Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming an order entered by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reinstating Respondent's personal driver's license and commercial driver's license after Defendant challenged the finding of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) that Respondent drove under the influence of alcohol, holding that there was no error.In 2017, the DMV revoked Respondent's personal driver's license and disqualified him from holding a commercial driver's license. Following an administrative hearing in 2019, the OAH rescinded the DMV's revocation and disqualification orders. The OAH reinstated both of Respondent's licenses, finding that the DMV had not proven that Respondent drove a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the DMV did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent drove a motor vehicle while he was under the influence of alcohol. View "Frazier v. Gaither" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of assault with a weapon and his commitment to the Department of Public Health and Human Service (DPHHS) for the duration of his twenty-year sentence with ten years suspended, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Defendant pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, and the parties agreed to recommend that Defendant be committed to the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) for the duration of his sentence. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to twenty years in DPHHS's custody with ten years suspended. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court unjustly resumed his criminal proceedings due to the lengthy period between his arrest and the date he regained fitness to stand trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss because resuming Defendant's criminal proceedings was not unjust. View "State v. Gibson" on Justia Law

The City of Pomona (the City) decided to allow commercial cannabis activities in specific locales within its boundaries. In doing so, the City determined it was exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Guidelines adopted to implement CEQA (Cal. Code Regs.) (Guidelines). Thus, when the City chose areas to locate commercial cannabis activities, it did not conduct additional environmental review under CEQA. Appellant wanted his storefront property included among the locales where commercial cannabis activity would be allowed. The City, however, excluded Appellant’s property. Appellant then filed a petition for writ of mandate to overturn the City’s designation of areas for permissible commercial cannabis activities. He contended the City made the decision improperly by foregoing further environmental review. The superior court denied the petition and entered judgment in favor of the City.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court held that the City properly determined that the Project is Exempt per Guidelines Section 15183 and requires no additional environmental review. The court explained that substantial evidence shows the Project’s proposed commercial cannabis activities were similar to or “consistent” with existing land uses or development density established by the 2014 EIR and General Plan Update and thus meet the statutory exemption per Guidelines section 15183. Further, the court found that substantial evidence—the General Plan Update, the 2014 EIR, the Project, the DOS, and Findings of Consistency—shows the Project “has no project-specific effects” that are “peculiar” to it. View "Lucas v. City of Pomona" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, holding that the Missouri Constitution does not permit the General Assembly to limit the Conservation Commission's authority to expend and use conservation funds for constitutionally-enumerated purposes.The General Assembly enacted House Bill No. 2019 in 2020, appropriating $21 million to the Conservation Commission. The General Assembly, however, removed language from HB 2019 regarding use of the Commission's funds, including for land acquisition and payments in lieu of taxes (PILT). Later, the Commission attempted to withdraw funds to pay for a land acquisition and for PILT, but the Office of Administration denied the requests. The Commission and the Missouri Department of Conservation brought this action against the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the Office of Administration seeking declaratory relief to require certification of PILT payments. The circuit court ordered the Commissioner to certify the land purchase and PILT payments as requested. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in passing HB 2019, the General Assembly invaded the Commission's constitutional authority by attempting to limit the constitutionally-enumerated purposes for which the Commission could use its funds. View "Conservation Comm'n v. Bailey" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of Federal contractor employees and Federal employees working for the Department of Energy, challenged two Executive Orders, Executive Orders 14,042 and 14,043 (EOs), issued in September 2021. 1 Those EOs mandated COVID-19 vaccination for Federal contractor employees and Federal employees, respectively. They also provided for legally required medical or religious exemptions. Plaintiffs challenged the EOs as ultra vires exercises of presidential power in violation of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (Procurement Act), the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (Procurement Policy Act), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA), the major questions doctrine, and general constitutional federalism constraints. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief to address their allegedly “imminent and wrongful terminations” for failure to comply with the vaccination requirements. The district court held that Plaintiffs who had submitted religious and medical exemptions but who had not yet completed the exemption request process did not have claims ripe for adjudication. The district court then dismissed the operative Second Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and without leave to amend.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed as moot in part. The panel concluded that the case was moot as to all non-RFRA claims. The vaccine mandate exemption processes that the Plaintiffs challenged were premised on the revoked EOs. The panel held that it could not provide relief from EOs and exemption processes that no longer exist. Accordingly, no live controversy remained between the parties. The panel further concluded that Plaintiffs’ claims for damages under RFRA were precluded by sovereign immunity. View "DAVID DONOVAN, ET AL V. BRIAN VANCE" on Justia Law

The United States (“the Government”) initiated a civil forfeiture suit in federal district court against a $380 million arbitration award fund, the majority of which is held in the United Kingdom. The fund belongs to PetroSaudi Oil Services (Venezuela) Ltd. (“PetroSaudi”), a private oil company incorporated in Barbados. PetroSaudi won the award in an arbitration proceeding against Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”), a Venezuelan state energy company. The portion of the fund held in the United Kingdom (“the fund”) is held in an account controlled by the High Court of England and Wales (“the High Court”). The Government seeks forfeiture of the fund on the ground that it derives from proceeds of an illegal scheme to steal one billion dollars from the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (“1MDB”). PetroSaudi challenged two orders entered by the district court.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s interlocutory orders. The panel held that PetroSaudi’s appeal from the district court’s protective order under 18 U.S.C. Section 983 fell within this exception. Accordingly, the court had jurisdiction to consider the appeals of the two orders. The panel concluded that the sovereign immunity of the United Kingdom, as codified in the FSIA, did not protect the arbitration award fund from the two orders issued by the district court. The panel held that because the district court had in rem jurisdiction over the fund, it did not need in personam jurisdiction over PetroSaudi to issue an order preserving the fund. View "USA V. PETROSAUDI OIL SERV. (VENEZUELA) LTD., ET AL" on Justia Law

TOCH, LLC, the owner and operator of Aloft Hotel, alleged that the Tulsa Tourism Improvement District No. 1 was allegedly improperly created because fifty percent or more of the affected hotel owners protested in writing prior to its creation. City of Tulsa and Tulsa Hotel Partners sought summary judgment on this issue and disputed this material fact by submitting affidavits to disprove TOCH's allegation. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, but the Oklahoma Supreme Court found the trial court erred when it made a factual determination on this controverted fact. "Weighing disputed evidence is not proper on summary judgment." The trial court's decision was therefore reversed. View "TOCH, LLC v. City of Tulsa, et al." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction this appeal from the order of the district court dismissing Appellant's appeal of the Natrona County Board of Commissioners' decision denying Appellant's application to transfer a liquor license to him, holding that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.In a separate lawsuit, the district court ordered the CC Cowboys, Inc.'s (CCCI) liquor license be transferred to Appellant. Appellant applied to the Board for the transfer of CCCI's liquor license, but the Board denied the transfer on the grounds that the "transfer will adversely affect the welfare of the people residing in the vicinity of the proposed license address." Appellant appealed to the district court, which found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that it was without jurisdiction. View "Elliott v. Natrona County Bd. of Commissioners" on Justia Law

Petitioners-appellants the Reeses and their neighbors challenged the Blackfoot City Council’s decision to approve a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) in a “Residential Ranchette” zoning district. The district court dismissed their petition for judicial review after holding the Reeses did not demonstrate prejudice to a substantial right. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's decision. View "Reese v. City of Blackfoot" on Justia Law

After submitting the winning bid, Eagle Rock Timber, Inc. (“Eagle Rock”), contracted with Teton County, Idaho to reconstruct a stretch of road known as “Chapin Lane.” During the course of the project, Eagle Rock claimed it discovered unsuitable base material under portions of the road. Eagle Rock maintained that Teton County’s agent, Darryl Johnson, directed Eagle Rock to remove the material and said that the county would “make it right.” However, when Eagle Rock attempted to recover an amount in excess of the original Contract Price, Teton County denied Eagle Rock’s request, stating that it had not authorized any changes to the Contract. When the parties could not resolve this dispute over the amount owed, Eagle Rock filed suit. Teton County twice moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the first motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether Johnson orally waived the writing requirement and whether Johnson had authorized Eagle Rock to remove the unsuitable base material, which could support an equitable remedy. In the County's second motion, the district court granted it, ruling that since Teton County’s agent did not have actual or apparent authority to bind Teton County, the claims asserted by Eagle Rock failed as a matter of law. Eagle Rock appealed, asserting that the district court erred because there were still genuine issues of material fact that should be resolved by a jury. Further, Eagle Rock claimed the district court’s refusal to grant leave to amend its complaint to assert a separate cause of action against Johnson personally was an abuse of discretion. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and denial of leave to amend. However, the Court affirmed the district court in not considering the ratification issue because it was beyond the scope of the pleadings at the time it was presented. View "Eagle Rock Timber, Inc. v. Teton County" on Justia Law