Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Tennessee and sixteen other states challenged a regulation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which mandates reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions, including abortion. The states argued that the regulation unlawfully required them to accommodate employees seeking abortions, conflicting with their policies. They sought an injunction and a declaratory judgment against the rule, claiming it was arbitrary, exceeded EEOC's authority, violated the First Amendment and federalism principles, and was unconstitutional under Article II.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the case, ruling that the states lacked standing as they did not demonstrate an imminent injury or that the alleged injuries were redressable. The court found the risk of enforcement speculative and compliance costs not directly traceable to the rule. The court also dismissed the states' motion for a preliminary injunction as moot and for failing to show irreparable harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the states had standing as they were the direct objects of the EEOC's regulation, which imposed new obligations on them. The court found that the states were injured by the regulatory burden itself and that setting aside the rule would remedy this injury. The court concluded that the states' need to comply with the rule constituted an injury in fact, caused by the EEOC's action, and redressable by a favorable judicial decision. The case was remanded for further proceedings without addressing the merits of the claims. View "State of Tennessee v. EEOC" on Justia Law

Puffy’s, LLC was first on a waiting list to receive a state registration certificate from the South Dakota Department of Health (Department) to operate a medical cannabis dispensary in Rapid City. After the Department failed to issue the certificate, Puffy’s filed a mandamus action in circuit court to compel the Department to issue the certificate. The circuit court granted the writ of mandamus, and the Department appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and abused its discretion in granting the writ.The circuit court found that it had jurisdiction because Puffy’s had no administrative remedy to exhaust, as the Department had not taken final action that could be appealed. The court also ruled that the matter was not moot because the Department had not issued the certificate. On the merits, the court concluded that the Department had a clear duty to issue the certificate to Puffy’s under ARSD 44:90:03:16, which mandates that a voided certificate must be awarded to the next applicant on the waiting list. The court found that Puffy’s had no other remedy and was entitled to the writ.The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision. It held that the circuit court had jurisdiction because there was no administrative remedy available for Puffy’s to exhaust. The court also agreed that the matter was not moot. On the merits, the Supreme Court found that the Department had a clear duty to issue the certificate to Puffy’s under the plain language of ARSD 44:90:03:16, which does not require additional application or fees from waitlisted applicants. The court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting the writ of mandamus without an evidentiary hearing, as the case turned on legal interpretation rather than factual disputes. View "Puffy’s LLC v. State of South Dakota" on Justia Law

NYP Holdings, Inc. and a New York Post reporter submitted 144 Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests to the New York Police Department (NYPD) for disciplinary records related to specific police officers. The NYPD denied the requests for all but one officer, leading the Post to commence an article 78 proceeding to compel disclosure. The Police Benevolent Association (PBA) intervened, arguing that records created before the repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a were not subject to disclosure under FOIL.The Supreme Court granted the Post's petition, rejecting the NYPD's claim that compliance would be too burdensome and refusing to consider the PBA's retroactivity argument. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the repeal of section 50-a applied retroactively to records created before the repeal. The court emphasized that the repeal was remedial legislation intended to increase public trust and accountability in law enforcement.The Court of Appeals reviewed the case, focusing on whether law enforcement disciplinary records created while section 50-a was in effect could be disclosed in response to FOIL requests submitted after the repeal. The court concluded that the Legislature intended for the repeal to have retroactive effect, noting that FOIL's presumption of disclosure applies to all records held by an agency, regardless of when they were created. The court also highlighted the legislative intent to enhance public trust and accountability following the repeal of section 50-a.The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, holding that the repeal of section 50-a applies retroactively, allowing the disclosure of law enforcement disciplinary records created before the repeal. View "Matter of NYP Holdings, Inc. v New York City Police Dept." on Justia Law

In 2020, the New York legislature repealed Civil Rights Law § 50-a, which had exempted law enforcement disciplinary records from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) subsequently requested records of all civilian complaints against Rochester police officers from the City of Rochester and the Rochester Police Department, regardless of whether the complaints were substantiated. When the respondents did not promptly produce the documents, NYCLU initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel disclosure.The Supreme Court ordered the production of many records but allowed the respondents to withhold records related to unsubstantiated complaints under the personal privacy exemption in Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b). The Appellate Division modified this decision, ruling that the personal privacy exemption did not permit categorical withholding of all such records. Instead, the respondents were directed to review each record individually to determine if there was a specific justification for redaction or withholding based on personal privacy grounds.The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that FOIL's personal privacy exemption does not allow for a blanket exemption of all records related to unsubstantiated complaints against law enforcement officers. Each record must be evaluated individually to determine if disclosing it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. If redactions can prevent such an invasion, the agency must disclose the record with the necessary redactions. The court emphasized that the 2020 amendments to FOIL aimed to increase transparency in the law enforcement disciplinary process, and categorical exemptions would undermine this objective. View "Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v City of Rochester" on Justia Law

A medical doctor, employed by San Bernardino Medical Group and working for OptumCare Medical Group, faced a summary suspension of his clinical privileges by PrimeCare Medical Network, Inc. after a patient complaint. The patient alleged that the doctor hit her hand during an office visit, which the doctor admitted to in his notes, explaining it was to stop her from arguing. The next day, PrimeCare’s Chief Medical Officer (CMO) summarily suspended the doctor’s privileges, citing imminent danger to patient health.The Corporate Quality Improvement Committee (CQIC) upheld the suspension pending the doctor’s completion of an anger management course. The doctor requested a formal hearing, and PrimeCare’s Judicial Hearing Committee (JHC) found that the summary suspension was not warranted, as the incident was isolated and did not demonstrate imminent danger. The JHC recommended anger management and a chaperone for the doctor but did not find the suspension justified.PrimeCare’s Board of Directors reviewed the JHC’s decision, arguing it was inconsistent with the applicable burden of proof. The Board conducted an independent review, disagreed with the JHC’s findings, and reinstated the suspension, concluding that the doctor’s actions and subsequent comments posed an imminent threat to patients.The doctor filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus, which the Superior Court of San Bernardino County granted. The court ruled that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction and committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion by independently reviewing and reversing the JHC’s decision. The court ordered the Board to adopt the JHC’s decision, reinstate the doctor’s privileges, and report the reinstatement to relevant entities.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment, agreeing that the Board’s actions were unauthorized and inconsistent with the statutory requirement that peer review be performed by licentiates. View "Lin v. Board of Directors of PrimeCare Medical Network" on Justia Law

A transgender woman, Darlene Griffith, filed a civil rights lawsuit regarding her pretrial confinement at the El Paso County Jail in Colorado. She alleged that the jail's policies, which assigned housing based on genitalia and denied her access to female clothing and products, violated her constitutional rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed her complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), leading to this appeal.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Ms. Griffith’s complaint, concluding that she failed to state a plausible claim for relief. The court applied rational-basis review to her Equal Protection claim, finding that transgender individuals are not a protected class under existing precedent. The court also dismissed her ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as she did not properly name the county as a defendant according to state law requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that remand was required for some of Ms. Griffith’s claims. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on her Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim against Sheriff Elder in his official capacity, her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment cross-gender search claims against Sheriff Elder in his official capacity, and her Fourth Amendment abusive search claim against Deputy Mustapick. The court vacated the district court’s order dismissing Ms. Griffith’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims under Rule 12(b)(6) because those claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), and that ruling was unchallenged on appeal. The court otherwise affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the remaining claims. View "Griffith v. El Paso County, Colorado" on Justia Law

Dr. Ahmed Diaa Eldin Ali Hussein, a dual citizen of Egypt and the United States, sought to enforce an Egyptian administrative court ruling and a related ministerial decree in the United States. These rulings purportedly entitled him to compensation for the expropriation of his shares in the SIMO Middle East Paper Company by the Egyptian government in the 1990s. Hussein filed an enforcement action in New York State court against Dr. Mohamed Ahmed Maait, the Egyptian Minister of Finance, in his official capacity.The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Maait, albeit after the 30-day deadline for removal. The District Court found that Egypt was the real party in interest and allowed the late removal under Section 1441(d) of the U.S. Code, which permits enlargement of the removal period for cause. The court then dismissed the suit under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that Egypt was immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and that no exceptions to this immunity applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Egypt was the real party in interest, as Hussein's claims were fundamentally against the Egyptian government and sought compensation from the public treasury. The court also upheld the District Court's finding of cause to extend the removal period, noting the lack of prejudice to Hussein and the procedural challenges faced by Maait in securing U.S. counsel. Finally, the appellate court determined that Hussein had waived any argument regarding exceptions to FSIA immunity by not raising them on appeal. Thus, the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed. View "Hussein v. Maait" on Justia Law

The case involves Protect the Gallatin River (PTGR) appealing a decision by the Gallatin County Floodplain Administrator to issue a floodplain permit for the Riverbend Glamping Getaway project proposed by Jeff and Jirina Pfeil. The project includes developing a campground with non-permanent structures on an island in the Gallatin River. PTGR argued that the public's right to participate was violated and that the Floodplain Administrator's decision was erroneous.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court of Gallatin County reviewed the case and issued an order on November 13, 2023, resolving competing summary judgment motions. The court denied PTGR's motions for partial summary judgment, granted summary judgment in favor of Gallatin County and the Pfeils regarding PTGR's complaint, and addressed other related claims. PTGR then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana.The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Floodplain Administrator did not violate PTGR's right to participate, as the public was given a reasonable opportunity to comment, and the decision not to re-open public comment was not arbitrary or capricious. The court also found that the Floodplain Administrator's participation in the appeal process before the Commission was appropriate and lawful, as it did not involve post hoc rationalizations. Finally, the court held that the Floodplain Administrator's decision complied with the Gallatin County Floodplain Regulations and was not an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's summary judgment orders. View "Protect the Gallatin v. Gallatin Co." on Justia Law

The case involves the United States government alleging that Regeneron Pharmaceuticals violated the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) by covering copayments for patients prescribed Eylea, a drug used to treat wet age-related macular degeneration. The government contends that this action induced doctors to prescribe Eylea, leading to Medicare claims that were "false or fraudulent" under the False Claims Act (FCA) because they "resulted from" the AKS violation.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reviewed the case and agreed with Regeneron's interpretation that the phrase "resulting from" in the 2010 amendment to the AKS requires a but-for causation standard. This means that the government must prove that the AKS violation was the actual cause of the Medicare claims. The district court noted the conflict in case law and sought interlocutory review, which was granted.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The court held that the phrase "resulting from" in the 2010 amendment to the AKS imposes a but-for causation requirement. The court reasoned that the ordinary meaning of "resulting from" requires actual causality, typically in the form of but-for causation, unless there are textual or contextual indications to the contrary. The court found no such indications in the 2010 amendment or its legislative history. Therefore, to establish falsity under the FCA based on an AKS violation, the government must prove that the kickback was a but-for cause of the submitted claim. View "United States v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc." on Justia Law

Dale Staten, a coal miner for nearly thirty years, retired in 2000 and passed away in January 2017 from respiratory failure after a two-week hospitalization. His widow, Bernadette Staten, filed for survivor benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. A Department of Labor administrative law judge (ALJ) awarded benefits, concluding that Bernadette qualified for a statutory presumption that Dale died from black lung disease due to his extensive underground mining work and total disability at the time of his death. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the ALJ's decision in a divided ruling.Consolidation Coal Company (CONSOL), Dale's former employer, challenged the ALJ's award, arguing that the 15-year presumption should only apply to chronic pulmonary conditions, not acute illnesses like Dale's respiratory failure. CONSOL contended that Dale's total disability was due to an acute condition rather than a chronic one. The ALJ had credited Dr. Sanjay Chavda's opinion that Dale was totally disabled at the time of his death, while discounting the opinions of CONSOL's experts, Dr. James Castle and Dr. Robert Farney, who argued that Dale was not disabled based on his medical history before his hospitalization.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the ALJ's award of benefits. The court held that the Black Lung Benefits Act does not require a claimant to prove that a miner's total disability arose from a chronic pulmonary condition to invoke the 15-year presumption. The court found that the ALJ acted within its authority in crediting Dr. Chavda's opinion and concluding that CONSOL failed to rebut the presumption that Dale's death was due to pneumoconiosis. The court denied CONSOL's petition for review and affirmed the judgment of the Benefits Review Board. View "Consolidation Coal Company v OWCP" on Justia Law