Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A healthcare provider operating as a covered entity under the federal Section 340B Drug Pricing Program purchased pharmaceuticals from several drug manufacturers. The provider alleged that these manufacturers engaged in a fraudulent scheme by knowingly charging prices for drugs that exceeded the statutory ceiling, resulting in inflated reimbursement claims submitted to Medicaid, Medicare, and other government-funded programs. The provider did not seek compensation for its own overcharges, but instead brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), seeking to recover losses on behalf of the federal and state governments.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It reasoned that, under the Supreme Court’s holding in Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, Section 340B does not confer a private right of action for covered entities to sue drug manufacturers over pricing disputes; such claims must instead be pursued through the Section 340B Administrative Dispute Resolution process. The district court concluded that the provider’s FCA claims were essentially attempts to enforce Section 340B and should therefore be barred.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the provider’s FCA claims were not barred by the absence of a private right of action under Section 340B or by the Astra decision, because the action was brought to remediate fraud against the government and not to recover personal losses or enforce Section 340B directly. The court further found that the provider had plausibly pleaded falsity under the FCA. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings. View "ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM OF WEST V. ABBVIE INC." on Justia Law

A significant number of private attorneys who serve as court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants in two Massachusetts counties stopped accepting new cases to protest legislatively set compensation rates. This work stoppage resulted in hundreds of indigent defendants, including many in pretrial detention, being left without legal representation. The Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), the entity charged with administering indigent defense, reported that the public defender division was at capacity and unable to fill the gap. CPCS petitioned for emergency relief, seeking both implementation of a protocol to address unrepresented defendants and a court-ordered increase in compensation rates for bar advocates.The Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, through a single justice, conducted an evidentiary hearing, found a systemic violation of indigent defendants’ constitutional rights to counsel, and implemented the protocol requiring prompt hearings and potential release or dismissal when counsel could not be appointed in a timely manner. The single justice, however, denied the request to judicially increase rates, deferring to the Legislature. After a trial court judge unilaterally ordered higher rates for certain attorneys, the question of judicial authority to set such rates was reserved and reported to the full Supreme Judicial Court.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that neither it nor any other court has authority to order increased compensation rates for bar advocates above those set by the Legislature, absent extraordinary circumstances where the judiciary’s constitutional functioning is impaired and all other remedies are exhausted. The court found that the existing statutory rates, recent legislative rate increases, and incentive programs ensured a constitutionally adequate system and that judicially ordered rate increases would violate the separation of powers. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk County District Courts" on Justia Law

An Indiana prisoner, while serving a 65-year sentence for murder, attacked a correctional officer at the Miami Correctional Facility in 2022. The attack caused serious injuries requiring outside medical treatment. Following an administrative hearing, the prisoner was found guilty of battering staff and was sanctioned by losing nearly 19 years of accumulated good time credits. The hearing officer based the sanction on the severity of the attack and the resulting injury and checked factors including the seriousness of the offense and the disruption to facility security.The prisoner filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, raising due process and Eighth Amendment claims. He alleged procedural errors, hearing officer bias, and that there was no evidence of serious injury. He also argued that the sanction was grossly disproportionate. After counsel was appointed, he submitted a brief that referenced, but did not fully restate, these claims. The district court denied relief, holding that the due process claims lacked merit and that the Eighth Amendment claim was waived due to insufficient argument in the brief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the relevant constitutional claims were not waived, as the amended filing preserved the original petition’s arguments. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the hearing officer’s finding of serious bodily injury was supported by sufficient evidence under the “some evidence” standard. The court also concluded that the loss of good time credits was not grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment, given the circumstances of the offense, the petitioner’s disciplinary record, and the nature of his underlying conviction. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Hawkins v. Sevier" on Justia Law

A former employee of a pharmaceutical manufacturer brought a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act, alleging that the company improperly calculated and reported its “Best Price” for certain drugs to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), as required under the Medicaid Rebate Statute. The plaintiff claimed that, during a period from 2005 to 2014, the company failed to aggregate multiple rebates and discounts given to different entities on the same drug, resulting in inflated “Best Price” reports and underpayment of rebates owed to Medicaid. The complaint asserted that the company was subjectively aware that CMS interpreted the statute to require aggregation of all such discounts, especially after the company’s communications with CMS during a 2006–2007 rulemaking process and the company’s subsequent internal audit.After the government and several states declined to intervene, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the amended complaint, finding that, even under the subjective scienter standard established in United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that the company acted with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of its reports. The district court also suggested that ambiguity in the statute precluded a finding of falsity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s allegations—including the company’s awareness of CMS’s interpretation of the rule, its targeted audit and compliance efforts, and its continued use of non-aggregated reporting—plausibly alleged the requisite subjective scienter under the False Claims Act. The court clarified that statutory ambiguity does not, at the pleading stage, negate scienter or falsity, and remanded for the district court to address other elements, including falsity, in the first instance. The Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States ex rel. Sheldon v. Allergan Sales, LLC" on Justia Law

A woman called 911 to request a welfare check on her elderly neighbors’ home after noticing an unfamiliar vehicle and a young Black male there while the neighbors were out of town. When Officer Smith of the Childersburg Police Department arrived, he found a man watering flowers and asked if he lived at the house. The man, who identified himself as Pastor Jennings and said he lived across the street, explained he was watching the house for the neighbors. When asked for identification, Jennings became agitated and refused to provide any. Other officers arrived, and after Jennings repeatedly refused to further identify himself, he was arrested and charged with obstructing a governmental function.After the charge was dismissed, Jennings sued the officers and the City of Childersburg in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, alleging unlawful and retaliatory arrest under federal law and false arrest under state law. The district court granted summary judgment and dismissal in favor of the officers and the City, finding that Jennings violated Alabama’s stop-and-identify statute, Ala. Code § 15-5-30, by refusing to give his complete name. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, relying on a prior interpretation of the statute that prohibited officers from demanding physical identification. On remand, the district court found the law’s interpretation uncertain and certified a question to the Supreme Court of Alabama.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that Ala. Code § 15-5-30 does not prohibit law enforcement officers, during a valid Terry stop, from requesting physical identification if a suspect gives an incomplete or unsatisfactory oral response regarding their name and address. The court clarified that suspects must provide sufficient identifying information and that failure to do so can constitute a violation of Alabama law. View "Jennings v. Smith" on Justia Law

Several Iraqi citizens detained at Abu Ghraib prison during the U.S. occupation of Iraq alleged that, between October and December 2003, they were subjected to severe abuse by military police. The plaintiffs claimed that employees of CACI Premier Technology, Inc., a contractor providing interrogation services to the U.S. military, conspired with military personnel to “soften up” detainees for interrogation, resulting in torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (CIDT). While CACI’s contract required its personnel to operate under military supervision, evidence suggested inadequate oversight and that CACI employees directed some of the abusive tactics. Plaintiffs did not allege direct physical abuse by CACI interrogators, but asserted conspiracy liability.The case was initially filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, advancing claims under both the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and state law. Over time, the plaintiffs narrowed their suit to ATS claims for torture, CIDT, and war crimes, proceeding on conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting theories. The district court dismissed some claims and parties, and after two trials—one ending in mistrial—the jury found CACI liable for conspiracy to commit torture and CIDT, awarding significant compensatory and punitive damages.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed multiple legal challenges by CACI, including justiciability, immunity, preemption, and the state secrets privilege. The court held that application of the ATS was proper because the conduct at issue occurred within U.S.-controlled territory (Abu Ghraib during the CPA regime), was actionable under universal jurisdiction principles, and enough domestic conduct was involved. The court found that conspiracy liability and corporate liability are recognized under the ATS, and rejected CACI’s defenses and challenges regarding sovereign immunity, political question doctrine, preemption, and evidentiary rulings. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment against CACI, vacated the district court’s judgment in favor of the United States on third-party claims due to sovereign immunity, and remanded with instructions to dismiss those claims. View "Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc." on Justia Law

Augustine Perez was on federal supervised release in North Carolina, subject to conditions that allowed warrantless searches of his “person and property” by probation officers. Perez moved from a residence at Teal Drive to Lawndale Drive, reporting the change as required, but retained ownership of Teal Drive and leased it to Deanna Coleman, who moved in with her daughter. About a year later, probation officers received a tip from a confidential informant that Perez was living at Teal Drive and involved in drug trafficking. Without a warrant, officers searched both Lawndale Drive and Teal Drive on the same day. At Teal Drive, Coleman objected to the search, but officers proceeded, finding cash and items they alleged were connected to drug trafficking.In the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Perez and Coleman moved to suppress the evidence from the Teal Drive search, claiming it was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion to suppress and granted summary judgment to the government, ruling that the currency found was subject to forfeiture as drug proceeds, largely relying on the evidence seized during the search.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, vacated, and remanded. The court held that a supervised release condition permitting warrantless searches of a supervisee’s “property” does not authorize the search of real property owned by the supervisee but leased and occupied by a third party. The court further held that, to lawfully search Coleman’s residence under Perez’s supervision conditions, officers needed probable cause to believe Perez resided there. The government failed to meet this standard, rendering the search of Teal Drive unconstitutional. The Fourth Circuit ordered suppression of the evidence and dismissal of the forfeiture complaint. View "US v. Perez" on Justia Law

After Volkswagen AG became the subject of a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for its use of defeat device software to evade emissions standards—a scandal widely known as “Dieselgate”—the company agreed to a plea deal with the DOJ. As part of the investigation, Volkswagen, through its law firm Jones Day, produced approximately six million documents to federal prosecutors in response to a grand jury subpoena. Lawrence Kalbers, a university professor, subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents Volkswagen provided to the DOJ during the investigation, specifically referencing materials described in Volkswagen’s 2017 Annual Report.The DOJ denied the FOIA request, citing exemptions for law enforcement records and information protected by statute, including Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which safeguards grand jury materials. Kalbers challenged this denial in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court ordered the DOJ to produce all responsive documents and a Vaughn index, later appointing a special master due to the volume of records. The special master recommended disclosure, reasoning the documents did not clearly reveal grand jury deliberations. The district court overruled DOJ and Volkswagen’s objections and ordered disclosure, prompting both parties to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that nearly all the requested documents are exempt from FOIA disclosure under Exemption 3 because they were obtained solely via a grand jury subpoena and their release would reveal matters occurring before the grand jury, thus compromising grand jury secrecy protected by Rule 6(e). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order requiring disclosure of these documents, but vacated and remanded as to four documents not marked as grand jury materials, instructing further review to determine their status. View "Kalbers v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted in North Dakota for misdemeanor Sexual Assault after entering a guilty plea to having inappropriate contact with a person and having reasonable cause to believe the contact was offensive. He was originally charged with a more serious felony, but the plea agreement stipulated a lesser offense and specifically stated he was not required to register as a sex offender under North Dakota law. After relocating to Montana, the Department of Justice informed him that, based on Montana’s interpretation of his conviction and the age of the victim alleged in the charging documents, he was required to register as a sex offender under Montana law.The Nineteenth Judicial District Court of Montana reviewed his petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to prevent the Montana DOJ from requiring registration. The court denied his petition, reasoning that the proper remedy was to register and then later petition for removal under Montana Code Annotated § 46-23-506. The District Court also concluded that the facts alleged in the North Dakota charging document, though not proved beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the appellant, were sufficient to impose the registration duty.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reversed the District Court. The Supreme Court held that a writ of prohibition was an appropriate remedy because there was no statutory or administrative process for contesting the DOJ’s determination, and registration requirements under Montana law are punitive. The Court further held that Montana courts may not rely on facts not proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant when determining registration duties. Finally, the Court concluded that the North Dakota misdemeanor Sexual Assault statute is not reasonably equivalent to the Montana sexual offense statute that triggers registration, due to the lack of an age element in the North Dakota statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Cooper v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Charles Cui was charged with bribery and related offenses after he attempted to secure the assistance of Edward Burke, a powerful Chicago alderman, in reversing a permit denial by the Chicago Department of Buildings (CDOB) regarding a pole sign at his commercial property. Cui’s financial interests were jeopardized by the permit denial, which threatened both a lucrative lease with Binny’s Beverage Depot and tax increment financing from the City. To influence Burke, Cui offered to retain Burke’s law firm for property tax appeal work, explicitly seeking Burke’s intervention in the CDOB matter.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, presided over a six-week trial in which a jury convicted Cui on all counts: bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2), violations of the Travel Act, and making false statements to the government. The district court admitted evidence over Cui’s objections, including a photoshopped photograph sent to the CDOB, and denied Cui’s post-trial motions for acquittal and a new trial. The court sentenced Cui to 32 months’ imprisonment and applied an obstruction-of-justice enhancement for failing to produce key emails in response to a grand jury subpoena.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Cui’s challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and sentencing. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, that the jury instructions correctly conveyed the law’s requirements—including the quid pro quo element and the definition of “corruptly”—and that the admission of the photoshopped photograph was not an abuse of discretion. The court also found that the sentencing enhancement and the disparity between Cui’s and Burke’s sentences were justified. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "USA v Cui" on Justia Law