Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Parents Defending Education, an association of parents, brought this action to challenge a policy adopted by the Linn Mar Community School District in Iowa. The disputed policy is entitled “Administrative Regulations Regarding Transgender and Students Nonconforming to Gender Role Stereotypes.” The policy sets forth regulations for the District that “address the needs of transgender students, gender-expansive students, nonbinary, gender nonconforming students, and students questioning their gender to ensure a safe, affirming, and healthy school environment where every student can learn effectively.” The parents who seek to participate in this case are anonymous; the pleadings identify them by a letter of the alphabet. The district court determined that Parents Defending failed to establish Article III standing because the organization did not show injury, causation, or redressability on its claims.   The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal in part as moot and reversed on one claim. The court concluded that at least Parent G has alleged an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. Parent G asserts that her son wants to “state his belief that biological sex is immutable.” Because of the policy, however, Parent G states that her son remains silent in school “when gender identity topics arise” to avoid violating the policy. This student’s proposed activity “concerns political speech” and is “arguably affected with a constitutional interest.” Thus, Parent G has standing to bring a claim challenging the policy based on the First Amendment. Therefore, Parents Defending has standing as an association to pursue the claim on behalf of a member. View "Parents Defending Education v. LinnMar Community School Dist., et al" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of the Medical Commission to uphold the determination of the Department of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division that Jon Bressler was not entitled to compensation for three physical therapy sessions in connection with his work-related injury to his right arm, holding that there was no error.The Supreme Court affirmed the order upholding the three final determinations of the Division denying Bressler physical therapy benefits, holding that the Commission's conclusion that Bressler's continued physical therapy was not reasonable and necessary medical care for his work-related injury was supported by substantial evidence. View "Bressler v. State, ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Services, Workers' Compensation Division" on Justia Law

Child Protection Services (CPS) petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents of three minor children who were sexually abused by their father. The mother, S.F., objected and argued that she should not lose her parental rights. The trial court granted CPS’s petition and terminated the rights of both parents. S.F. appealed. The Mississippi Supreme Court found that through the totality of the circumstances and the evidence presented to the youth court satisfied the grounds for termination. Because S.F. lacked protective capacity toward her children, the youth court did not err by finding clear and convincing evidence that termination was appropriate. As such, the Court affirmed. View "S.F. v. Lamar County Department of Child Protection Services, et al." on Justia Law

While L.C. was incarcerated at Federal Medical Center, Lexington, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by Bureau of Prisons (BOP) employee, Lee. L.C. alleges that the BOP knew or should have known of Lee’s assaults on her and other incarcerated women and failed to enforce its zero-tolerance policy for sexual assault in BOP facilities because BOP officials failed timely to report and investigate Lee’s assaults. L.C. filed a negligence claim against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).The district court dismissed the assault-and-battery claim, holding that the FTCA’s exception to sovereign immunity does not apply to torts committed by federal employees who act beyond the scope of their employment. It dismissed her negligence claim under the discretionary-function exception to the FTCA. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on other grounds. The claims fall outside the discretionary-function exception; BOP policy imposes specific and mandatory directives on all BOP officials timely to report and investigate information pertaining to sexual assault by a BOP official and deciding whether to do so is not susceptible to policy considerations. The negligence claim, however, should be dismissed for failure to allege sufficiently that the BOP knew or should have known of Lee’s attacks. View "L. C. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied writ relief in this writ proceeding, holding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the law requires the district court to dismiss this private action such that writ relief is warranted.At issue was Nev. Rev. Stat. 357.080(3)(b), which prevents a private plaintiff from maintaining an action under the Nevada False Claims Act (NFCA) if the action is based on the same allegations or transactions that are the subject of a civil action to which the State or a political subdivision is already a party. The Supreme Court held (1) section 357.080(3)(b) does not contain a sequencing requirement and therefore requires dismissal of a private action brought under the NFCA even if the civil action was filed after the private action; (2) section 357.080(3)(b) does not bar a separate private action on behalf of a different governmental entity even where the two suits involve the same allegations or transactions; and (3) Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the law requires the district court to dismiss this private action such that writ relief is warranted. View "Orbitz Worldwide v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appeals officer limiting the reopening of Appellant's claim to the lumbar spine and affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's petition for judicial review, holding that the appeals officer properly determined that the reopening of Appellant's claim was warranted only as to the lumbar spine.Although Appellant was previously treated for injuries to several parts of her body, including her head and back, she sought to reopen her claim due to the worsening condition of her lumbar spine. The appeals officer ordered that Appellant's claim be reopened for the lumbar spine only, and Appellant sought judicial review. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appeals officer properly limited the reopening of the claim to the lumbar spine. View "Olvera v. Wynn Las Vegas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Administrator of the Division of State Lands of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and dismissing Appellants' petition under Nev. Rev. Stat. 233B.110 for a declaratory judgment that a fee-setting regulation was invalid, holding that there was no error.At issue was NAC 322.190, a regulation that sets permit fees for the residential use of piers and buoys on navigable waters in Nevada. Appellants petitioned for a declaratory judgment that the fee-setting regulation was invalid. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Division. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Division did not exceed its statutory authority in promulgating NAC 322.195, and Appellants failed to overcome the presumption that the regulation is valid. View "Killebrew v. Donohue" on Justia Law

Acting under enhanced powers to act in an emergency under RCW 43.06.220 and related statutes, the Washington Governor Inslee imposed a moratorium on evicting people from their homes for failing to pay rent from March 2020 through June 2021. The Washington Supreme Court was asked whether this eviction moratorium was lawful. The Court concluded that it was and affirmed the courts below. View "Gonzales v. Inslee" on Justia Law

The Board of Trustees of the North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court seeking declaratory relief and a writ of injunction, challenging N.D.C.C. § 54-52-03 and section 41 of S.B. 2015 (2023), enacted by the 68th Legislative Assembly, both of which provided for the appointment of sitting legislators to the Board. The Board claimed the law placing legislators on the Board violated N.D. Const. art. IV, § 6; violated the separation of powers between branches of government and encroached on the powers of the executive branch in violation of articles IV, V and XI of the Constitution; violated the common-law rule against incompatibility of office; and violated the single subject rule of N.D. Const. art. IV, § 13. The Supreme Court concluded section 41 of S.B. 2015 violated article IV, § 13 of the North Dakota Constitution, and invalidated S.B. 2015. Because the constitutional “single subject” rule was dispositive, it was unnecessary to address the Board’s remaining claims. View "Bd. of Trustees of N.D. Public Employees Retirement System v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In this review of a decision of the Public Service Commission relating to rates charged by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) for the provision of electric service, the Supreme Court held that the Commission had not supplied a basis for meaningful judicial review of its conclusion that the settlement agreement provided a reasonable resolution of the issues, established reasonable rates, and was in the public interest.The settlement agreement at issue was between FPL and seven parties that intervened in the matter and permitted FPL to increase its base rates and service charges. After hearing arguments in favor of and against the settlement agreement the Commission concluded that the agreement "provides a reasonable resolution of all issues raised, establishes rates that are fair, just, and reasonable, and is in the public interest." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that remand was required because the Commission failed to perform its duty to explain its reasoning. View "Floridians Against Increased Rates, Inc. v. Clark" on Justia Law