Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed the rulings of the district court granting Appellants attorney's fees under the the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which entitles a prevailing party in certain civil actions against the United States to remove attorney's fees unless the government's position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust, holding that there was no error.Appellants brought this challenge against the Department of Homeland Security and its agency, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), after USCIS administratively closed each Appellant's application to adjust status, seeking attorney's fees under the EAJA. Determining that the government's position was substantially justified, the district court denied attorney's fees for the proceedings before the court but granted Appellants EAJA fees for the ensuing appellate proceedings that the government voluntarily dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed both rulings, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying EAJA fees related to the challenges before it; and (2) the district court did not err in its calculation of the EAJA award for the appellate proceedings abandoned by the government. View "Michel v. Mayorkas" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the immigration judge (IJ) denying Appellant's applications for asylum and withholding of removal and denied Appellant's petition for review as to Appellant's claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that remand was required for further proceedings.In denying Appellant's claims for asylum and related relief the IJ concluded that Appellant had failed to establish the requisite basis of fear of future persecution. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the decisions in part, holding (1) Appellant was statutorily eligible for asylum on political opinion grounds; (2) because neither the IJ nor the BIA confronted the merits of Appellant's withholding of removal claim, remand was required for the IJ to assess the evidence in the first instance; and (3) the BIA's denial of Appellant's application for CAT protection was supported by substantial evidence. View "Mendez Esteban v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Lifeline Program provides discounted telecommunications services to low-income Californians. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) administers the program under Pub. Util. Code 871. A “third-party administrator,” qualifies applicants, and there are procedures for service providers to seek reimbursement from CPUC for “LifeLine-related costs and lost revenues.” TruConnect provides free wireless telephone service through LifeLine. CPUC changed the third-party administrator to Maximus. TruConnect claimed Maximus was “woefully unequipped” and asked CPUC to delay the rollout of new software. The launch nonetheless went forward. Maximus recruited TruConnect to assist. TruConnect allegedly invested hundreds of thousands of man-hours. Maximus subsequently subcontracted work to Solix. TruConnect claims it incurred losses of more than $14 million in connection with the launch. TruConnect sought reimbursement from CPUC, which paid some claims but denied compensation for “lost opportunities,” customers who wanted TruConnect’s services but were unable to enroll because of the flawed rollout.TruConnect sued Maximus and Solix. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The court of appeal reversed and remanded for determination of whether the lawsuit is nonetheless barred because CPUC is an indispensable party or for other reasons. Section 1759 does not bar the lawsuit since recovery would not conflict with a CPUC order or interfere with its oversight of LifeLine. View "TruConnect Communications, Inc. v. Maximus, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Clark County Association of School Administrators and Professional-Technical Employees (CCASAPE)'s petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenging a so-called "teacher lottery," holding that the district court properly rejected CCASAPE's interpretation of Nev. Rev. Stat. 388G.610.CCASAPE, a school administrators' union, filed a petition for extraordinary writ relief alleging that Clark County School District (CCSD) violated section 388G.610 by implementing a policy under which certain teachers were unilaterally assigned to local school precincts without the consent of each precinct. The district court denied relief because CCASAPE failed to demonstrate that any assignment was inconsistent with statutory requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the complained-of policy did not run afoul of section 388G.610 because it was implemented to ensure compliance with collective bargaining agreements and allow for as much selection authority as the school district held. View "Clark County Ass'n of School Administrators v. Clark County School District" on Justia Law

The Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), 48 U.S.C. 2101, creates the Financial Oversight and Management Board, an “entity within the territorial government” of Puerto Rico. The Board approves and enforces the Commonwealth’s fiscal plans, supervises its borrowing, and represents Puerto Rico in Title III cases, modeled on federal bankruptcy proceedings. PROMESA does not explicitly abrogate sovereign immunity but incorporates, as part of its mechanism for restructuring debt, the Bankruptcy Code’s express abrogation of sovereign immunity. PROMESA contemplates other legal claims and sets limits on litigation targeting the Board, its members, and its employees for “actions taken to carry out” PROMESA. It provides that no district court will have jurisdiction over challenges to the Board’s “certification determinations.”CPI, a media organization, requested materials, including communications between Board members and Puerto Rican and U.S. officials. The request went unanswered. CPI sued the Board, citing the Puerto Rican Constitution as guaranteeing a right of access to public records. The district court concluded that PROMESA abrogated the Board’s immunity. The First Circuit affirmed.The Supreme Court reversed. PROMESA does not abrogate the Board’s immunity. Congress must make its intent to abrogate sovereign immunity “unmistakably clear.” PROMESA does not do so. Except in Title III debt-restructuring proceedings, the statute does not provide that the Board or Puerto Rico is subject to suit. PROMESA’s judicial review provisions are not incompatible with sovereign immunity but serve a function without an abrogation of immunity. Litigation against the Board can arise even though the Board enjoys sovereign immunity generally. Statutes other than PROMESA abrogate its immunity from particular claims; the Board could decide to waive its immunity from particular claims. Providing for a judicial forum and shielding the Board, its members, and employees from liability do not make the requisite clear statement. View "Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro De Periodismo Investigativo, Inc." on Justia Law

California’s Proposition 12 forbids the in-state sale of whole pork meat that comes from breeding pigs (or their immediate offspring) that are “confined in a cruel manner.” Confinement is “cruel” if it prevents a pig from “lying down, standing up, fully extending [its] limbs, or turning around freely.” Opponents alleged that Proposition 12 violated the Constitution by impermissibly burdening interstate commerce, arguing that the cost of compliance with Proposition 12 will increase production costs and, because California imports almost all the pork it consumes, most of Proposition 12’s compliance costs will be borne by out-of-state firms.The Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the case, rejecting arguments under the dormant Commerce Clause. Absent purposeful discrimination, a state may exclude from its territory, or prohibit the sale therein of any articles which, in its judgment, fairly exercised, are prejudicial to the interests of its citizens. Proposition 12 imposes the same burdens on in-state pork producers that it imposes on out-of-state pork producers. Proposition 12 does not implicate the antidiscrimination principle.The Court rejected an argument that its precedents include an “almost per se” rule forbidding enforcement of state laws that have the practical effect of controlling commerce outside the state, even when those laws do not purposely discriminate against out-of-state interests. While leaving the courtroom door open to challenges premised on even nondiscriminatory burdens, the Court noted that “extreme caution is warranted.” View "National Pork Producers Council v. Ross" on Justia Law

Then-New York Governor Cuomo’s “Buffalo Billion” initiative administered through Fort Schuyler Management Corporation, a nonprofit affiliated with SUNY, aimed to invest $1 billion in upstate development projects. Investigations later uncovered a scheme that involved Cuomo’s associates--a member of Fort Schuyler’s board of directors and a construction company made payments to a lobbyist with ties to the Cuomo administration. Fort Schuyler’s bid process subsequently allowed the construction company to receive major Buffalo Billion contracts.The participants were charged with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1349. Under the Second Circuit’s “right to control” theory, wire fraud can be established by showing that the defendant schemed to deprive a victim of potentially valuable economic information necessary to make discretionary economic decisions. The jury instructions defined “property” as including “intangible interests such as the right to control the use of one’s assets,” and “economically valuable information” as “information that affects the victim’s assessment of the benefits or burdens of a transaction, or relates to the quality of goods or services received or the economic risks.” The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions.The Supreme Court reversed. Under Supreme Court precedents the federal fraud statutes criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests. The prosecution must prove that wire fraud defendants “engaged in deception,” and also that money or property was “an object of their fraud.” The "fraud statutes do not vest a general power in the federal government to enforce its view of integrity in broad swaths of state and local policymaking.” The right-to-control theory applies to an almost limitless variety of deceptive actions traditionally left to state contract and tort law. The Court declined to affirm Ciminelli’s convictions on the ground that the evidence was sufficient to establish wire fraud under a traditional property-fraud theory. View "Ciminelli v. United States" on Justia Law

Nordby served as an administrative law judge with the Social Security Administration. He was also a First Lieutenant in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the Army Reserve. From January-May 2017, Nordby was activated under 10 U.S.C. 12301(d) to perform military service in the Army Reserve; he conducted basic training for new Judge Advocates in Georgia and Virginia. Federal employees who are absent from civilian positions due to military responsibilities and who meet the requirements listed in 5 U.S.C. 5538(a) are entitled to differential pay to account for the difference between their military and civilian compensation.The agency denied Nordby’s request for differential pay, reasoning that those called to voluntary active duty under section 12301(d) are not entitled to differential pay. The Merit Systems Protection Board rejected Nordby's argument that he was called to duty under section 101(a)(13)(B)— “any [] provision of law during a war or during a national emergency declared by the President or Congress” and that his activation was “during a national emergency” because the U.S. has been in a continuous state of national emergency since September 11, 2001. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Nordby failed to allege any connection between the training and the ongoing national emergency that resulted from the September 11 attack. View "Nordby v. Social Security Administration" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus sought by Harm Reduction Ohio (HRO) ordering OneOhio Recovery Foundation (the Foundation) to provide requested documents under Ohio's Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43 and denied HRO's requests for statutory damages and attorney fees, holding that the Foundation was bound by the Public Records Act.HRO, a statewide nonprofit organization with a mission to prevent overdose deaths, sent a public records request to the Foundation seeking documents prepared for the OneOhio Recovery Foundation Board for certain meetings. Alleging that the Foundation did not respond, HRO filed this action seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Foundation to allow access to the requested records. The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus ordering the Foundation to provide the public record responsive to HRO's public records request, holding that HRO demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it had a clear legal right of access to the requested records. View "State ex rel. Harm Reduction Ohio v. OneOhio Recovery Foundation" on Justia Law

This dispute arose out of 2011 legislation that dissolved California’s redevelopment agencies and created a process for winding down their affairs. The Department of Finance (Department) determined that certain reimbursement agreements between the City of Chula Vista (City) and its former redevelopment agency (Agency) were not “enforceable obligations” under the redevelopment dissolution laws. Thus, despite having approved payment under the agreements on prior “recognized obligation payment schedules” (ROPS), the Department denied payment authorization on the fiscal year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 ROPS. The City and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Successor Agency (together, plaintiffs) filed this action seeking to compel the Department to recognize the reimbursement agreements as enforceable obligations and approve the use of property tax revenues for such items on all current and future ROPS. The trial court denied the petition and entered judgment in favor of the Department. On appeal, plaintiffs argued the Department erred in rejecting the items as enforceable obligations under Health and Safety Code section 34171(d)(2). Alternatively, plaintiffs contended the Department should have been estopped from denying the items based on its prior approvals. The Court of Appeal concluded some of the disputed items were enforceable obligations, and reversed the trial court's judgment in part. View "City of Chula Vista v. Stephenshaw" on Justia Law