Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit denied a motion for a stay of a preliminary injunction that enjoins certain applications of a public health order issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Alabama. The public health order, published on March 27, 2020, mandated the postponement of all dental, medical, or surgical procedures. Plaintiffs, abortion providers in Alabama, sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing enforcement of the public health order as applied to pre-viability abortions. After the district court issued a TRO, the state filed a motion to dissolve the TRO and included clarifications. The district court subsequently adopted the state's clarifications and issued an April 3rd order, staying the TRO in part. The state later changed its interpretation again. Based on the evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing, the district court determined that the medical restrictions, as read pursuant to the state's earlier interpretation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment.The court held that the state has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal or that it will be irreparably injured absent a stay. In this case, because of the state's shifting interpretations of the March 27th and April 3rd orders, the district court had ample authority to issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo and prevent the state from reverting to its initial and more restrictive interpretations.The district court considered Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Smith v. Avino, but read them together with cases holding that the Fourteenth Amendment generally protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. Applying both the Jacobson framework and the Casey undue-burden test together, the district court concluded that the April 3rd order imposed a plain, palpable invasion of rights, yet had no real or substantial relation to the state's goals. The court held that the district court was permitted to reach this conclusion and to issue a status quo preliminary injunction to ensure that the state did not deviate from the Alabama State Health Officer's interpretation of the April 3rd order at the preliminary injunction hearing. View "Robinson v. Planned Parenthood Southeast Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants-appellants A.C. (Father) and K.C. (Mother) were the parents of G.I., G.A. and J.C. Father, with Mother joining, appealed the juvenile court’s dispositional order removing G.I., J.C., and G.A. (collectively, the children) from Father’s and Mother’s (collectively, Parents) custody. In 2019, plaintiff-respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) received an immediate response referral alleging general neglect of the children by Mother. It was reported that the home was filthy, the floors were covered in feces and urine, a majority of the food in the refrigerator was expired, the food in the cabinets had mold, and the home smelled of marijuana. When a social worker arrived at the home, Mother had already been taken into custody, and she was having suicidal disclosures. Law enforcement was at the home with the children because Father was deployed and no one was available to care for the children. Following a hearing, the juvenile court found true: (1) Mother failed to provide adequate care and shelter for the children because the home was found to be filthy, creating a hazard due to dirty clothing, trash, feces and lack of provisions, which placed the children at substantial risk of serious physical harm; (2) Mother had an untreated substance abuse issue that prevented her from being able to adequately parent the children, and marijuana was within reach of the children; (3) Mother had been diagnosed with ADHD, anxiety, depression and other mental health issues, Mother had failed to take medication since it was stolen, and if her mental health issues were left untreated, she placed the children at risk of serious physical harm; (4) and Father failed to protect the children from Mother’s behavior, and he knew or should have known the dangers to which they were exposed while under her care. An allegation that Father was deployed and unable to make appropriate arrangements for the children was found not true. After review of the juvenile court record, the Court of Appeal was satisfied substantial evidence was presented to support removal of the children from the parents' custody. View "In re G.C." on Justia Law

Mayle, a self-proclaimed Satanist, is a follower of The Law of Thelema, a set of beliefs developed in the early 1900s by Aleister Crowley. As part of this religion, Mayle participates in what he calls “sex magick rituals” that he believes violate Illinois laws forbidding adultery and fornication. He claims that he reasonably fears prosecution for practicing his beliefs. He also says that he wants to marry more than one person at the same time and that if he were to do so, he would violate an Illinois law against bigamy. Mayle’s first challenge to the laws was dismissed. Mayle did not appeal, but the next year he filed another suit challenging the same statutes.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the second suit, first rejecting a challenge to the district court’s grant of a two-day extension to allow Mayle to file a notice of appeal. Mayle’s bigamy claim was precluded by the 2017 final judgment on the merits. Mayle lacked standing to challenge the state’s adultery and fornication laws because he still showed no reasonable fear of prosecution; those laws are no longer enforced. View "Mayle v. Illinois" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted a writ of mandamus directing vacatur of the district court's issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against executive order GA-09 as applied to abortion procedures. In order to preserve critical medical resources during the escalating COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Texas issued GA-09, which postpones non-essential surgeries and procedures until 11:59 p.m. on April 21, 2020.The court held that the drastic and extraordinary remedy of mandamus was warranted in this case because the district court ignored the framework governing emergency public health measures, like GA-09, in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); the district court wrongly declared GA-09 an "outright ban" on previability abortions and exempted all abortion procedures from its scope, rather than apply the Jacobson framework to decide whether GA-09 lacks a "real or substantial relation" to the public health crisis or whether it is "beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion" of the right to abortion; the district court failed to apply the undue-burden analysis in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 857 (1992), and thus failed to balance GA-09's temporary burdens on abortion against its benefits in thwarting a public health crisis; and the district court usurped the state's authority to craft emergency health measures, substituting instead its own view of the efficacy of applying GA-09 to abortion. Therefore, the court found that the requirements for a writ of mandamus are satisfied in light of the extraordinary nature of these errors, the escalating spread of COVID-19, and the state's critical interest in protecting the public health. View "In re: Gregg Abbott" on Justia Law

M.J. (Mother) appeals the order entered following the jurisdiction and disposition hearing in the juvenile dependency case of her minor child, D.S. D.S. was living with his paternal aunt (Aunt), later determined to be his presumed mother. The Agency alleged D.S.'s father was deceased, Mother had previously caused the death of another minor, and Aunt was no longer able to care for D.S. As discussed in the detention report, Mother's parental rights were terminated after she was charged and convicted of killing D.S.'s brother. D.S. had been placed in the care of his father, who subsequently died suddenly in March 2018. Aunt assumed care for D.S., but reported to the Agency that she could not currently care for D.S. due to her own health issues. In a report prepared for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the Agency detailed its inquiry into whether the Indian Child Welfare Act applied to the proceedings. The Agency stated: (1) Mother denied having any Indian heritage; (2) D.S.'s great-grandmother stated that her great-grandmother (D.S.'s great-great-great-great-grandmother) was "affiliated with the Sioux and Blackfeet tribes;" (3) Aunt denied that she or [her grandmother] have ever lived on an Indian reservation, have a tribal enrollment number or identification card indicating membership/citizenship in an Indian tribe; and (4) Aunt denied she has any reason to believe D.S. was an Indian child. Mother contended the court erred by not complying with the inquiry provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Court of Appeal concluded after review that the juvenile court's finding that the Agency completed its further inquiry was supported by the evidence. Similarly, there is substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's conclusion that "there is no reason to believe or know that [ICWA] applies." View "In re D.S." on Justia Law

This proceeding concerned three children, ages seven, four, and two. Their parents had an extensive history of drug abuse, treatments, and relapses. After one such relapse in 2018, after a hypodermic needle was found under a sofa cushion in the family home, Orange County Social Services Agency ("SSA") petitioned to take the children into protective custody.Both mother and father consistently drug tested over the protracted course of the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, which did not finish up until late July 2019, ten months after the children were removed. Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5 (b)(13), allowed a court to bypass reunification services to parents if they had “a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and [have] resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition . . . .” This appeal concerned the meaning of the word “resist.” The parents in this case indisputably had the sort of history that satisfied the first condition of subdivision (b)(13). They contended, however, and the court found, that they had not resisted a court-ordered treatment program: they simply relapsed. SSA and the children appealed, contending that the parents’ extensive history of relapses irrefutably demonstrated so-called passive resistance. The Court of Appeal found it was "compelled" to break with the line of cases that interpreted subdivision (b)(13) as encompassing passive resistance, where passive resistance simply means relapse. "The bypass provision was intended for parents who refuse to participate meaningfully in a court-ordered drug treatment program, not parents who slip up on their road to recovery." The Court determined the parents her did not "resist" treatment; thus the trial court correctly offered them reunification services. View "In re B.E." on Justia Law

T.P.-G. appealed the termination of her parental rights. On appeal, T.P.-G. argued she was denied due process and the juvenile court erred by denying her request to appear by telephone. A petition for involuntary termination of parental rights to a child, A.P.D.S.P.-G., was filed in the juvenile court. After a trial date was set, the mother, T.P.-G, filed a request to appear by phone because she lived in Wisconsin. The court denied the request. At trial, counsel stated T.P.-G. wished to contest the termination, regardless of whether she was able to attend the trial. Counsel stated T.P.-G. regretted being unable to attend, but T.P.-G. was saving her money to travel to see A.P.D.S.P.-G. for his birthday. After trial, the juvenile court found A.P.D.S.P.-G. was a deprived and abandoned child and terminated T.P.-G.’s parental rights to the child. Finding no due process violation, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed termination. View "Interest of A.P.D.S.P.-G." on Justia Law

Mother, M.G., and Father, A.G., both petitioned for an extraordinary writ in the dependency cases of their children, A.G. and C.G. They challenged the juvenile court’s order after a contested review hearing. The court terminated family reunification services for Mother and Father and set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing for March 19, 2020. Mother and Father assert the court erred by setting the .26 hearing because there was an insufficient evidentiary showing the children would be at risk in their care. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the parents that Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) failed to present sufficient evidence the children would be at risk if returned to their parents. View "M.G. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her five minor children, holding that the trial court's findings supported its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to the children pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(3).The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect, failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to the children's removal from her care, failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the children's care while they were in the custody of the Department of Social Services (DSS), and dependency. The court further concluded that terminating Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights for failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the children's care while they were in DSS custody. View "In re J.M." on Justia Law

In an expedited appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, a magistrate court terminated Jane Doe’s (“Mother”) parental rights after finding clear and convincing evidence that Mother neglected her children, K.M. and R.M., and that termination was in the best interests of the children. Mother did not appeal the magistrate’s finding that she neglected her children. She only appealed the magistrate court’s finding that termination was in the best interests of the children. The magistrate court found Mother’s testimony lacked credibility and relied on other witnesses to find that Mother had neglected her children under Idaho Code section 16-2005(1)(b) because Mother had failed to reunify with her children and had failed to comply with her case plan. According to Mother, termination was not in the best interests of her children because Mother had a close bond with her children, K.M. was not responding well to foster care, there was no evidence of violence between Mother and her children, and Mother tried to the best of her ability to comply with her case plan. The Supreme Court found substantial evidence supported the magistrate court's finding that termination was in the children's best interests, and affirmed. View "Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe (2019-27)" on Justia Law