Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Law enforcement officers in Albany County, Wyoming, arrested an individual who had an outstanding warrant and was found in possession of controlled substances. During the arrest, officers located his truck, had a K9 unit alert to it, and towed it to an evidence bay. After obtaining a warrant, they searched the truck and seized substances later determined not to be illegal drugs. The truck was then released by law enforcement to a towing company, where it was placed in storage pending payment of fees. The owner was not notified of this arrangement until several months later. By the time he learned of the truck’s location, storage fees had accumulated to an amount he could not pay, and the truck was eventually sold at auction. The owner asserted he never received notice that the truck could be sold to cover the fees.The District Court of Albany County heard the owner’s pro se motion for return of the truck or, alternatively, for compensation equal to its value. The State responded that it no longer had possession of the vehicle, as it had been released to the towing company and not seized for forfeiture. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion, concluding it lacked authority to order return of property it no longer possessed or to award money damages under Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and held that a court has no jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) to order the return of property or award damages when the government no longer possesses the property. The court reaffirmed that sovereign immunity bars monetary relief under this rule and that any claim for damages must proceed as a separate civil action under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. View "Bressette v. State" on Justia Law

Gregory Bonnie was serving a 144-month federal prison sentence in South Carolina, consisting of 120 months for drug trafficking convictions and a consecutive 24 months for violating supervised release, which included a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. While incarcerated, Bonnie sought to earn time credits under the First Step Act (FSA) for the 120-month portion of his sentence related to drug offenses, acknowledging that the 24-month portion for the § 924(c) conviction was disqualifying under the FSA.The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) denied Bonnie’s request, treating his consecutive sentences as a single, aggregate term of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3584(c), and finding him ineligible for FSA time credits because his aggregate sentence included a disqualifying § 924(c) conviction. After exhausting administrative remedies, Bonnie filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The district court granted summary judgment for the warden, holding that the plain text and statutory context of the FSA and § 3584(c) required aggregation of sentences, making Bonnie ineligible for FSA time credits for the entire 144-month sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo. The court held that, under the FSA and § 3584(c), the BOP must treat multiple consecutive or concurrent sentences as a single, aggregate sentence for administrative purposes, including the computation of FSA time credits. Because Bonnie’s aggregate sentence included a conviction under § 924(c), he was ineligible for FSA time credits for any portion of the sentence. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment denying Bonnie’s habeas petition. View "Bonnie v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

A federal inmate serving a 210-month sentence challenged the method used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to calculate his good conduct time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018. The inmate argued that, following the amendments, he should receive a full 54 days of good conduct time credit for the last six months of his sentence, rather than a prorated amount. The BOP, however, interpreted the amended statute to require prorating the credit for any partial year, resulting in the inmate receiving 26 days of credit for the final six months instead of 54.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the inmate’s habeas petition. The court found that the plain language of the amended statute allowed for proration of good conduct time credits for partial years. As an alternative basis, the District Court also relied on Chevron deference to uphold the BOP’s interpretation. The court rejected the inmate’s additional claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause, finding them either precluded by statute or inapplicable to the rulemaking context.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the First Step Act’s amendments, while deleting the word “prorated,” introduced language (“for each year”) that sets a rate of 54 days per year, thereby requiring proration for any partial year. The court concluded that the statute’s natural reading supports the BOP’s method of prorating credits for the last portion of a sentence. The Third Circuit also rejected the inmate’s constitutional and APA-based arguments, and found no basis for applying the rule of lenity. View "Thieme v. Warden Fort Dix FCI" on Justia Law

An attorney based in Oklahoma developed a business model to help out-of-state clients enter the state’s medical marijuana industry, which is governed by strict residency and disclosure requirements. He created a two-entity structure: one company, with nominal Oklahoma-resident owners, obtained the necessary state licenses, while a second company, owned and operated by out-of-state clients, ran the actual marijuana operations. The attorney did not disclose the true ownership structure to state authorities, and in some cases, marijuana was grown before the required state registrations were obtained. State authorities began investigating after noticing irregularities, such as multiple licenses listing the same address and repeated use of the same Oklahoma residents as owners, many of whom had little or no involvement in the businesses.Oklahoma state prosecutors charged the attorney with multiple felonies related to his business practices, including conspiracy and submitting false documents. While those charges were pending, a federal grand jury indicted him for drug conspiracy and maintaining drug-involved premises, based on the same conduct. In the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the attorney moved to enjoin his federal prosecution, arguing that a congressional appropriations rider barred the Department of Justice from spending funds to prosecute individuals complying with state medical marijuana laws. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion, finding that the attorney had not substantially complied with Oklahoma law, particularly due to nondisclosure of ownership interests and failure to obtain required registrations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the appropriations rider does bar the Department of Justice from spending funds to prosecute private individuals who comply with state medical marijuana laws. However, the court found that the attorney failed to substantially comply with Oklahoma’s requirements, so the rider did not protect him. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction. View "United States v. Stacy" on Justia Law

An individual pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offenses committed against two girls, aged thirteen and fourteen, when he was eighteen years old. The offenses included several instances of rape and indecent assault. The individual had a history of psychological diagnoses, including autism spectrum disorder. After his conviction, the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) initially classified him as a level three sex offender, which would require the highest level of public notification. The individual challenged this classification, leading to a de novo hearing before a SORB hearing examiner.At the hearing, the examiner found by clear and convincing evidence that the individual posed a moderate risk of reoffense and a moderate degree of danger, resulting in a reclassification to level two. The examiner considered several statutory and regulatory factors, including the number of victims, the nature and location of the offenses, and the individual’s psychological profile. The examiner also considered the fact that the individual committed multiple offenses, including repeated offenses against one victim, as relevant to the degree of dangerousness. The examiner determined that Internet publication of the individual’s registration information would serve a public safety interest. The individual sought judicial review in the Massachusetts Superior Court, which affirmed the SORB’s decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case after transferring it from the Appeals Court. The court held that the SORB hearing examiner did not err in considering the individual’s multiple offenses as relevant to dangerousness under regulatory factor thirty-seven, even though such consideration is limited under factor two, which addresses risk of reoffense. The court also declined to find the application of factor thirty-seven unconstitutional due to a lack of empirical evidence, given the statutory mandate to consider the number of offenses. The court affirmed the classification as a level two offender and the requirement for Internet dissemination of registration information. View "Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board" on Justia Law

A government agency responsible for marketing hydroelectric power operated a warehouse in Colorado, where an employee, Jared Newman, orchestrated a fraudulent procurement scheme from 2014 to 2017. Newman arranged for the agency to purchase supplies from vendors owned by friends and family, including the defendant, who owned two such companies. The vendors submitted invoices for goods that were never delivered, received payments from the agency, and then funneled most of the money back to Newman, keeping a portion as a commission. The defendant received nearly $180,000 through 59 fraudulent payments, writing checks back to Newman and taking steps to conceal the scheme.A grand jury indicted the defendant in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on six counts of wire fraud, each corresponding to a specific transfer, and sought forfeiture of all proceeds. At trial, the government introduced evidence of a co-participant’s guilty plea and the district court instructed the jury that it could infer the defendant’s knowledge of the fraud if he was deliberately ignorant. The defendant was convicted on all counts. The district court limited forfeiture to the six charged transfers, totaling about $20,000, but ordered restitution for the full amount received, for which the defendant and Newman were jointly and severally liable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the co-participant’s guilty plea, as it was used to assess credibility and not as substantive evidence of guilt, and the jury was properly instructed on its limited use. The court also held that, because there was sufficient evidence of the defendant’s actual knowledge, any error in the deliberate ignorance instruction did not warrant reversal. On the government’s cross-appeal, the Tenth Circuit vacated the forfeiture order, holding that forfeiture should include all proceeds obtained through the fraudulent scheme, not just the charged transactions, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Cline" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who, after responding to an online advertisement posted by an undercover police officer posing as two twenty-year-old women, learned that the supposed women were actually fifteen years old. Despite this, he continued to arrange a meeting for sexual services in exchange for money, drove from Massachusetts to Rhode Island, and was arrested upon arrival. He was found in possession of cocaine and ultimately pleaded nolo contendere in Rhode Island to indecent solicitation of a child, receiving a suspended sentence and probation. The individual also had a prior history of criminal justice involvement, including violations of abuse prevention orders and drug-related charges.Following his conviction, the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) issued a preliminary determination classifying him as a level two sex offender. After a de novo hearing, a SORB hearing examiner confirmed this classification, applying several risk-elevating factors, including targeting children, stranger victims, substance abuse, criminal justice contact, hostility towards women, and number of victims. The individual challenged the classification in the Massachusetts Superior Court, arguing that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence, particularly contesting the application of certain risk factors. The Superior Court denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings and affirmed the SORB decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case after transferring it from the Appeals Court. The court held that the hearing examiner did not abuse discretion in applying or weighing the challenged risk factors. However, the court found that the hearing examiner’s written decision was ambiguous regarding whether the individual’s information should be disseminated to the public, which is essential for determining the proper classification level. As a result, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded the matter to SORB for a clear, written conclusion on both the need for dissemination and the classification level. View "Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 528042 v. Sex Offender Registry Board" on Justia Law

A former Massachusetts State Police trooper retired in March 2018 after a 21-year career. While assigned to overtime patrol programs funded by federal grants, he falsely reported working over 700 overtime hours in 2015 and 2016, receiving more than $50,000 in unearned pay. He attempted to conceal his conduct by submitting falsified motor vehicle citations. In July 2018, he pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of embezzlement from an agency receiving federal funds, was sentenced to three months in prison, one year of supervised release, and ordered to pay restitution.Following his conviction, the State Board of Retirement suspended his pension and held a hearing. The hearing officer recommended, and the board adopted, a finding that under G. L. c. 32, § 15 (4), the plaintiff and his beneficiaries were not entitled to any retirement benefits due to his conviction for an offense involving violation of laws applicable to his office. The board ordered the return of his accumulated contributions, less certain deductions. The plaintiff sought judicial review in the Massachusetts District Court, raising constitutional challenges under Article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, arguing the forfeiture was an excessive fine and cruel or unusual punishment. The District Court judge entered judgment for the retirement board.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case on certiorari. It held that the pension forfeiture constituted a fine under Article 26 but was not excessive, adopting the United States Supreme Court’s multifactor analysis for excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment. The court also held that, even assuming Article 26’s cruel or unusual punishment provision applied to fines, the forfeiture was not cruel or unusual. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment and the retirement board’s decision. View "Raftery v. State Board of Retirement" on Justia Law

Rodney Owen Skurdal, who is not a licensed attorney, attempted to represent Ronald Trow during Trow’s initial appearance in a criminal case in Yellowstone County Justice Court. Judge Jeanne Walker, presiding over the case, ordered Skurdal to vacate the defendant’s table and did not permit him to represent Trow, as Skurdal was not a member of the bar. Trow subsequently entered a plea of not guilty, and a public defender was appointed. Skurdal then filed a lawsuit in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Yellowstone County against Judge Walker, later joined by Yellowstone County as a defendant, alleging violations of his and Trow’s rights and advancing various arguments, including those associated with the “Sovereign Citizen” movement.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court dismissed Skurdal’s complaint with prejudice, holding that Judge Walker and Yellowstone County were protected by absolute judicial immunity for actions taken in the course of judicial duties. The court also found that Skurdal, as a non-lawyer, had no statutory or constitutional right to represent another individual in a criminal proceeding in Montana. The court denied leave to amend the complaint, finding that any amendment would be futile due to the immunity defense.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court held that Montana law does not permit non-lawyers to represent others in criminal cases, and that Judge Walker’s actions were judicial acts performed within her jurisdiction, entitling her and Yellowstone County to absolute immunity from suit. The Court also concluded that the District Court did not err in denying leave to amend, as further amendment could not overcome the immunity bar. View "Skurdal v. Walker" on Justia Law

In August 2019, a Jersey City Police Department (JCPD) lieutenant fired a shotgun during an argument with his girlfriend, leading to his arrest and charges of terroristic threats and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. He pled guilty to a lesser charge and completed a pre-trial intervention program. The JCPD conducted an internal affairs (IA) investigation, resulting in a ninety-day suspension for the lieutenant. Plaintiff States Newsroom Inc. sought access to the IA report under the common law.The trial court denied the plaintiff's request, citing the expungement statute and an expungement order that barred the release of information related to the lieutenant’s arrest and criminal case. The court also ordered the entire docket to remain sealed. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded, instructing the trial court to apply the common law balancing test from Rivera v. Union County Prosecutors’ Office and to analyze the sealing of court documents individually.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the expungement statute does not categorically bar the release of IA reports but does prohibit the release of any information related to the lieutenant’s arrest, conviction, or criminal case disposition. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment with modifications, remanding the case to the trial court to redact such information from the IA report and then conduct the common law balancing test on the remainder. If the court finds that the interests favoring disclosure outweigh confidentiality concerns, it must further redact information as specified in Rivera before releasing the report. The Court also upheld the Appellate Division’s direction regarding the sealing of court documents. View "States Newsroom Inc. v. City of Jersey City" on Justia Law