Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A Saudi military officer, Mohammed Saeed Al-Shamrani, who was a member of the Royal Saudi Air Force, carried out a mass shooting at the Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida in December 2019, resulting in the deaths of three U.S. servicemembers and injuries to several others. The officer had a documented history of expressing extremist and anti-American views on social media prior to his arrival in the United States for flight training, which was part of a broader U.S.-Saudi military training program. The victims and their families brought suit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, alleging various tort and contract claims, including gross negligence in vetting and sending Al-Shamrani to the U.S., failure to supervise, vicarious liability for his actions, support for terrorism, and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed all claims, finding that the plaintiffs’ allegations were facially insufficient to overcome Saudi Arabia’s sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). The district court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery, concluding that the complaint did not plausibly allege facts that would support an exception to sovereign immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court held that most claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as they either involved discretionary functions, acts of omission, or failed to establish proximate cause or a waiver of immunity. However, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims based on grossly negligent acts of commission by Saudi Arabia in vetting, hiring, and sending Al-Shamrani to the United States were facially sufficient under JASTA to survive a jurisdictional challenge. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these claims. View "Watson v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" on Justia Law

During a government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it would not provide November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, affecting millions of Americans who rely on these funds for food. Despite having approximately $6 billion in contingency funds appropriated by Congress for emergencies, USDA stated it would not use these funds, arguing they were unavailable once regular appropriations lapsed. Plaintiffs, including nonprofits, local governments, a union, and a food retailer, filed suit, alleging that USDA’s suspension of benefits was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring USDA to provide either full or partial November SNAP payments by specified dates. The government chose to provide partial payments but failed to do so in a timely manner, as many recipients would not receive benefits by the court’s deadline. The district court found the government had not complied with its order, both by failing to resolve administrative burdens and by not ensuring timely disbursement. As a result, the court ordered USDA to make full November SNAP payments, including by using funds from the Section 32 fund in combination with contingency funds. The government appealed and sought a stay of the district court’s order.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the government’s request for a stay pending appeal. The court held that the government had not met its burden to justify a stay, finding it had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or that irreparable harm would result from compliance. The court emphasized the immediate and substantial harm to SNAP recipients if benefits were withheld and denied the government’s motion for a stay. View "Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins" on Justia Law

A corporation owned by a federally recognized Indian tribe, along with several tribal officials, was alleged by the State of California to have violated state cigarette tax laws and regulations. The corporation manufactured and distributed cigarettes in California, including to non-tribal consumers, without collecting or remitting required state excise taxes or payments under the Master Settlement Agreement. California claimed that the corporation and its officials distributed contraband cigarettes not listed on the state’s approved directory and failed to comply with shipping, recordkeeping, and tax collection requirements under the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act). Despite warnings and being placed on a federal non-compliance list, the corporation continued its operations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considered the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found that the corporation, as an arm of the tribe, was shielded by tribal sovereign immunity and dismissed claims against it. However, the court allowed claims for injunctive relief against the individual tribal officials in their official capacities to proceed, holding that the Ex parte Young doctrine permitted such relief under the PACT Act. The court also denied the officials’ claims of qualified immunity for personal capacity claims, reasoning that qualified immunity did not apply to enforcement actions brought by a state under a federal statute.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Ninth Circuit held that the PACT Act does not preclude Ex parte Young actions for prospective injunctive relief against tribal officials, as the Act does not limit who may be sued or the types of relief available, nor does it contain a sufficiently detailed remedial scheme to displace Ex parte Young. The court also held that qualified immunity does not shield tribal officials from California’s claims for civil penalties and money damages under the PACT Act. View "STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. DEL ROSA" on Justia Law

Three organizations—Lake Bomoseen Preservation Trust, Lake Bomoseen Association, and SOLitude Lake Management—jointly applied for a permit from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to use pesticides in Lake Bomoseen to control an invasive species. Lindsey Waterhouse, who does not own property on the lake but lives nearby and is a board member of one of the applicant organizations, supported the application during public comment. ANR denied the permit, finding the proposed pesticide use posed unacceptable risks to the environment.After the denial, Mr. Waterhouse filed an appeal to the Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division, on his own behalf as a “person aggrieved.” None of the permit applicants appealed the denial. The Environmental Division questioned whether Mr. Waterhouse, who was not an applicant, could maintain the appeal in the absence of the actual applicants. The court also addressed motions from the Lake Bomoseen Preservation Trust to intervene and to be represented by Mr. Waterhouse, a nonattorney, but denied both, finding he was not authorized or qualified to represent the organization.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the Environmental Division’s dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Waterhouse lacked standing to appeal because he did not demonstrate a particularized injury distinct from the general public and could not show that the court could redress his alleged injury, especially since the permit applicants were not pursuing the application. The Court also concluded that Mr. Waterhouse lacked standing to challenge the denial of the motions on behalf of the Lake Bomoseen Preservation Trust, as he was not authorized to represent the organization’s interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Division’s decision. View "In re Lake Bomoseen Association and Lake Bomoseen Preservation Trust Denial" on Justia Law

In May 2023, a partial collapse of the Davenport Hotel apartment building resulted in three deaths and multiple injuries to individuals and property. Numerous lawsuits were filed against various parties, including the building’s owners, engineers, and the City of Davenport, as well as two city employees. These cases were consolidated in the Iowa District Court for Scott County. The City defendants sought dismissal of the claims against them, arguing that the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act’s qualified immunity provisions shielded them from liability and that the plaintiffs’ petition did not meet the Act’s heightened pleading requirements. They also asserted that the public-duty doctrine barred the claims, as any duty owed was to the public at large rather than to the individual plaintiffs.The Iowa District Court for Scott County denied the City defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court determined that the qualified immunity provisions of Iowa Code § 670.4A applied to common law tort claims but found that the plaintiffs’ petition satisfied the heightened pleading requirements. The court also rejected the City defendants’ argument that the public-duty doctrine barred the suit. The City defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity under the immediate appeal provision in § 670.4A and separately sought interlocutory review of the public-duty doctrine issue, which was denied.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed only the qualified immunity issue, concluding that the protections of Iowa Code § 670.4A do not apply to common law tort claims such as negligence and nuisance. The court held that the statute’s language, borrowed from federal law, was intended to apply only to constitutional or statutory claims, not to common law torts. As a result, the appeal was dismissed because the qualified immunity provisions did not apply to the claims asserted. View "In re Davenport Hotel Building Collapse" on Justia Law

A petitioner sought to file a referendum challenging a specific section of a recently enacted state law concerning student and parental rights in public education. The law included provisions aimed at promoting student safety, preventing discrimination, and ensuring parental notification in certain circumstances. The legislature included an emergency clause in the bill, declaring it necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety, which made the law effective immediately. When the petitioner submitted the referendum to the Secretary of State, the Secretary refused to process it, citing the emergency clause as rendering the legislation exempt from the referendum process under the state constitution.After the Secretary’s refusal, the petitioner filed an original action in the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary to process the referendum and to challenge the validity of the emergency clause. The court granted expedited review due to the time-sensitive nature of referendum signature collection. The petitioner argued that the Secretary had a mandatory duty to process all properly filed referenda, regardless of the presence of an emergency clause, and that the validity of such a clause was a judicial question.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that the Secretary of State does not have a mandatory duty to process a referendum on legislation that is, on its face, constitutionally exempt from referendum due to a valid emergency clause. The court further found that the legislature’s declaration of emergency in this case was valid, as the record and legislative history supported the need for immediate action. As a result, the petition for a writ of mandamus was denied. View "Eyman v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

A shift supervisor at a coffee shop in Ann Arbor, Michigan, led efforts to organize a union at her workplace. She was a prominent organizer, engaging in various activities such as wearing union buttons, speaking to customers about unionization, and attending a labor board hearing. Several months into the campaign, she was terminated by her employer, who cited her violation of a company policy requiring at least two employees to be present in the café. The supervisor had left a barista alone at the store at the end of her shift without notifying management, which the company claimed was the reason for her discharge.After her termination, Workers United filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging that the discharge was motivated by anti-union animus. An Administrative Law Judge found in favor of the union, concluding that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual and that the discharge was unlawfully motivated. The NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision and expanded the remedy, ordering the employer to compensate the supervisor not only for lost earnings and benefits but also for any “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” resulting from the discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case on the NLRB’s application for enforcement of its order. The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that the supervisor’s discharge was motivated by anti-union animus and thus constituted an unfair labor practice. However, the court determined that the NLRB exceeded its statutory authority under the National Labor Relations Act by awarding compensation for “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” beyond lost earnings and benefits. The court granted enforcement of the unfair labor practice finding but vacated the expanded remedy and remanded for further proceedings. View "National Labor Relations Board v. Starbucks Corp." 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

Mark and Jane Thompson, residents of Aiken County and the City of Aiken, paid road maintenance fees levied by both the county and city for several years. After the City of Aiken rescinded its fee in 2021 and agreed to reimburse fees paid after that date, the Thompsons filed suit against various city and county officials and entities. They sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinances imposing the fees were invalid, reimbursement of unlawfully collected fees, damages under section 8-21-30 of the South Carolina Code, and relief for alleged violations of their constitutional rights.The case was first heard in the Circuit Court for Aiken County. The Thompsons voluntarily dismissed some claims and parties before and during the hearing. The trial court ultimately dismissed the remaining claims, finding that the South Carolina Revenue Procedures Act (RPA) deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction, that section 12-60-80(C) barred class actions against political subdivisions, that section 8-21-30 did not apply to the road maintenance fees or the actions of the county treasurer, and that sovereign immunity barred the unjust enrichment claim. The constitutional claim was dismissed by stipulation. The Thompsons appealed, and the Supreme Court of South Carolina certified the appeal before the Court of Appeals could rule.The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the road maintenance fees at issue were not “taxes” under the RPA, so the RPA did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the individual or class claims. The catchall provision of section 12-60-80(C) does not bar class actions against political subdivisions unless the claim concerns value-based property taxes. The court affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment, section 8-21-30, and constitutional claims, but reversed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment claim and remanded for further proceedings on that claim, both individually and as a class. View "Thompson v. Killian" on Justia Law

The plaintiff resided at an apartment complex with his son, who was arrested for aggravated armed robbery by the local police department. After the arrest, the police informed the apartment management, which then evicted both the plaintiff and his son based on a lease provision prohibiting criminal conduct. The plaintiff sought information about his son’s arrest from the city and police department under the Texas Public Information Act, but his request was denied after the city consulted the Texas Attorney General and invoked a law-enforcement exception.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the plaintiff filed suit against the city, the police department, the apartment complex, a debt collection agency, and the Texas Attorney General, alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Texas law. All defendants either appeared, filed answers, or moved to dismiss. The plaintiff moved for default judgment against each defendant, but the district court denied those motions and granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. On appeal, the plaintiff only challenged the denial of default judgment, as he did not brief arguments regarding the dismissals and thus forfeited them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed only the denial of default judgment for abuse of discretion. The court held that default judgment was not warranted because the city, police department, and debt collector had all appeared or answered, and the Attorney General had not been properly served. The court also found that arguments regarding attorney conflict and judicial bias were either forfeited or unsupported. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of default judgment. View "Clark v. City of Pasadena" on Justia Law