Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implementing a cap-and-trade program to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as mandated by the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020. The AIM Act requires an 85% reduction in HFC production and consumption by 2036. The EPA issued a rule in 2021 to allocate allowances for 2022 and 2023 based on historical market share data from 2011 to 2019. In 2023, the EPA issued a new rule for 2024-2028, again using the same historical data.The petitioners, RMS of Georgia, LLC (Choice) and IGas Holdings, Inc. (IGas), challenged the 2024 Rule. Choice argued that the AIM Act violated the nondelegation doctrine by giving the EPA too much discretion in allocating allowances. IGas contended that the EPA's exclusion of 2020 data from its market-share calculations was arbitrary and capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court first addressed Choice's argument, holding that the AIM Act did not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power because it provided sufficient guidance to the EPA, modeled on previous cap-and-trade programs under the Clean Air Act. The court found that Congress intended for the EPA to allocate allowances based on historical market share, providing an intelligible principle to guide the agency's discretion.Regarding IGas's challenge, the court found that the EPA's decision to exclude 2020 data was reasonable. The EPA determined that 2020 data was unrepresentative due to the COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain disruptions and that including it could disrupt the market. The court held that the EPA's methodology was not arbitrary and capricious, as the agency provided a rational explanation for its decision.The court denied both petitions for review, upholding the EPA's 2024 Rule. View "IGas Holdings, Inc. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Rodney Wright, a totally disabled veteran, sought additional compensation for his adult daughter, B.W., under 38 U.S.C. § 1115(1)(F) after she elected to receive benefits from the Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance (DEA) program. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ceased paying Wright additional compensation for B.W. once she began receiving DEA benefits, citing 38 U.S.C. § 3562(2), which bars increased rates or additional amounts of compensation when a dependent elects DEA benefits.The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied Wright’s request for additional compensation, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the Board’s decision. The Veterans Court held that section 3562 permanently barred Wright from receiving additional compensation under section 1115 once B.W. elected to receive DEA benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Veterans Court’s decision. The Federal Circuit held that the nonduplication provision of section 3562 bars a disabled veteran from receiving additional compensation under section 1115(1)(F) once the veteran’s child begins receiving DEA benefits. The court also determined that this bar is permanent and does not lift after the exhaustion of DEA benefits. The court rejected Wright’s argument that the bar should only apply to concurrent receipt of benefits, finding no statutory basis for such an interpretation. The court concluded that section 3562 imposes a permanent bar on a veteran’s receipt of additional compensation under section 1115(1)(F) once the veteran’s child elects to receive DEA benefits. View "WRIGHT v. COLLINS " on Justia Law

Nathaniel Deckard, an inmate at the Nebraska State Penitentiary, filed a mandamus action against the Nebraska Board of Parole, alleging that the Board had a clear ministerial duty under the 1971 statutes to provide him with a parole discharge date. Deckard was convicted in 1974 of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, with an additional 10-year sentence for escape, to be served concurrently. He was initially released on parole after 12½ years but had his parole revoked in 1995 and again in 2022. Deckard argued that under the statutes and Board practices in effect at the time of his conviction, he should have been discharged from parole after 2 to 3 years of good behavior.The district court for Lancaster County denied Deckard’s petition, finding that the Board had no clear ministerial duty to determine a parole discharge date for an inmate serving a life sentence. The court noted that the 1971 statutes provided the Board with discretion regarding parole discharge and that the 2018 statutory amendments, which introduced a mathematical formula for determining parole discharge, did not apply to life sentences as they are indefinite and cannot be quantified in numerical terms.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that neither the 1971 nor the 2018 statutes created an absolute ministerial duty for the Board to set a mandatory parole discharge date for Deckard. The court also rejected Deckard’s ex post facto argument, concluding that the 2018 amendments did not increase his punishment or affect his parole eligibility. The court emphasized that there is no constitutional or inherent right to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence and that Deckard’s life sentence precludes a mandatory parole discharge date. View "Deckard v. Cotton" on Justia Law

Seth Hettena, an investigative journalist, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for a report on the death of an Iraqi national, Manadel al-Jamadi, who died in CIA custody at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003. The CIA disclosed parts of the report but redacted most of it, including the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) conclusions and recommendations. Hettena sued the CIA, arguing that the redactions did not comply with FOIA.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in favor of the CIA, concluding that the redactions were justified under FOIA exemptions. The court found that the redacted information pertained to the CIA's intelligence activities, sources, and methods, which are protected under FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The appellate court agreed that most of the redactions were justified, as they contained information about CIA covert personnel, intelligence methods, and locations of Agency facilities. However, the court found that the CIA had not adequately justified the redactions related to the OIG's findings on potential obstruction by CIA officers. The court noted that the CIA's declaration and Vaughn index did not address these findings, and it was unclear why disclosing them would reveal protected information.The appellate court also found that factual questions remained regarding whether the redactions contained information that the CIA had already officially acknowledged, such as references to a "hood" or "head cover." The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the CIA another opportunity to explain its redactions and potentially develop the record further. View "Hettena v. CIA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, including Mike Yoder and his company Drone Deer Recovery, LLC (DDR), along with hunter Jeremy Funke, challenged a Michigan law that bans the use of drones to hunt or collect downed game. DDR uses drones equipped with infrared cameras to locate downed game and provide hunters with GPS coordinates. Plaintiffs argued that the law prevents DDR from operating in Michigan, violating their First Amendment rights to create, disseminate, and receive information.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim. The court found that the law did not prohibit the dissemination of location information but only the use of drones to locate game, which it deemed non-speech conduct. The court also concluded that the alleged injury was not redressable because the law would still prohibit drone use even if the requested injunction was granted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Plaintiffs had standing but failed to state a claim. The court determined that Plaintiffs' intended conduct of using drones to create and share location information was arguably affected with a constitutional interest and that there was a credible threat of enforcement under the Michigan law. However, the court applied intermediate scrutiny, finding the law content-neutral and justified by substantial governmental interests in conservation and fair-chase hunting principles. The court concluded that the law was narrowly tailored to achieve these interests and did not violate the First Amendment.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. View "Yoder v. Bowen" on Justia Law

Robert Sayers filed a complaint in 2021 seeking a declaration that Lippard Road is a public road and damages from Chouteau County for loss of access to his land. Chouteau County argued that the disputed portion of Lippard Road was abandoned in 1916. The disputed portion runs along the head of the Missouri River Breaks. The parties have a history of disputes over Lippard Road, but prior decisions do not impact the current case.The Twelfth Judicial District Court reviewed the case and concluded that the proper legal avenue was a writ of review, not a declaratory judgment. The court found that the Board of County Commissioners had abandoned the disputed portion of Lippard Road in 1916. The court noted that although the record did not show the appointment of viewers or a viewers' report, the curative statute in effect at the time addressed any procedural deficiencies. The court concluded that the Board's decision to abandon the road was supported by substantial evidence and did not materially affect the interests of the county or prejudice the substantial rights of property owners.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's ruling. The court held that the Board of County Commissioners had jurisdiction to consider the abandonment and that the record showed compliance with the statutory requirements for abandonment. The court also held that the curative statute applied, and any procedural deficiencies did not invalidate the abandonment. The court concluded that the Board did not exceed its jurisdiction or fail to regularly pursue its authority in abandoning the disputed portion of Lippard Road in 1916. View "Sayers v. Chouteau County" on Justia Law

A group of residents and business owners in Salt Lake City filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that the city's failure to eliminate encampments of unsheltered people on public land interfered with their use and enjoyment of their properties. The residents claimed that the city, as a landowner, had a duty to maintain its properties free of nuisance. The city argued that the residents were attempting to use the court to force the city to exercise its enforcement powers in a specific way, and that under the public duty doctrine, the city had no duty to the residents regarding its failure to use those powers.The Third District Court in Salt Lake County dismissed the residents' complaint with prejudice, ruling that the public duty doctrine precluded their claims. The court found that the residents failed to allege that the city breached a duty owed specifically to them, rather than a duty owed to the public at large. The court concluded that the city owed no duty to the residents individually apart from its general duty to enforce laws and protect the public.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the public duty doctrine, which protects government actors from civil liability for failing to perform duties owed to the public, precluded the residents' claims of public and private nuisance. The court found that no special relationship existed between the residents and the city that would exempt the residents' claims from the public duty doctrine's preclusion. The court emphasized that the public duty doctrine applies to omissions by government actors performing public duties and that the residents did not demonstrate any unique duty owed to them by the city. View "Barrani v. Salt Lake City" on Justia Law

Liquid Hospitality, LLC, doing business as Windbreak Saloon, holds a liquor license from the City of Fargo. On August 18, 2023, Windbreak staff removed an intoxicated patron who later drove away and was involved in a single-vehicle accident. The patron had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.291 and was arrested for driving under the influence. The Fargo Police Department investigated and reviewed surveillance footage, which showed the patron being served multiple drinks and exhibiting signs of intoxication. The Windbreak was notified of a hearing before the Liquor Control Board for a possible violation of Fargo Municipal Code (F.M.C.) § 25-1509.2, which prohibits serving alcohol to intoxicated or impaired persons.The Liquor Control Board held a hearing on October 24, 2023, and determined that the Windbreak violated F.M.C. § 25-1509.2, recommending a $500 administrative penalty. The Windbreak appealed to the Board of City Commissioners of the City of Fargo, which upheld the Liquor Control Board's decision. The Windbreak then appealed to the district court.The district court requested additional briefing on the constitutionality of F.M.C. § 25-1509.2 and ultimately found the ordinance unconstitutionally vague, reversing the Commission's order. The court did not address whether the Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, or whether their decision lacked substantial evidence. The Commission appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and concluded that F.M.C. § 25-1509.2 is not unconstitutionally vague. The court found that the ordinance provides adequate warning of prohibited conduct and creates minimum guidelines for enforcement. The court also determined that the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The district court's judgment was reversed. View "Liquid Hospitality v. Bd. of City Commissioners of the City of Fargo" on Justia Law

A former Newark policeman, Keith Isaac, applied for special retirement in 2013, listing his estranged spouse, Roxanne, as his wife on the application. His retirement was approved in 2016, retroactive to August 1, 2014, resulting in $208,950.03 in unpaid benefits. Isaac passed away before receiving these benefits, and the Division of Pensions and Benefits distributed the unpaid benefits to Roxanne in March 2017. Isaac’s estate requested reconsideration, arguing that the benefits should be paid to the estate. The Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS) upheld the decision, stating that Isaac had designated Roxanne as his beneficiary.The estate appealed to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), which affirmed the Board’s decision, reasoning that listing Roxanne as his spouse on the retirement application constituted a beneficiary designation. The estate then appealed to the Appellate Division, which remanded the case to the OAL for a supplemental hearing to determine Isaac’s probable intent regarding the unpaid benefits.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that N.J.S.A. 43:16A-12.2 mandates that unpaid benefits be distributed to the decedent’s estate unless a beneficiary is nominated by written designation. Since Isaac did not make such a designation, the Court ruled that the Board’s decision to distribute the benefits to Roxanne was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision to remand for further fact-finding and directed that the $208,950.03 in unpaid benefits be distributed to Isaac’s estate. View "Isaac v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen's Retirement System" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants, owners of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA), sued the United States, alleging a taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment due to the enactment of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). They claimed that the restructuring of COFINA's debts under PROMESA resulted in a significant loss of the principal and interest value of their bonds and their security interest.The United States Court of Federal Claims determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over the case but dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The court found that the enactment of PROMESA by Congress did not constitute sufficient federal government action to support a takings claim. The court reasoned that the actions of the Puerto Rico Oversight Board, which was created by PROMESA and acted autonomously, could not be attributed to the United States as coercive or as an agency relationship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Claims Court. The Federal Circuit held that PROMESA did not displace Tucker Act jurisdiction, as there was no clear congressional intent to withdraw the Tucker Act remedy. The court also agreed with the Claims Court that the United States did not exert coercive control over the Oversight Board's actions, which were necessary to establish a taking. The court concluded that the plaintiffs could not establish that the United States was liable for the alleged taking of their property. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Claims Court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint. View "DINH v. US " on Justia Law