Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In early October 2025, the President of the United States invoked his authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 to federalize and deploy members of the National Guard in Illinois, despite opposition from the state’s Governor. The President justified this action by citing the need to address violent assaults against federal immigration agents and property, particularly in the context of increased protests at an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, following the launch of “Operation Midway Blitz.” Although protests had grown in size and occasionally involved minor disruptions and isolated incidents of violence, state and local law enforcement consistently maintained control, and federal agencies reported continued success in their operations.The State of Illinois and the City of Chicago filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, challenging the federalization of the Guard. They argued that the statutory conditions for such action under § 12406 were not met, and that the move violated the Tenth Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act. After an adversary hearing, the district court granted a temporary restraining order, finding insufficient evidence of rebellion or inability to execute federal law with regular forces, and enjoined the federalization and deployment of the Guard. The administration appealed and sought a stay of the order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s order, applying clear error review to factual findings and de novo review to statutory interpretation. The Seventh Circuit held that the President’s decision to federalize the National Guard under § 12406 is judicially reviewable and that, even granting substantial deference to the executive, the statutory predicates for federalization were not met on the current record. The court denied the administration’s motion for a stay pending appeal as to deployment, but continued to stay the portion of the order enjoining federalization. View "Illinois v. Trump" on Justia Law

A developer entered into an agreement with a city to develop a downtown district, which included provisions for three large signs identifying the area as "Reno's Neon Line District." The city council approved the agreement and adopted it by ordinance. A nonprofit organization dedicated to scenic preservation objected, arguing that the signs were actually billboards prohibited by city code and that the developers lacked the necessary interest to enter into the agreement.The Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County partially granted the nonprofit’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The court found that the nonprofit had standing to challenge the agreement. It ruled that one sign (the archway sign) was a permissible area identification sign, but determined that the other two signs (the gas station sign and the cemetery sign) were, respectively, an on-premises advertising display and a billboard, both in violation of city code. The court severed the provisions for these two signs from the agreement and issued a writ preventing their construction.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed whether the nonprofit had standing and whether the district court properly reclassified the signs. The Supreme Court held that the city’s classification of the signs as area identification signs was entitled to a presumption of validity and that substantial evidence supported this classification. The court further held that the nonprofit lacked standing to seek writ relief because it did not have a direct and substantial beneficial interest in the agreement, as the signs were not billboards and thus not covered by a prior settlement agreement with the city. The court also found that the nonprofit had waived any argument for representational standing. The Supreme Court of Nevada vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "RENO REAL ESTATE DEVEL., LLC VS. SCENIC NEVADA, INC." on Justia Law

The case concerns a lawsuit brought by the executor of an estate against a city, alleging that the city’s negligence in failing to address a hazardous tree led to a fatal accident. The estate claimed that the city owned the tree and had ignored repeated warnings about its dangerous condition, resulting in the decedent’s severe injury and subsequent death after a tree fell on him while he was riding a motorcycle on a city street.After the complaint was filed, the city submitted an answer denying the allegations and raising several defenses, including a general assertion that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. However, the city did not specifically assert political-subdivision immunity as a defense. The case experienced delays due to a judge’s recusal and the COVID-19 pandemic. As the case progressed, the estate pursued discovery and moved for partial summary judgment. The city failed to timely respond to discovery and only raised the political-subdivision immunity defense for the first time in an untimely motion for summary judgment, after the deadlines for dispositive motions had passed. The trial court struck the city’s motion and later denied the city’s request for leave to amend its answer to add the immunity defense, finding the delay unjustified and prejudicial.The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the city’s general assertion of failure to state a claim did not preserve the specific defense of political-subdivision immunity, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the answer. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed, holding that a party does not preserve the defense of political-subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 by merely asserting failure to state a claim, and that unjustified and prejudicial inaction supported the denial of leave to amend the answer. The judgment of the court of appeals was affirmed. View "Durig v. Youngstown" on Justia Law

A personal care assistance provider agency in Minnesota was audited by the Department of Human Services (DHS) for recordkeeping deficiencies related to its provision of services under the state’s Medicaid program. The agency, which served both traditional and PCA Choice recipients, was found to have various documentation errors, including missing or incomplete care plans and timesheets, as well as timesheets lacking required elements. DHS did not allege fraud or that services were not provided, but sought to recover over $420,000 in payments, arguing that these deficiencies constituted “abuse” under state law and justified monetary recovery.After an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) recommended limited recovery for some missing documentation but rejected most of DHS’s claims, finding that DHS had not shown the deficiencies resulted in improper payments. The DHS Commissioner disagreed, ordering full repayment. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the Commissioner’s decision, holding that DHS must prove not only that the provider engaged in “abuse” but also that the abuse resulted in the provider being paid more than it was entitled to receive. The court also determined that provider agencies must maintain care plans for both traditional and PCA Choice recipients in their files.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It held that, to obtain monetary recovery under Minn. Stat. § 256B.064, subd. 1c(a), DHS must prove either: (1) the provider engaged in conduct described in subdivision 1a and, had DHS known of the conduct before payment, it would have been legally prohibited from paying under a statute or regulation independent of subdivision 1a; or (2) the payment resulted from an error such that the provider received more than authorized by law. The Court also held that provider agencies must keep care plans for all PCA services, including PCA Choice, in their files. View "In the Matter of the SIRS Appeal by Best Care, LLC" on Justia Law

A flight attendant employed by an airline and represented by a labor union was terminated after sending graphic anti-abortion images and messages to the union president and posting similar content on social media. The employee, a pro-life Christian and vocal opponent of the union, had previously resigned her union membership but remained subject to union fees. The union’s leadership had participated in the Women’s March, which the employee viewed as union-sponsored support for abortion, prompting her messages. The airline investigated and concluded that while some content was offensive, only certain images violated company policy. The employee was terminated for violating social media, bullying, and harassment policies.Following termination, the employee filed a grievance, which the union represented. The airline offered reinstatement contingent on a last-chance agreement, which the employee declined, leading to arbitration. The arbitrator found just cause for termination. The employee then sued both the airline and the union in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging violations of Title VII and the Railway Labor Act (RLA), among other claims. The district court dismissed some claims, allowed others to proceed, and after a jury trial, found in favor of the employee on several Title VII and RLA claims. The court awarded reinstatement, backpay, and issued a broad permanent injunction against the airline and union, later holding the airline in contempt for its compliance with the judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for the employee on her belief-based Title VII and RLA retaliation claims against the airline, remanding with instructions to enter judgment for the airline on those claims. The court affirmed the judgment against the airline on practice-based Title VII claims and affirmed all claims against the union. The court vacated the permanent injunction and contempt sanction, remanding for further proceedings, and granted the employee’s motion to remand appellate attorney’s fees to the district court. View "Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America Local 556" on Justia Law

In this case, a group consisting of an alumni association and several descendants of Serranus Clinton Hastings challenged the enactment of Assembly Bill 1936, which changed the name of “Hastings College of the Law” to “College of the Law, San Francisco” and eliminated a statutory requirement that a seat on the College’s board of directors be reserved for an heir or representative of S.C. Hastings. The plaintiffs argued that the original 1878 Act establishing the College constituted a binding contract between the State and S.C. Hastings and his descendants, and that the new legislation violated constitutional protections, including the Contract Clauses, the prohibition on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, and the California Constitution’s provision regarding collegiate freedom.The Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the 1878 Act was a contract rather than an exercise of legislative power. The court also determined that Assembly Bill 1936 did not constitute a bill of attainder or ex post facto law, and that the changes to the College’s name and governance did not violate the California Constitution, particularly since the College’s board had requested the name change.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the State could not contract away its sovereign authority to manage a public institution, including the power to change the College’s name or governance structure. The court further concluded that Assembly Bill 1936 was not punitive and did not violate constitutional prohibitions on bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. The court also found no violation of the California Constitution’s collegiate freedom provision, as the changes were initiated by the College’s board. The judgment in favor of the State and College defendants was affirmed. View "Hastings College Conservation Committee v. State" on Justia Law

Two inmates in Virginia, each serving sentences for attempted aggravated murder, were initially informed by the Department of Corrections that they would be released in July 2022 due to a new state law expanding sentence credits for good behavior. This law, H.B. 5148, allowed certain inmates to earn more credits and thus reduce their incarceration time. However, after a change in the Attorney General’s office, the new Attorney General issued an advisory opinion stating that inmates convicted of inchoate offenses related to aggravated murder were not eligible for the enhanced credits. As a result, the Department reversed its earlier decision and kept the inmates incarcerated for an additional year, until the Supreme Court of Virginia later clarified that such inmates were indeed eligible for the credits and ordered their release.The inmates then filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that the Attorney General and the Director of Corrections violated their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to their over-incarceration. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that both officials had acted reasonably in interpreting an unsettled question of state law and that their conduct did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference or conscience-shocking behavior.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the officials’ actions did not constitute deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, nor did they shock the conscience under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court emphasized that federal courts should not hold state officials personally liable for reasonable legal interpretations of unsettled state law, especially when those interpretations are made in good faith and with conventional legal reasoning. View "Swart v. Miyares" on Justia Law

Causam Enterprises, Inc. owns several patents related to “demand response” technology, which allows electrical utilities to reduce power demand in response to certain conditions. Causam filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging that Resideo Smart Homes Technology (Tianjin) and its affiliate Ademco, Inc. were importing and selling internet-connected smart thermostats that infringed method claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,394,268, which Causam claimed to own. Causam sought to exclude these products from importation. During the ITC investigation, respondents argued that Causam did not own the patent and that Resideo’s products did not infringe the asserted claims.The assigned administrative law judge (ALJ) at the ITC found that Causam did not own the ’268 patent and that Resideo’s products did not infringe the claims. The full Commission, upon review, adopted only the noninfringement finding and did not address the ownership issue. Causam appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the noninfringement determination and seeking a ruling on ownership. Meanwhile, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held, in a separate inter partes review, that claim 1 of the ’268 patent was unpatentable, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision in a companion case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Causam owns the ’268 patent, interpreting the relevant assignment agreements to exclude continuations-in-part from a prior assignment, thus leaving ownership with Causam. However, the court did not reach the noninfringement issue because its affirmance of the PTAB’s finding that claim 1 is unpatentable rendered the appeal moot. The court therefore dismissed the appeal as moot. View "CAUSAM ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ITC " on Justia Law

Nathan Gault was a party to a divorce action in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. After the case concluded, the clerk charged him various fees, including a “Clerk Computer Operation” fee. Gault believed he had been overcharged, specifically challenging the additional dollar per page fee assessed for making a complete record of the proceedings. He filed a class-action complaint against the clerk, the county treasurer, and the county itself, alleging that the clerk charged him $125 in computer-operation fees, which was over $100 more than statutorily authorized.The Medina County Court of Common Pleas initially granted judgment on the pleadings for the defendants, finding Gault’s claim barred by res judicata. The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that res judicata did not apply because the total amount owed and the methodology for determining the fees were not ascertainable from the final judgment in the divorce action, and the defendants were not parties to the prior proceedings. On remand, the trial court again ruled for the defendants, interpreting the statutes to permit the clerk to charge two dollars per page—one dollar under R.C. 2303.20(H) and an additional dollar under former R.C. 2303.201(B)(1). The Ninth District reversed, concluding that only one additional dollar total could be charged for the service, not one dollar per page.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case, consolidating a discretionary appeal and a certified conflict. The court held that, under the plain text of former R.C. 2303.201(B)(1), the clerk may charge only one additional dollar total for making a complete record under R.C. 2303.20(H), regardless of the number of pages. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Ninth District Court of Appeals. View "State ex rel. Gault v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas Clerk" on Justia Law

After their property in DeKalb County was annexed by the City of Atlanta, two parents sought to enroll their children in Atlanta Public Schools (APS). APS, however, denied enrollment, citing a 2021 Georgia law (SB 209) that prevents the expansion of APS boundaries to include newly annexed areas unless specifically authorized. The City of Atlanta had approved the annexation and expressed its intent for the APS boundaries to expand accordingly, but APS maintained that SB 209 prohibited such an extension.The parents and the City of Atlanta filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief against the State of Georgia, arguing that SB 209 was unconstitutional under the Georgia Constitution’s Single Subject Rule. The case was initially filed in Fulton County, transferred to DeKalb County, and then refiled in Fulton County against the State after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the DeKalb action. The DeKalb County School District (DCSD) was allowed to intervene as a plaintiff. The trial court denied motions to dismiss, found that the plaintiffs had standing, determined there was a justiciable controversy, and ruled that SB 209 violated the Single Subject Rule, granting declaratory and injunctive relief to the plaintiffs.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant relief. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the plaintiffs failed to establish an actual or justiciable controversy with the State, as the alleged harm stemmed from APS’s actions, not from any enforcement by the State. Because the dispute did not involve the parties before the court, the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the petition. View "PILATO v. STATE OF GEORGIA" on Justia Law