Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A candidate for city clerk with over ten years of experience working for the city requested her hiring interview with the Cedar Rapids City Council be conducted in a closed session, citing concerns about potential harm to her reputation if the interview were public and livestreamed. The council unanimously voted to honor her request and held the interview in closed session pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i), which allows closed sessions to protect an individual’s reputation when the individual requests it. The interview proceeded positively, and the candidate was later hired at a subsequent open meeting.A resident challenged the closed session, arguing that the council had violated the Iowa Open Meetings Act by not making an evidence-based determination of reputational harm before closing the interview. After a bench trial, the Iowa District Court for Linn County held that the council had not violated the statute, finding that a specific reputational threat need not be identified prior to closure if the interviewee requests it and the nature of the interview is unpredictable. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice.The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the city council should have conducted further inquiry into the necessity of closing the session and that a candidate’s request alone was insufficient without evidence of reputational harm. Upon further review, the Supreme Court of Iowa vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that under Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i), a governmental body may close a hiring interview at the candidate’s request as a precaution to protect reputation, without needing evidence of specific harm. The court also upheld the confidentiality of closed session records and found no error regarding courtroom access during trial. View "Teig v. Loeffler" on Justia Law

In this case, two police officers responded to a robbery at a car dealership and pursued the suspects on the highway. During the chase, one officer was shot multiple times by a hidden suspect, and both officers exchanged gunfire with the perpetrator, who was ultimately killed. One officer suffered serious injuries and required extensive medical care. Following the incident, a newspaper reporter requested public records from the Columbus Police Department, including body camera and dash camera footage of the shootout. The police department denied the request for unredacted video footage, citing statutory provisions that protect the privacy of crime victims, specifically Marsy's Law and related Ohio statutes.The Columbus Police Department eventually released redacted versions of the body camera footage, concealing the identities of the two officers and ending the video before the shooting. The newspaper maintained that, as public officials acting in the line of duty, the officers could not be considered "victims" under Marsy's Law and filed an original action in the Supreme Court of Ohio seeking a writ of mandamus to compel production of the unredacted footage.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed whether the officers were "victims" under Article I, Section 10a of the Ohio Constitution (Marsy's Law), and thus entitled to privacy protections under the Victim Privacy Law and the Public Records Act. The court held that police officers are "persons against whom crimes can be committed" and therefore qualify as victims under Marsy's Law. As a result, the statutory provisions apply, and the redaction of identifying information from the footage was proper. The court denied the newspaper's request for a writ of mandamus, holding that the newspaper was not entitled to unredacted body camera and dash camera footage identifying the officers. View "State ex rel. GateHouse Media Ohio Holdings II, Inc. v. Columbus Police Dept." on Justia Law

The dispute centers on the State Water Resources Control Board’s designation of the Tulare Lake groundwater subbasin as a probationary basin under California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the Act). The Tulare subbasin is categorized as high-priority and critically overdrafted, requiring coordinated local management and submission of a sustainability plan. Local agencies formed a single groundwater sustainability plan, which the Department of Water Resources twice found inadequate, leading the State Board to designate the subbasin as probationary. Following this, the Board imposed monitoring and reporting requirements with associated fees, prompting farmers and landowners, including Kings County Farm Bureau, to challenge the Board’s actions as exceeding its authority and lacking proper notice.Before reaching the California Court of Appeal, the Superior Court of Kings County reviewed the matter. The trial court had issued a preliminary injunction against the State Board, barring it from enforcing requirements and fees related to the probationary designation. The trial court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on several claims, including improper denial of “good actor” exclusions and failures in notice, and determined the balance of harms weighed in favor of plaintiffs. A nominal bond was set, and the trial court later denied objections to the bond amount.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the preliminary injunction. The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing an overly broad injunction affecting the entire Tulare subbasin, where only certain areas had plausible claims. The court clarified that the State Board must exclude any basin portion where a local agency demonstrates compliance with sustainability goals, but this exclusion does not require an independently approved plan for every area. The appellate court reversed the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the trial court to consider whether a narrower injunction may be appropriate. The petition for writ of supersedeas was denied as moot. View "Kings County Farm Bureau v. State Water Resources Control Bd." on Justia Law

This case concerns the State Water Resources Control Board's intervention in the Tulare Lake groundwater subbasin pursuant to California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (the Act). After local agencies in the subbasin submitted a groundwater sustainability plan that the Department of Water Resources twice determined to be inadequate, the State Board designated the basin as probationary in April 2024. This designation triggered state-imposed monitoring, reporting, and fee obligations on certain groundwater extractors. In response, the Kings County Farm Bureau and others filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint, asserting that the State Board exceeded its authority and challenging the validity of the designation and associated fees on several grounds.The Superior Court of Kings County addressed both a demurrer filed by the State Board and a request from the Farm Bureau for a preliminary injunction. The trial court dismissed the equal protection claim with leave to amend, but overruled the demurrer as to claims that (1) the State Board used improper “underground regulations” not adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), (2) the imposed extraction fee constituted an unlawful tax, and (3) general declaratory relief was appropriate. The trial court also granted a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting the State Board’s enforcement activities.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the trial court’s order overruling the demurrer. The appellate court held that all actions by the State Board taken under sections 10735.2 and 10735.8 of the Act—including the designation of a probationary basin—are exempt from the APA unless the State Board voluntarily opts to adopt regulations using APA procedures. Therefore, the claim for improper “underground regulations” could not proceed. The court also held that a challenge to the extraction fee as an unlawful tax was barred by the constitutional “pay first” rule, as no exception applied. Lastly, the court determined that declaratory relief was unavailable because the Legislature provided for review of State Board actions exclusively by writ of mandate. The appellate court ordered the trial court to grant the demurrer without leave to amend as to these three claims. View "State Water Resources Control Bd. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

A school board in Pennsylvania approved a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a teachers’ association during a meeting, even though this agreement was not included on the agenda published at least 24 hours before the meeting, as required by the state’s Sunshine Act. The board justified the late addition by explaining that the teachers’ association had only approved the CBA earlier that same day. The board amended the agenda during the meeting by majority vote to include the CBA, then voted to approve it. A local resident challenged this action, arguing that it violated the Sunshine Act’s notice requirements.The Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas consolidated the actions and granted summary judgment in favor of the school district, finding that the board’s majority vote to amend the agenda during the meeting satisfied the statutory exception permitting such changes. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed in part, interpreting Section 712.1 of the Sunshine Act to provide only three substantive exceptions to the 24-hour notice rule and treating the “majority vote” provision as a mere procedural mechanism, not a standalone exception. The Commonwealth Court concluded that the board’s action violated the Act.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether Section 712.1 provides four independent exceptions to the notice requirement, or only three. The court held that the statute’s plain language creates four separate exceptions, including the majority vote provision, which allows an agency to add items to the agenda during a meeting by majority vote and subsequently take official action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court’s decision and reinstated the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the school district, holding that the board’s actions complied with the Sunshine Act. View "Coleman v. Parkland School District" on Justia Law

Several insurance companies initiated a federal lawsuit against a licensed acupuncturist, three professional service corporations under his control, and two unlicensed individuals. The insurers sought a declaration that one of the corporations was not entitled to no-fault insurance reimbursement for services rendered, alleging the corporation engaged in a scheme to pay unlicensed individuals for patient referrals. The payments allegedly violated New York’s professional conduct rules but did not involve the transfer of control over the corporation to unlicensed persons.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that the acupuncturist and his corporations had engaged in an unlawful fee-splitting and kickback scheme, violating New York law. The court ruled that this professional misconduct rendered the corporation ineligible for no-fault reimbursement under the relevant Department of Financial Services (DFS) regulation and granted summary judgment for the insurers. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that the referral fees were paid but found it unclear whether this type of professional misconduct made the provider ineligible for reimbursement under the regulation. It certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question of whether such misconduct, absent ceding control to unlicensed persons, permits denial of no-fault benefits.The New York Court of Appeals held that the DFS regulation does not authorize insurers to deny no-fault reimbursement based solely on a provider’s alleged professional misconduct, such as paying for patient referrals, unless that misconduct amounts to a failure to meet a foundational licensing requirement—specifically, surrendering control of the professional practice to unlicensed individuals. The court deferred to DFS’s longstanding interpretation that only licensing violations resulting in loss of eligibility to practice, as determined by regulators, justify denial of reimbursement. The court answered the certified question in the negative. View "Government Employees Ins. Co. v Mayzenberg" on Justia Law

A nonprofit religious organization based in Queens purchased a 73-acre parcel in the Town of Callicoon, Sullivan County, in 2018. Although the organization originally intended to use the property as a retreat center, testimony established that its actual use involved farming vegetables on about one cleared acre for charitable distribution to low-income residents in Queens. Occasional overnight stays involved religious activities, but there was no evidence of regular organized religious services or use as a retreat center. The Town Supervisor, who lived nearby and farmed part of the property without a formal agreement, confirmed the farming use but did not observe overnight retreats.After the Town Assessor denied a religious use tax exemption for the property for the 2021 tax year, the organization filed a grievance complaint, which was denied by the Town’s Board of Assessment Review. The organization then initiated an RPTL article 7 proceeding in Supreme Court, challenging the denial. A similar process occurred for the 2022 tax year, and both proceedings were joined. Supreme Court held a nonjury trial, found all witnesses credible, credited the organization’s testimony about actual use, and granted the petitions for both tax years, concluding the property was exempt. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, with one Justice dissenting.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that the lower courts applied the correct legal standards: the burden to prove entitlement to exemption rests with the party seeking it, while the burden to prove a zoning violation rests with the municipality. The Court of Appeals found record support for Supreme Court’s factual findings and concluded that the Town failed to prove a zoning violation sufficient to defeat the exemption for both years. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed, with costs. View "Matter of First United Methodist Church in Flushing v Assessor, Town of Callicoon" on Justia Law

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

A high-speed police pursuit in Iowa ended with a motorcycle crash that left the rider, Augustin G. Mormann, paralyzed and ultimately led to his death after life support was withdrawn. The chase began when an Iowa State Trooper attempted to stop Mormann for speeding, but he fled, weaving through traffic and entering residential neighborhoods. The trooper disengaged due to safety concerns, but Manchester police officer James Wessels continued the pursuit at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour. During the chase on a county road, Wessels’s police cruiser struck Mormann's motorcycle, leading to a crash that caused catastrophic injuries. Mormann was hospitalized, tested positive for methamphetamine, and died after choosing to discontinue life support. His family subsequently filed a civil suit against Wessels and the City of Manchester.In the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, the plaintiffs asserted claims including constitutional violations and, ultimately, common law assault and battery. The district court dismissed the constitutional claims after a change in Iowa law but allowed the assault and battery claims to proceed to trial. The jury found Wessels liable for both torts, awarding $4.25 million in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. The court denied post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that emergency response immunity under Iowa law does not shield a municipality or its officer from liability when the officer acts with reckless disregard for safety, as found by the jury. The court also concluded that the assault and battery claims were sufficiently pleaded under Iowa’s notice pleading standard, that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdicts, and that the admission of the decedent’s dying declaration and evidence regarding police recording policies was proper. The punitive damages award was also upheld. View "Mormann v. City of Manchester, Iowa" on Justia Law

A group of long-term care providers and their associated management company filed cost reports for 2015 with the Mississippi Division of Medicaid (DOM), reporting dividends received from three insurance companies as “other income” rather than offsetting them against insurance costs. This reporting practice had been consistently followed and accepted by DOM for over two decades. When DOM audited the 2015 cost reports around 2018, it changed its approach by offsetting these dividends against current insurance costs, thereby affecting reimbursement rates for services provided by the providers.After DOM made these adjustments, the providers sought reconsideration, but DOM upheld its decision. The providers then pursued an administrative appeal, where a hearing officer found DOM’s adjustments supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, recommending affirmation of DOM’s actions. DOM’s executive director adopted this recommendation. The providers appealed to the Hinds County Chancery Court, which affirmed DOM’s decision, concluding that the State Plan required reference to the Provider Reimbursement Manual (PRM) for guidance, and that DOM acted within its authority and did not violate any statutory or constitutional rights. The chancellor also found no evidence of a written internal policy regarding the treatment of such dividends.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether DOM’s actions were arbitrary and capricious, whether public notice of the change was required, and other issues. The Court held that DOM’s abrupt reversal of its long-standing unwritten internal policy, without reasonable explanation or public notice, was arbitrary and capricious. The Court further found that public notice was required under federal regulations for significant policy changes affecting payment rates. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the decisions of DOM and the chancery court and rendered judgment in favor of the providers. View "Hattiesburg Medical Park Management Corp. v. Mississippi Division of Medicaid" on Justia Law