Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

This case revolves around Mr. Orville Thomas, a former U.S. Navy serviceman, who sought an earlier effective date for his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) claim connected to his service. Thomas had initially filed a claim for "depressive mania" in 1971, after surviving a plane crash during his service, which had been denied by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In 2014, he requested to reopen his claim, submitting additional service department records not previously considered by the VA. While the VA granted service connection for PTSD in 2014, they denied an earlier effective date.Thomas appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, arguing the VA had overlooked certain service department records and regulations, specifically 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), which could have potentially allowed for an earlier effective date. However, the Board agreed with the VA’s denial. Thomas further appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that the Board failed to consider all potentially relevant issues, violating its statutory duty under 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1).The Veterans Court affirmed the Board's decision, arguing that Thomas did not demonstrate the relevance of his service records to his 1971 claim. Thomas appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that the Veterans Court applied a more stringent legal standard than required under 38 U.S.C. § 7104. It ruled that the Board must consider all "potentially applicable" regulations raised in the record, not only those proven to be relevant or favorable by the veteran.The Federal Circuit court vacated the Veterans Court’s decision and remanded the case to the Board to provide an adequate written statement of its reasons for denying Thomas's claim for an earlier effective date for his PTSD, considering all relevant regulations and records. View "Thomas v. McDonough" on Justia Law

The case at hand involves Candise Gore, who sued various individuals and governmental entities claiming she was wrongfully strip-searched at the Dorchester County Detention Center. Gore claimed against the Dorchester County Sheriff's Office, which operates the facility, for reckless infliction of emotional distress. The case was moved to the United States District Court due to the inclusion of federal law claims. The court had to decide whether the bar under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act of claims of "intentional infliction of emotional harm" applied to claims of reckless infliction of emotional distress.The court examined past South Carolina case law and the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. It noted that the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, also known as outrage, could be caused by extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress. The court further indicated that several jurisdictions consider intentional infliction of emotional distress and reckless infliction of emotional distress as the same cause of action. Consequently, the court concluded that reckless infliction of emotional distress was a subset of intentional infliction of emotional distress and that there was no separate cause of action in South Carolina for the reckless infliction of emotional distress.However, to provide a complete response, the court also considered the definition of "loss" in the South Carolina Tort Claims Act. The court concluded that since reckless infliction of emotional distress was a subset of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the bar to recovery for the intentional infliction of emotional distress also covered any conduct by a governmental entity that might be merely reckless but yet satisfied the elements of the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court therefore held that the bar to recovery for the intentional infliction of emotional distress applied to the subset of claims for the reckless infliction of emotional distress. View "Gore v. Dorchester County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

In an effort to curb illegal immigration, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4), which amended various statutes. The new laws prohibited noncitizens from illegally entering or reentering the state and established removal procedures. However, the United States, two non-profit organizations, and the county of El Paso challenged S.B. 4, arguing that it was preempted by federal law. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, and the state of Texas appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Texas’s motion to stay the injunction, arguing that the state had not shown it was likely to succeed on the merits of its preemption claims. The court found that the federal government has broad and exclusive power over immigration, including the entry and removal of noncitizens. The court also noted that the Texas law interfered with the federal government's foreign policy objectives and could lead to unnecessary harassment of noncitizens who federal officials determine should not be removed.Furthermore, the court concluded that S.B. 4 conflicted with federal law because it blocked the federal government's discretion to decide whether to initiate criminal proceedings or civil immigration proceedings once a noncitizen is apprehended, and because it permitted state courts to impose criminal sanctions and order removal of noncitizens without the federal government's input.In light of these findings, the court ruled that the balance of equities weighed against granting a stay. The court emphasized that any time a state is prevented from enforcing statutes enacted by its representatives, it suffers a form of irreparable injury. However, the court also noted that enforcement of S.B. 4 could lead to international friction and potentially take the United States out of compliance with its treaty obligations. Therefore, the court denied Texas's motion for a stay pending appeal. View "United States v. Texas" on Justia Law

The court case involves Ferrellgas, L.P., which was appealing against an order enforcing a subpoena issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The subpoena was part of an EEOC investigation into a discrimination charge filed by an employee, alleging that Ferrellgas had engaged in discriminatory hiring, pay, and termination practices.Ferrellgas contended that the subpoena was improperly served, was facially invalid due to procedural errors, was overly broad, and would impose an undue burden. Ferrellgas also argued that the subpoena sought information on hiring practices, which was irrelevant to the specific discrimination charge. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected all of Ferrellgas's arguments.The Court found that the subpoena was served properly, despite Ferrellgas's claims to the contrary. It also ruled that the procedural errors in the subpoena were harmless and did not preclude its enforcement. The Court concluded that the subpoena was not overly broad, as the information sought could shed light on the alleged discriminatory practices. The Court also held that Ferrellgas failed to demonstrate that complying with the subpoena would impose an undue burden.In conclusion, the Court affirmed the district court's order enforcing the EEOC's subpoena, deciding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in doing so. View "EEOC v. Ferrellgas, L.P." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Robert Conway, appealed a decision by the district court that upheld the denial of his social security benefits by an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ had found that Conway could perform "medium work" based on the testimony of a vocational expert. Under Terry v. Saul, the term "medium work" was presumed to imply a six-hour standing and walking limitation.However, Conway argued that this presumption was rebutted during the cross-examination of the vocational expert. When asked if someone could perform medium work if they were only able to be on their feet for six hours maximum, the expert responded that the three sample occupations provided would not be possible and it would be difficult to provide substitute unskilled, medium occupations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Conway, finding that the vocational expert's significantly different responses revealed that the expert did not understand the ALJ’s hypothetical to impliedly include a six-hour standing and walking limitation. As such, the expert’s response to the ALJ’s question had no evidentiary value to support the ALJ’s finding that Conway could perform jobs in the national economy. The court concluded that the error was not harmless and reversed the district court’s judgment, remanding the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings. View "CONWAY V. O'MALLEY" on Justia Law

In a case certified by the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, the Supreme Court of Wyoming was tasked with two questions regarding the duty of care owed by law enforcement officers to suspects while conducting an investigation.The first question asked whether a law enforcement officer acting within the scope of their duties owed a duty of care to the suspect(s) in a criminal investigation to conduct that investigation in a non-negligent manner. The court affirmed that law enforcement officers indeed owe such a duty, consistent with existing precedent.The second question asked whether, if a duty of care is owed, the law enforcement officer is entitled to assert qualified immunity under Wyoming law. The court affirmed that law enforcement officers are entitled to assert qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects officers who act in good faith and whose actions are reasonable under the circumstances, and it serves important policy purposes, such as protecting law enforcement from the risk of being liable for mistakes made in the performance of their duties.The specific facts of the case involved a law enforcement officer who had received a tip about a suspected marijuana growing operation and subsequently initiated an investigation. The suspect, Deborah Palm-Egle, later filed a civil action against the officer and other parties, alleging a variety of tort claims. View "Palm-Egle v. Briggs" on Justia Law

The case centers around the dispute over the requirement for a supermajority vote in the Town of Bar Harbor's amendment to its Land Use Ordinance (LUO) concerning vacation rentals. Erica Brooks and Victoria Smith, both property owners in the town, argued that due to a 2-2 tie vote by the Planning Board on the proposed amendment, a two-thirds majority vote was necessary for the amendment to pass. The amendment, however, was enacted with a 60% majority vote. The Superior Court sided with the Town, asserting that the LUO language did not necessitate a supermajority vote.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decision but did so on different grounds. The court agreed with the argument put forth by the Maine Municipal Association in an amicus brief, which asserted that irrespective of the LUO's language, under Maine statutes 21-A M.R.S. § 723(4) (2023) and 30-A M.R.S. § 2501 (2023), only a simple majority vote was required for the amendment to take effect, unless the Town's charter provided otherwise, which it did not. Therefore, the court concluded that the amendment was lawfully enacted with a simple majority vote, rendering the Town's supermajority requirement unenforceable. View "Brooks v. Town of Bar Harbor" on Justia Law

In June 2020, the City of Claremont received a request for the disclosure of governmental records related to former police officer Jonathan Stone. Stone appealed a decision from the Superior Court ordering the City to disclose thirteen internal affairs investigation reports and four sets of correspondence between the New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council (PSTC) and the City.Stone argued that the City violated a 2007 Stipulated Award when the City Manager sent a letter to a journalist responding to the request for certain government records. He also argued that the City Manager's letter incorrectly indicated the number of sustained reports that the City located pertaining to him, and that the City violated the Stipulated Award when it did not destroy certain internal affairs reports.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire concluded that the 2007 Stipulated Award did not prohibit the disclosure of the requested records and that Stone waived any argument that the records would otherwise be exempt from disclosure. Thus, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to disclose the records. View "Stone v. City of Claremont" on Justia Law

In this case, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the lower court's denial of summary judgment, determining that the Lincoln Public Schools (LPS), a political subdivision, retained immunity from an employee's wrongful discharge claim under the discretionary function exemption of the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The plaintiff, Lynne Simpson, claimed LPS wrongfully terminated her in retaliation for her filing a workers' compensation claim. LPS asserted sovereign immunity and immunity under the PSTCA, arguing that its decision to terminate Simpson's employment was a discretionary act.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that employment and termination decisions generally involve a judgment of the kind that the discretionary function exemption is designed to shield. The court found that LPS's decision to terminate Simpson's employment involved an element of judgment, as LPS had to balance information about Simpson's performance against information about her criminal history and honesty issues. Therefore, the court concluded that LPS was entitled to immunity under the discretionary function exemption and remanded the case with directions to dismiss. The court did not rule on LPS's claim that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the exclusivity provisions of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, as it had already found that LPS was immune from suit. View "Simpson v. Lincoln Public Schools" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) could withhold records relating to a criminal investigation based on Exemption 7(A) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This exemption allows federal agencies to withhold records if their release could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings.In the case, Mark Zaid, an attorney, requested records related to the FBI's criminal investigation into one of his clients, Zackary Sanders, who had been charged with production and possession of child pornography. The FBI refused to release the requested records, citing Exemption 7(A) of FOIA. Zaid then sued the FBI to release the records, but the district court found the records were exempt from disclosure.The appeals court agreed with the district court's decision, stating that the disclosure of these records could reasonably be expected to interfere with ongoing or future investigations and prosecutions of child pornography cases. The court also noted that forcing the FBI to disclose information exchanged between law enforcement agencies could make those agencies hesitant to share information in the future, which would harm FBI investigations. The court also dismissed Zaid's arguments that cited two decisions from the Middle District of Florida, stating those decisions were not binding on the district court or the appeals court. View "Zaid v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law