Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) brought an action against Townstone Financial, Inc. and its CEO, Barry Sturner, alleging that they discouraged black prospective applicants from applying for mortgage loans, violating Regulation B of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The CFPB cited several statements made by Townstone on their radio show that it claimed would discourage black applicants. These statements included derogatory comments about predominantly black areas and other racially insensitive remarks. The CFPB also provided statistical evidence showing that Townstone received fewer mortgage applications from black applicants compared to its peers.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Townstone's motion to dismiss. The court held that the ECOA does not authorize liability for discouraging prospective applicants, focusing on the ECOA’s definition of "applicant" as someone who has applied for credit. The court concluded that the ECOA’s protections do not extend to prospective applicants who have not yet applied for credit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the ECOA, when read as a whole, does authorize the imposition of liability for discouraging prospective applicants. The court found that the ECOA’s broad purpose of preventing discrimination in credit transactions includes actions taken before an application is submitted. The court also noted that the ECOA’s text and legislative history support the interpretation that discouraging prospective applicants is prohibited. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Townstone Financial, Inc." on Justia Law

Cassandra Socha, a patrol officer with the Joliet Police Department (JPD), sent a text message to her neighbor criticizing her for testifying in the criminal trial of Socha’s boyfriend. A prosecutor recommended that Sergeant Edward Grizzle secure a search warrant for Socha’s cell phone, which he did, obtaining authority to search for any and all data related to electronic communications. Socha turned over her phone, expressing concerns about personal content. JPD detectives used forensic software to extract all data from her phone. Rumors later surfaced that explicit content from her phone had been seen by JPD members, with two detectives admitting to viewing such content.Socha sued the City of Joliet, Sgt. Grizzle, and others, bringing multiple claims under federal and Illinois law. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to Sgt. Grizzle on the § 1983 claim, finding he was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also granted summary judgment to the City on the intrusion upon seclusion claim, rather than relinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over the Illinois law claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that Sgt. Grizzle was entitled to qualified immunity and affirmed the summary judgment on the § 1983 claim. However, the court disagreed with the district court on the intrusion upon seclusion claim, concluding that a reasonable jury could find that Detective McKinney accessed Socha’s photograph intentionally and without authorization. Therefore, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment on that claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court also noted that the district court should decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim on remand. View "Socha v. City of Joliet" on Justia Law

James Morell, a retired research attorney for the Orange County Superior Court, was entitled to a pension under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL). The dispute arose over whether the $3,500 Optional Benefit Program (OBP) payments he received should be included in the calculation of his pension. The OBP allowed attorneys to allocate the $3,500 to various benefits or receive it as taxable cash. Morell allocated portions to a healthcare reimbursement account and cash. The Orange County Employees’ Retirement System (OCERS) excluded these payments from his pension calculation, leading to prolonged litigation.The Los Angeles County Superior Court initially ruled in favor of Morell, ordering OCERS to reconsider its decision without relying on Resolution 90-1551, which OCERS argued required the exclusion of OBP payments. The court found that the resolution had been invalidated and that Morell could not waive his argument that OCERS’ calculation contravened CERL through a settlement agreement.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court concluded that Resolution 90-1551, which adopted the provisions of the now-repealed Government Code section 31460.1, remained valid due to a savings clause in Senate Bill 193. This clause preserved actions taken by counties under section 31460.1 before its repeal. The court found that Morell had elected to participate in the OBP and that the payments reflected amounts exceeding his salary.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with directions to deny Morell’s petition. The court held that Resolution 90-1551 was still valid and that OCERS correctly excluded the OBP payments from Morell’s pension calculation. View "Morell v. Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employees' Retirement System" on Justia Law

The case involves Lion Elastomers, a synthetic rubber manufacturer, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Lion Elastomers had been found guilty of unfair labor practices by the NLRB for threatening, disciplining, and discharging an employee, Joseph Colone, for engaging in protected activities. The NLRB applied the Atlantic Steel standard to assess whether Colone's behavior lost its protected status. However, before the appeal of the Board’s decision had been briefed, the NLRB issued a new interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in a case called General Motors, which overruled Atlantic Steel. The NLRB then sought a remand to apply this new interpretation to the Lion Elastomers case.The case was remanded to the NLRB by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, instead of applying the new interpretation from General Motors as expected, the NLRB used the remand proceeding to overrule General Motors and return to the Atlantic Steel standard. Lion Elastomers argued that the NLRB exceeded the scope of the remand and violated its due-process rights during the remand proceeding.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Lion Elastomers. The court found that the NLRB had exceeded the scope of the remand by not applying the General Motors standard as expected. The court also found that the NLRB had violated Lion Elastomers's due-process rights by not giving the company an opportunity to be heard before deciding to overturn General Motors. The court vacated the NLRB's decision and remanded the case back to the NLRB, instructing it to apply the General Motors standard to this case. View "Lion Elastomers v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Shanita Terrell, alleges that two deputies from the Harris County Sheriff’s Office forced her into a patrol car, and one of them sexually assaulted her. The deputies were off-duty but were in uniform and using patrol vehicles while working side jobs at a bar. Terrell woke up the next morning at home with pain in her vaginal area and no memory of having sex. A DNA test revealed that semen in her underwear matched one of the deputies, Michael Hines. Hines was later charged with sexually assaulting Terrell.Terrell sued Deputy Hines, Deputy Mark Cannon, Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, and Harris County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed her claims against Cannon, Gonzalez, and Harris County for failing to state a claim. Terrell appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Terrell failed to establish that Deputy Cannon violated a clearly established constitutional right. She also failed to allege the type of pattern of deliberate indifference required to establish liability for the County or its Sheriff. The court also dismissed Terrell's supervisory and municipal liability claims against Sheriff Gonzalez and Harris County, respectively. The court concluded that Terrell's allegations were insufficient to show a failure-to-train policy or a widespread pattern of misconduct. View "Terrell v. Harris County" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Benjamin Ramirez, who, on behalf of a putative class, sued the Director and the Treasurer of the Missouri Department of Revenue in their official capacities. Ramirez had resolved criminal charges against him by pleading guilty and paying court costs, including certain mandatory surcharges. These surcharges were then paid to various funds, as authorized by Missouri statute. Ramirez alleged that the Director and the Treasurer received payment of, collected, and deposited the surcharges in and otherwise managed these funds. He claimed a single count of unjust enrichment and asserted the statutes authorizing the surcharges violate a section of the Missouri Constitution.The Director and the Treasurer moved for summary judgment, asserting that Ramirez’s suit is barred by sovereign immunity and the statutes authorizing the surcharges do not violate the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court sustained the motion, concluding the statutes authorizing the surcharges do not violate the Missouri Constitution. Ramirez appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The court held that sovereign immunity, a common law judicial doctrine barring suit against a government or public entity, applied to Ramirez's claim for unjust enrichment. The court noted that sovereign immunity is the default rule in all suits against the state and applies to non-tort claims. The court found that the state had not waived its sovereign immunity through express statutory consent or a recognized common law exception. Therefore, Ramirez's unjust enrichment suit against the Director and the Treasurer was barred by sovereign immunity. View "Ramirez vs. Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys' & Circuit Attorneys' Retirement System" on Justia Law

The case involves Raymond Sefakor Yao Azumah, a Ghanaian national who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2010. After a trip to Ghana in 2014, Azumah was deemed inadmissible due to an intervening embezzlement conviction. Despite this, the government paroled Azumah into the country and initiated removal proceedings against him. These proceedings were later dismissed, and Azumah applied for citizenship. However, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his application, arguing that Azumah was statutorily ineligible because he was not “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” upon his return to the United States in 2014. The district court affirmed this denial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the lower court's decision. The court noted that Azumah was indeed “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” at all relevant times, including 2010, 2014, and when he sought citizenship, because he had the status of a legal permanent resident of the United States. The court did not interpret the agency regulation to impose upon Azumah the additional burden of showing that he was “lawfully admitted” rather than paroled when he returned to the United States in 2014. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Azumah v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

Three Chinese individuals invested in a project to improve Philadelphia’s transit infrastructure as part of an effort to obtain EB-5 visas, which are visas for foreign investors who create jobs in the United States. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved their visa applications. However, due to the oversubscription of the EB-5 visa program, the investors were waiting in line for visas to become available. In 2022, Congress changed the eligibility requirements for EB-5 visas, creating a new category of “reserved” EB-5 visas for foreigners who invest in “infrastructure projects”. The investors believed that they should be eligible for the new “reserved” visas based on their past investments in infrastructure. They sued the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS, arguing that previous investments in already-approved infrastructure-focused projects should be eligible for reserved EB-5 visas. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the government had taken no final agency action that may be challenged at this time.The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court agreed with the lower court that the arguments made by the appellants were premature. The court found that the statements made by USCIS in a Q&A and a policy manual merely clarified the existing process for seeking an immigration benefit and did not constitute final agency action. The court also noted that the appellants were not precluded from applying for reserved EB-5 visas. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision of the district court, dismissing the appellants' claims for lack of finality under the Administrative Procedure Act. View "Delaware Valley Regional Center, LLC v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The case involves the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Campaign Legal Center, and the political action committee Correct the Record. The Campaign Legal Center alleged that Correct the Record coordinated with Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and spent close to $6 million without disclosing these expenditures as contributions. Correct the Record argued that these expenditures were exempt from disclosure due to the FEC's "internet exemption," which exempts unpaid internet communications from contribution limitations and disclosure requirements.The FEC dismissed the complaint, leading to a lawsuit by the Campaign Legal Center. The district court ruled in favor of the Campaign Legal Center, finding that the FEC's dismissal was contrary to law. The FEC appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the FEC's interpretation of the "internet exemption" was contrary to the Federal Election Campaign Act's regulation of coordinated expenditures. The court also found that the FEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing allegations of coordination between Correct the Record and the Clinton campaign. The case was remanded back to the FEC for further action consistent with the court's decision. View "Campaign Legal Center v. Federal Election Commission" on Justia Law

This case involves Duke Energy Progress, LLC, a grid operator, and two energy generation companies, American Beech Solar, LLC, and Edgecombe Solar LLC. The dispute centers around two orders by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The first order rejected Duke Energy's agreement with American Beech Solar, which did not require Duke Energy to reimburse the cost of network upgrades. The second order accepted Duke Energy's agreement with Edgecombe Solar, which Duke Energy filed unsigned and under protest, and required Duke Energy to reimburse the cost of network upgrades.In the lower courts, FERC rejected the agreement with American Beech Solar, arguing that it was not just and reasonable because Duke Energy had threatened to delay construction of the upgrades, preventing American Beech from connecting to the grid, unless American Beech agreed to forego reimbursement. FERC also approved the agreement with Edgecombe Solar, despite Duke Energy's protest that it should not be required to pay reimbursements.In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the court denied Duke Energy's petitions for review. The court held that FERC's orders were not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The court found that FERC's interpretation of its own regulation, Order 2003, was reasonable and entitled to deference. The court also found that FERC reasonably rejected Duke Energy's request for a deviation from the reimbursement requirement. Finally, the court held that FERC's orders did not violate the principle of treating similarly situated utilities differently without a reasonable justification. View "Duke Energy Progress, LLC v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law