Nebraska, dismissing the taxpayer's claims. The court found that the City acted within its discretion in seeking a postopening bid clarification from FCC-Spain (the original bidder) to standardize the unit price for yard waste stickers, which did not materially alter the bid or give FCC an unfair advantage. The court also determined that the yard waste sticker fee charged by FCC did not require voter approval under § 13-2020(4) of the ISWMA, as the fee was charged by and paid to the contractor, not the City.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. It held that the City did not act in bad faith or with favoritism in seeking the bid clarification and that the clarification did not result in a material variance from FCC's original bid. The court also agreed that the voter approval requirement in § 13-2020(4) did not apply to the yard waste sticker fee, as it was governed by § 13-2020(5), which allows contractors to charge service rates without voter approval. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the taxpayer's motion to amend the complaint to add a new theory of invalidity based on the identity of the contracting party. View "Johnson v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

Michigan Electric Transmission Company (METC) owns a high-voltage transmission line with Michigan Public Power Agency (MPPA) and Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative. The case concerns the ownership of new transmission facilities, or "network upgrades," connecting a new solar generation park to the transmission line. METC claims exclusive ownership based on existing agreements, while MPPA and Wolverine disagree.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reviewed the case and found that no agreement conclusively determined ownership rights. FERC declined to decide the ownership question, leading METC to petition for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with FERC's interpretation that the relevant agreements did not grant METC exclusive ownership of the network upgrades. The court found that the Styx-Murphy line qualifies as a "system" under the Transmission Owners Agreement (TOA), and since METC is not the sole owner, it cannot claim exclusive ownership. The court also found that the Styx-Murphy Agreements did not preclude MPPA and Wolverine from owning network upgrades.The court denied METC's petitions for review, upholding FERC's decision. View "Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

Power Rental Op Co, LLC ("Power Rental") is a Florida-based company providing water and energy services. The Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority ("WAPA") is a municipal corporation in the U.S. Virgin Islands. In 2012, WAPA entered into a rental agreement with General Electric International, which Power Rental later acquired. By 2019, WAPA owed Power Rental over $14 million, which was reduced to approximately $9.3 million through a promissory note governed by New York law. WAPA defaulted on the note in 2020, leading Power Rental to sue in Florida state court for breach of the note and other claims.The case was removed to the Middle District of Florida, which dissolved pre-judgment writs of garnishment issued by the state court, granted partial summary judgment in favor of Power Rental, and ordered WAPA to complete a fact information sheet. The court found that WAPA waived its sovereign immunity defenses under the terms of the note. WAPA's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit was voluntarily dismissed.Power Rental registered the judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, which issued a writ of execution served on WAPA's account at FirstBank in Puerto Rico. WAPA filed an emergency motion to quash the writ, arguing that the funds were exempt under Virgin Islands law and that the Puerto Rico court lacked jurisdiction. The District of Puerto Rico denied the motion, finding that the separate entity rule did not apply and that it had jurisdiction to issue the writ.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District of Puerto Rico's order. The court held that the separate entity rule was outdated and did not apply, allowing the Puerto Rico court to have jurisdiction over the writ. The court also upheld the lower court's finding that WAPA had waived its statutory immunity defenses. View "Power Rental OP CO, LLC v. Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority" on Justia Law

23rd Psalm Trucking, L.L.C. entered into a four-year contract with the Madison Parish Police Jury on July 14, 2014, to collect and dispose of residential waste. The contract was extended for an additional three years, set to expire on July 14, 2021. However, due to fiscal concerns, the Police Jury rebid the contract in June 2020 and awarded it to another contractor, effective January 1, 2021. Psalm Trucking sued for breach of contract and unfair trade practices, claiming an estimated loss of $385,235.50.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Police Jury, finding the contract null and void under La. R.S. 39:1410.60 (A) because it was not approved by the State Bond Commission. The court also rejected Psalm Trucking’s detrimental reliance claim, noting the company did not seek legal advice before contracting. The Court of Appeal affirmed, agreeing that the Bond Commission’s approval was required for multi-year contracts without a non-appropriation clause.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that La. R.S. 33:4169.1 and La. R.S. 39:1410.60 must be read together, requiring Bond Commission approval for contracts that constitute debt. The court found the four-year contract constituted debt and was null and void without the Bond Commission’s approval. The court also agreed that Psalm Trucking failed to prove detrimental reliance against a governmental agency. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed. View "23rd Psalm Trucking, L.L.C. v. Madison Parish Police Jury" on Justia Law

The case involves members of the Auburn University Board of Trustees and various Auburn University employees (defendants) who were sued by Patti Northcutt and her husband, Walter Northcutt (plaintiffs). Patti, a former employee and doctoral student at Auburn, alleged that the defendants retaliated against her for previous lawsuits and grievances she had filed, which were settled through agreements. She claimed that the defendants breached these settlement agreements and interfered with her ability to complete her doctoral program and obtain employment at Auburn.The plaintiffs initially filed their complaint in the Lee Circuit Court, which they amended multiple times. The third amended complaint included claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, and procedural due process violations, as well as state-law claims for breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss these claims, asserting federal qualified immunity and State immunity under the Alabama Constitution.The Lee Circuit Court granted the motion to dismiss the First Amendment and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims but denied the motion regarding the other claims. The defendants then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to dismiss the remaining claims.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the petition in part, directing the trial court to dismiss the claims for monetary damages against the employee defendants in their individual capacities under § 1983 for equal protection and procedural due process violations, based on federal qualified immunity. The Court also directed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees related to state-law claims for prospective injunctive relief, based on State immunity. However, the Court denied the petition regarding the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees related to federal-law claims for prospective injunctive relief and the state-law claims for monetary damages against the employee defendants in their individual capacities. View "Ex parte B.T. Roberts" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima (Lima) and Rutas de Lima S.A.C. (Rutas) entered into a Concession Contract for the construction and operation of urban roads in Lima, Peru. Rutas agreed to finance and manage the project in exchange for toll revenue, while Lima was responsible for preliminary infrastructure activities. Subsequent agreements transferred these preliminary responsibilities to Rutas in exchange for toll rate increases. Social protests erupted in response to these increases, leading Lima to close a toll unit and refuse further rate hikes. Rutas initiated two international arbitrations, claiming Lima breached the contract. Lima argued the contract was void due to bribery by Rutas’s parent company, Odebrecht S.A.The District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the case after two arbitration tribunals ruled in favor of Rutas, finding insufficient evidence of corruption linked to the Concession Contract. Lima sought to vacate the arbitration awards, citing violations of U.S. public policy against corruption, fraud by Rutas in discovery, and misconduct by the second tribunal in excluding evidence. The District Court denied Lima’s petitions and confirmed the awards, concluding that Lima failed to prove the contract was obtained through bribery and that any alleged discovery misconduct did not prejudice Lima’s case.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the arbitration tribunals’ findings were supported by the record and that there was no sufficient evidence linking Odebrecht’s bribes to the Concession Contract. The court also found no merit in Lima’s claims of discovery fraud and tribunal misconduct, noting that Lima suffered no prejudice from the exclusion of evidence. The court concluded that enforcing the arbitration awards did not violate U.S. public policy. View "Metropolitan Municipality of Lima v. Rutas De Lima S.A.C." on Justia Law