Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Antoine Smith, a police officer for the City of Cedar Rapids, was ordered to retake his official photo, which he refused. This led to a formal administrative investigation by the Cedar Rapids Police Department. Smith was notified of the investigation and later interviewed, during which he admitted to violating the department's code of conduct. The investigation concluded with a recommendation for a ten-hour suspension without pay and a requirement for Smith to retake his photo. Smith's counsel requested the investigation results and materials, which were denied until after the disciplinary decision was made.The Iowa District Court for Linn County granted summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that the City did not violate Iowa Code section 80F.1(3) or 80F.1(9) by withholding the investigative materials until after the disciplinary decision. Smith appealed this decision.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that under Iowa Code section 80F.1(3), an officer is entitled to the results of an investigation only after the agency has made a final determination, including whether discipline will be imposed. Similarly, under section 80F.1(9), the officer is entitled to investigative materials only after discipline is decided. The court concluded that the City did not violate these provisions by waiting until after the disciplinary decision to provide the requested materials. The court emphasized that the statutory language clearly conditions the rights to these materials on the imposition of discipline. View "Smith v. City of Cedar Rapids" on Justia Law

A citizen sought access to police use of force reports under the Iowa Open Records Act. The Des Moines Police Department requires officers to complete a report whenever force is used, detailing the incident's specifics. The reports are reviewed by supervisors and used for accountability, training, and identifying trends. In 2020, 387 use of force reports were filed, with only a few resulting in disciplinary action.The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted summary judgment in favor of the citizen, ordering the City of Des Moines to disclose the use of force reports. The court found that the reports were factual accounts of incidents and not evaluative or performance records, thus not exempt from disclosure under Iowa Code section 22.7(11). The court allowed redaction of information about officer injuries or medical treatment.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the use of force reports are not exempt from disclosure under section 22.7(11) as they are factual reports, not confidential personnel records. The court also rejected the City's argument that the reports were protected under Iowa Code section 80F.1(20), as this section pertains to statements and interviews in response to complaints, not routine use of force reports. The court noted that any specific redactions could be justified on other legal grounds if necessary. View "Harrison v. Mickey" on Justia Law

Alex Lancaster, who operates an adult foster care program in his home, received a correction order from Olmsted County on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) after a home inspection. The correction order cited two violations: failure to provide resident access to the upstairs living room and dining area. Lancaster did not request reconsideration of the correction order within the 20-day deadline.Lancaster appealed the correction order to the Minnesota Court of Appeals by petitioning for a writ of certiorari. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, determining that the correction order was not a quasi-judicial decision and therefore not appealable by writ of certiorari. Lancaster then petitioned for further review.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether a DHS correction order is appealable by writ of certiorari. The court held that a correction order is not a judicial or quasi-judicial decision because it does not bind and irrevocably fix the legal rights of the license holder. Instead, it merely notifies the license holder of alleged violations and the possibility of future sanctions if the violations are not corrected. As a result, the correction order does not meet the criteria for a quasi-judicial decision, which includes a binding decision regarding a disputed claim.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' dismissal of Lancaster’s appeal, concluding that the correction order was not appealable by writ of certiorari. View "Lancaster vs. Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Alpresteon Billings was hired as the executive director of the Housing Authority of Yazoo City, Mississippi, with an anticipated five-year contract and a starting salary of $65,000. However, the terms of this contract were not recorded in the Housing Authority’s board minutes. Billings was terminated from her position on February 20, 2019, and subsequently sued the Housing Authority for breach of contract, among other claims.The Yazoo County Circuit Court partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that the commissioners were immune under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act and dismissed the claims against them. However, the court denied summary judgment on Billings’s breach-of-contract claim against the Housing Authority, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and applied the rule that public boards can only act through their minutes, which must contain enough terms and conditions of a contract to determine the liabilities and obligations of the parties without resorting to other evidence. The court found that the Housing Authority’s minutes did not contain any terms of Billings’s alleged employment contract, such as her name, salary, or contract duration. Therefore, Billings’s breach-of-contract claim failed as a matter of law.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on Billings’s breach-of-contract claim and rendered judgment in favor of the Housing Authority. View "Housing Authority of The City of Yazoo City v. Billings" on Justia Law

Denise Evans was diagnosed with a ureteral injury shortly after undergoing a hysterectomy on August 14, 2019. She filed a negligence lawsuit in state court against the surgeon and associated medical entities. The surgeon was employed by a federally-funded health center, and the Attorney General certified that he was acting within the scope of his employment, allowing the United States to substitute itself as the defendant under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). The government removed the case to federal court and requested dismissal due to Evans's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court dismissed the claims against the government without prejudice and remanded the claims against the non-governmental defendants to state court.Evans then exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a claim with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which was received on September 23, 2021. After HHS failed to render a final disposition within six months, Evans filed a lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), asserting medical negligence. The government moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the claim was barred by the FTCA’s two-year statute of limitations. Evans contended that the Westfall Act’s savings provision and the doctrine of equitable tolling should apply. The district court disagreed and dismissed the suit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Westfall Act’s savings provision does not apply when the United States substitutes itself as a party under § 233(c) of the PHSA. The court also found that equitable tolling was inapplicable, as Evans did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances preventing her from timely filing her claim. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Evans's lawsuit. View "Evans v United States" on Justia Law

Volcano Telephone Company, a rural telephone service provider, receives subsidies from the California High-Cost Fund-A (A-Fund) administered by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Volcano Vision, Inc., an affiliate, uses Volcano Telephone’s broadband-capable facilities, subsidized by the A-Fund, to deliver broadband services without contributing to the underlying costs. The PUC considered Volcano Vision’s net revenues in setting Volcano Telephone’s A-Fund subsidy and future rates. The PUC also required Volcano Telephone to submit broadband service quality metrics related to Volcano Vision’s services.The PUC issued Decision No. 23-02-008, calculating Volcano Telephone’s A-Fund subsidy and approving rates for 2023. Volcano Telephone and Volcano Vision challenged this decision, arguing that the PUC’s implementation of broadband imputation constituted an unconstitutional taking and conflicted with federal law. They also contended that the order to submit broadband service quality metrics was outside the scope of the proceedings and the PUC’s jurisdiction. The PUC denied rehearing and modified the decision to clarify the reporting requirements.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court rejected the petitioners’ claims, affirming Decision Nos. 23-02-008 and 23-08-051. The court held that the PUC’s implementation of broadband imputation did not constitute an unconstitutional taking, as the A-Fund program is voluntary, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the rate of return was confiscatory. The court also found that the order to submit broadband service quality metrics was within the scope of the proceedings and the PUC’s jurisdiction. The court concluded that the PUC’s decisions were supported by substantial evidence and did not violate any constitutional rights. View "Volcano Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

Dr. Omar Almusa, a licensed medical physician and surgeon in Pennsylvania, unlawfully distributed hydrocodone between 2014 and 2018. He pleaded guilty to unlawful dispensing and distributing a controlled substance, conspiracy to distribute, and health care fraud. In 2019, he was sentenced to 24 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Consequently, the State Board of Medicine automatically suspended his medical license for at least ten years, effective August 15, 2019.Almusa did not appeal the suspension. In 2020, the General Assembly enacted Act 53, redefining how licensing boards consider criminal offenses, specifying that only drug trafficking offenses (involving at least 100 grams of a controlled substance) warrant automatic suspension. Almusa's offense did not meet this threshold. In 2021, Almusa petitioned for reinstatement of his license, arguing that Act 53 should apply to his case, allowing him to seek reinstatement without waiting ten years.The Board denied his petition, stating that Act 53 did not apply retroactively to suspensions imposed before its enactment. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting the suspension and reinstatement as a single action requiring a ten-year suspension period.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision. It held that automatic suspension and reinstatement are separate actions under the Medical Practice Act. The Court found that Act 53, effective December 28, 2020, applies to reinstatement proceedings initiated after this date. Since Almusa's offense did not qualify as drug trafficking under Act 53, the ten-year waiting period did not apply to his reinstatement petition. The Court concluded that Almusa was entitled to have his reinstatement petition considered under the new law. View "Almusa v. State Board of Medicine" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC, and affiliates, sought to build and operate interstate electricity transmission lines in Indiana. An Indiana statute granted incumbent electric companies the right of first refusal to build and operate new interstate transmission facilities connecting to their existing facilities. Plaintiffs argued that this statute violated the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) Commissioners from enforcing the statute.The IURC Commissioners and several intervening defendants appealed the injunction. They argued that the IURC did not enforce the rights of first refusal and that the injunction would not redress plaintiffs' injuries. The district court had found that plaintiffs had standing because it believed the IURC enforced the rights of first refusal and that an injunction would prevent MISO from recognizing the statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiffs lacked standing. The court concluded that the IURC had no relevant responsibilities for enforcing the challenged statute and that any genuine redress would have to operate against MISO, a non-governmental entity not party to the lawsuit. The court noted that MISO had made clear it would not respond to the preliminary injunction as plaintiffs and the district court expected. The court also rejected a dissenting opinion's novel theory of standing, which was not presented by plaintiffs or adopted by the district court. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC v Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc." on Justia Law

Paul Porter applied twice to register a firearm, but the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) denied his applications, citing a previous weapons offense conviction in Maryland. The Maryland records were expunged in 2020, so the full details of the case are not available. However, it is known that Porter pleaded guilty in 2009 to transporting a handgun on a highway, was initially sentenced to three years of incarceration (suspended for probation), and later had his sentence reconsidered to probation before judgment in 2015.Porter sought review of MPD's denial from the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at OAH overturned MPD's decision, reasoning that under Maryland law, a discharged sentence of probation before judgment is not considered a conviction and that failing to recognize this would deny Maryland law full faith and credit.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel the District to adopt Maryland's interpretation of "conviction" for firearm registration purposes. The court concluded that under District law, a sentence of probation before judgment constitutes a conviction for the purposes of firearm registration. The court emphasized that the legislative intent of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was to restrict firearm possession to individuals without disqualifying offenses, and allowing those with probation before judgment to register firearms would undermine this purpose.The court reversed OAH's order and upheld MPD's denial of Porter's application for a firearm registration certificate, holding that Porter "has been convicted" of a disqualifying offense under D.C. Code § 7-2502.03(a)(2), and that subsequent discharge of probation and expungement do not alter this conclusion. View "District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department v. Porter" on Justia Law

Ryan Bussey, a former Army soldier, received a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) after being found guilty of wrongful sexual contact. He sought to upgrade his discharge to Honorable, arguing that his combat-induced Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) contributed to his conduct. The Army Board for Correction of Military Records acknowledged Bussey's PTSD but concluded it was not a mitigating factor for his crime of conviction.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Army, upholding the Board's decision. Bussey appealed this decision, seeking review under the Administrative Procedure Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the Board erred in its decision. The court held that the Board failed to consider all the circumstances resulting in Bussey's discharge, focusing too narrowly on whether PTSD caused the legal elements of the crime. The court emphasized that the Board should have analyzed whether PTSD potentially contributed to the facts, events, and conditions leading to Bussey's wrongful sexual contact.Additionally, the court found that the Board did not give liberal consideration to Bussey's PTSD-based claim, as required by 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h)(2)(B). The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case to the Board to reconsider Bussey's upgrade request under the appropriate standard, instructing the Board to resolve doubts and inferences in favor of Bussey. If the Board finds that PTSD contributed to the circumstances resulting in Bussey's discharge, it may grant the requested relief. View "Bussey v. Driscoll" on Justia Law