Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves a mother, Beth, who gave birth to a child, Mia, in June 2020. Both mother and child tested positive for marijuana at the hospital. Beth was discharged from the hospital two days after delivery, but Mia remained. Beth never returned to the hospital, and the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) was unable to contact or locate her because Beth provided incorrect contact information. Mia stayed in the hospital two days longer than she would have if Beth returned to take custody of her. The Division took custody of Mia and placed her in a resource home. The Division filed an action against Beth, arguing that she abused and neglected Mia because she failed to exercise a minimum degree of care in supplying Mia with food, clothing, and shelter. The trial court concluded that the Division met its burden in proving that Beth abused and neglected Mia. The Appellate Division affirmed.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that although Beth left the hospital and did not return, she left Mia in a hospital where she was undoubtedly well taken care of and her needs were met. Nothing in the facts suggested that Beth’s actions impaired Mia or put Mia in imminent danger of being impaired while she remained in the safety of the hospital’s care. The Division therefore failed to meet its burden of establishing abuse or neglect. The court reversed the Appellate Division's decision and vacated the trial court’s finding of abuse and neglect. View "New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. B.P." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Alphonso Mobley Jr., who filed a writ of mandamus against Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, seeking a certified copy of a document in response to a public-records request. Mobley also sought statutory damages and court costs under R.C. 149.43(C). The document in question was the "Certified Bond of Director of Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections for year 2021-2022." Mobley had initially received an uncertified copy of the bond, and upon his second request, he enclosed a check for $5 for a certified copy. However, he alleged that the secretary had not responded to his request for a certified copy, leading him to file this action.The secretary's office sent Mobley a certified copy of the bond six business days after he filed the action. The secretary denied liability under the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43 et seq., and stated that he had provided the requested record. The Supreme Court of Ohio granted an alternative writ and set a schedule for the parties’ submission of evidence and merit briefs.The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the mandamus claim was moot as the secretary had provided Mobley with a certified copy of the record he had requested. Mobley argued that the record was incomplete, but the court found no merit in his argument. The court also denied Mobley's request for statutory damages, stating that the failure to provide a certified copy within a reasonable time is not a failure to comply with an obligation under R.C. 149.43(B). The court also denied Mobley's claim for court costs, as he had filed an affidavit of indigency and therefore had no obligation to pay costs. View "State ex rel. Mobley v. LaRose" on Justia Law

In August 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) introduced the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, a color-coded, risk-based framework for managing restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Blueprint included restrictions on business activities, including customer capacity limitations. Plaintiffs, Central California businesses and their owners, filed suit against the Governor and others responsible for creating and enforcing the Blueprint, alleging that its creation and enforcement were unlawful. They claimed that the Governor and CDPH lacked statutory authority to implement the Blueprint, and that broadly interpreting the Emergency Services Act (ESA) and Health and Safety Code section 120140 conferred unfettered discretion on defendants to impose restrictions on businesses, violating the California Constitution’s non-delegation doctrine.The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Blueprint. On appeal, the court dismissed the appeal as moot because the Governor had rescinded the Blueprint. After this, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion, holding that the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Newsom v. Superior Court (Gallagher) had rejected the same challenges to the Governor’s emergency powers that plaintiffs assert. The court entered judgment in defendants’ favor.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District affirmed the judgment. The court followed Gallagher and concluded it governs the outcome of this appeal. The court held that the ESA permitted the Governor to amend or make new laws and did not violate the constitutional separation of powers by delegating quasi-legislative power to the Governor in an emergency. The court also found that the ESA contained several safeguards on the exercise of the power, including that the Governor must terminate the state of emergency as soon as possible and that the Legislature may terminate the emergency by passing a concurrent resolution. View "Ghost Golf, Inc. v. Newsom" on Justia Law

The defendant, Samual Nektalov, was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by NYPD Detective Gregory Fortunato due to "excessively tinted windows." Upon approaching the vehicle, the detective observed marijuana in plain view and subsequently arrested and searched Nektalov, finding two bags of cocaine. Nektalov moved to suppress the drugs, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause to stop the vehicle based on a traffic violation.The Criminal Court denied Nektalov's motion to suppress the drugs, ruling that the vehicle was properly stopped due to a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law for having excessively tinted windows. Nektalov pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. The Appellate Term affirmed the decision, with one Justice dissenting, holding that the detective's testimony sufficiently established probable cause to lawfully stop the vehicle due to an apparent violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.The Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court noted that the Vehicle and Traffic Law generally prohibits operating a vehicle with windows that have a light transmittance of less than 70%. The court found that the detective's testimony that the windows were "excessively tinted" was effectively a legal conclusion that the tint violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law. However, the prosecution failed to elicit any factual basis for this conclusion. The detective did not testify that the windows were so dark that he could not see into the vehicle, that he had training and experience in identifying illegally tinted windows, or that he measured the tint after stopping the vehicle and the results confirmed that the tint level violated the law. As a result, the court concluded that the Criminal Court should have granted Nektalov's motion to suppress. The court reversed the order of the Appellate Term and dismissed the accusatory instrument. View "People v Nektalov" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the question of whether a board of cooperative education services (BOCES) can locate a school within the geographic boundaries of a nonmember school district without the district's consent. The petitioner, Education reEnvisioned BOCES (ERBOCES), had entered into an agreement with the Colorado Literacy and Learning Center’s School for Dyslexic Learners (CLLC) to operate a school within the boundaries of respondent Colorado Springs School District 11 (District 11), which is not a member of ERBOCES. Neither ERBOCES nor CLLC sought or obtained District 11’s permission to do so.The district court initially ruled in favor of ERBOCES and CLLC, interpreting the language of section 22-5-111(2) of the Boards of Cooperative Services Act of 1965 (the BOCES Act) to permit ERBOCES to operate a school at any appropriate location, whether inside or outside of a district providing funding for the facilities. District 11 appealed this decision.The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling, concluding that section 22-5-111(2) does not allow a BOCES to open and operate schools within the geographic boundaries of nonmember school districts that do not consent. The court of appeals found that the district court’s interpretation did not give effect to the qualifying language 'within or without a school district providing the money for the facilities.' The court of appeals also noted that the BOCES Act’s statutory framework did not grant a BOCES unrestricted extraterritoriality.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The Supreme Court concluded that the plain language of section 22-5-111(2), when read in context, does not permit a BOCES to locate a contract school within a nonmember school district without that district’s consent. The court did not need to decide whether article IX, section 15 of the Colorado Constitution, which pertains to local control of education, prohibits a BOCES from doing so. View "Education reEnvisioned BOCES v. Colorado Springs School District 11" on Justia Law

The case involves Mark W. Smith, a U.S. Navy veteran, who appealed a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Smith had initially filed a claim for service connection for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after his discharge from the Navy in 1991. However, his request was denied by the Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 1992, and this denial was affirmed by the Board of Veterans Appeals in 1996. Smith did not appeal this decision, and it became final.In 2012, Smith filed a new claim for service connection for DVT, which was granted by the VA in 2013. In 2016, Smith filed a motion to revise the 1996 Board Decision, alleging that it was tainted by clear and unmistakable error (CUE). He argued that there was sufficient evidence in 1996 to show he had DVT, and thus his claim should have been allowed to proceed with the VA's duty to assist. However, the Board denied his motion, and this denial was affirmed by the Veterans Court.The case was then brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Smith argued that the Veterans Court had erred in its interpretation of the CUE standard in 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403, claiming that the court had incorrectly limited CUE-eligible errors to those that would have led to a grant of service connection. However, the Federal Circuit Court disagreed with Smith's interpretation and affirmed the decision of the Veterans Court. The court held that a revision or reversal based on CUE requires an error that, once corrected, alters the merits outcome of a veteran’s claim with absolute clarity. View "SMITH v. MCDONOUGH " on Justia Law

Suzanne Brown, a federal prisoner, appealed the denial of her habeas corpus petition. Brown was convicted on twelve counts of making a materially false statement to a federal agency and was sentenced to twelve months of imprisonment and a two-year term of supervised release. She began her term of imprisonment in January 2022, with release scheduled for January 2023. However, in March 2022, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) calculated that Brown had earned fifteen First Step Act (FSA) credits, which it applied to accelerate her release date to December 17, 2022. In August 2022, BOP transferred Brown to home confinement under the emergency measures of the CARES Act, still with a calculated release date of December 17, 2022.Brown filed a petition for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, arguing that she had earned enough FSA credits to qualify for release on September 2, 2022, and that BOP's decision not to correct her FSA credit calculation and apply FSA credits to accelerate her release would result in her being held unlawfully in custody. A magistrate judge recommended that Brown's petition for habeas corpus be denied, and the district court adopted that recommendation and denied the petition. Brown timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the denial of the habeas petition de novo. Brown conceded that controlling precedent foreclosed some of the relief she sought earlier. She now asked only that the court hold her term of supervised release began on August 2, 2022, when she was transferred to home confinement. However, the court affirmed the denial of habeas relief, stating that the BOP's transfer of Brown to home confinement was a form of BOP custody, and her term of supervised release could not begin until the BOP released her from that custody. The court expressed no view as to whether Brown could receive relief under other procedural mechanisms, such as 18 U.S.C. § 3583. View "Brown v. Penders" on Justia Law

The case involves Hartono Djokro and his son William Djokro, citizens of Indonesia who entered the United States as nonimmigrant visitors and overstayed their visas. In 2007, Hartono Djokro filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), including his son as a derivative applicant. They were served with notices to appear by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2008, charging them with removability for having remained in the United States longer than they had been authorized.In 2009, an immigration judge (IJ) denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. The IJ found that the petitioners were ineligible for relief on several grounds, including that they had failed to establish a pattern or practice of persecution against either Chinese or Christians in Indonesia. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ's decision in 2012. The petitioners' first motion to reopen was denied by the BIA in 2013.In the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the petitioners sought review of the BIA's denial of their second untimely motion to reopen, filed in 2021. The court denied the petition, finding that the BIA reasonably concluded that the petitioners had failed to satisfy the requirements for an exception to late filing. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the petitioners failed to establish changed conditions or circumstances material to their eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. The court found that the record amply supported the BIA's determination that the petitioners had not met their burden of showing that the exception for changed country conditions applies. View "Djokro v. Garland" on Justia Law

Eghbal Saffarinia, a former high-ranking official in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of the Inspector General (HUD-OIG), was required by federal law to file annual financial disclosure forms detailing most of his financial liabilities over $10,000. One of Saffarinia’s responsibilities was the allocation of HUD-OIG’s information technology contracts. An investigation revealed that Saffarinia had repeatedly falsified his financial disclosure forms and failed to disclose financial liabilities over $10,000. The investigation also revealed that one of the persons from whom Saffarinia had borrowed money was the owner of an IT company that had been awarded HUD-OIG IT contracts during the time when Saffarinia had near-complete power over the agency operation.Saffarinia was indicted on seven counts, including three counts of obstruction of justice. A jury convicted Saffarinia on all seven counts, and the District Court sentenced him to a year and a day in federal prison, followed by one year of supervised release. Saffarinia appealed his conviction, arguing that the law under which he was convicted did not extend to alleged obstruction of an agency’s review of financial disclosure forms because the review of these forms is insufficiently formal to fall within the law’s ambit. He also argued that the evidence presented at trial diverged from the charges contained in the indictment, resulting in either the constructive amendment of the indictment against him or, in the alternative, a prejudicial variance. Finally, Saffarinia challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found no basis to overturn Saffarinia’s conviction. The court held that the law under which Saffarinia was convicted was intended to capture the sorts of activity with which Saffarinia was charged. The court also found that the government neither constructively amended Saffarinia’s indictment nor prejudicially varied the charges against him. Finally, the court found that the evidence presented at Saffarinia’s trial was sufficient to support his conviction. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of the District Court. View "USA v. Saffarinia" on Justia Law

The case involves a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by American Oversight seeking communications between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress regarding healthcare reform. The agencies invoked Exemption 5 of the FOIA to withhold certain communications, arguing that they were "intra-agency" communications. The district court sided with the agencies, holding that the communications were protected from disclosure under Exemption 5.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed with the lower court's decision. The court held that the communications between the agencies and Congress were not "intra-agency" communications and therefore not protected by Exemption 5. The court reasoned that under the "consultant corollary" to Exemption 5, the term "intra-agency" encompasses nearly all documents used by an agency in its deliberative process, even if the author or recipient is not an employee of that same agency. However, the court concluded that agencies may not invoke Exemption 5 to withhold agency records generated by a government consultant with its own stake in the outcome of the agency’s decision-making process.The court also found that HHS's search for responsive records was inadequate because it failed to include obvious alternative terms for the subject matter of American Oversight’s request. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to HHS and OMB on the applicability of Exemption 5 to the records at issue and to HHS on the adequacy of its search. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "American Oversight v. HHS" on Justia Law