Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Jacquelyn N’Jai filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, New York University (NYU), Long Island University (LIU), Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. (ICR), and FMS Investment Corporation (FMS), alleging various violations of federal law. N’Jai claimed that she had repaid her student loans but was falsely certified for additional loans by a bank analyst, with NYU and LIU allegedly signing her name on fraudulent loan applications. She contended that the Department of Education and its debt collectors used unlawful practices to collect on these loans, including garnishing her tax refund and threatening to garnish her Social Security checks.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed N’Jai’s claims against LIU, NYU, ICR, and FMS for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing the government contacts exception. This exception prevents the assertion of personal jurisdiction based solely on a defendant’s contact with federal government agencies in the District of Columbia. The court dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants for other reasons.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether the government contacts exception under D.C. law is limited to First Amendment activities. The court noted the ongoing uncertainty about the scope of this exception, referencing previous cases where the D.C. Court of Appeals had not definitively resolved whether the exception is confined to First Amendment activity. Due to this uncertainty, the appellate court certified two questions to the D.C. Court of Appeals: whether the government contacts exception is limited to First Amendment activity and, if so, whether the contacts alleged in this case fall under that exception. The appellate court did not make a final ruling on the personal jurisdiction issue, pending the D.C. Court of Appeals' response to the certified questions. View "N'Jai v. Department of Education" on Justia Law

A group of property owners sued Columbia County over stormwater drainage issues that caused damage to their property. The property, purchased in 1996, contained a metal pipe used in the County's stormwater system. Over the years, heavy rains caused the pipe to fail multiple times, leading to significant property damage. The property owners sent a notice to the County in October 2013, outlining their claims, but the County declined to make repairs. The property owners then filed a lawsuit in March 2014, seeking damages and an injunction to prevent further damage.The trial court found in favor of the property owners, ruling that the County maintained a nuisance that amounted to a taking without just compensation. The court awarded damages and issued a permanent injunction against the County. The County appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed some parts of the trial court's decision and vacated others. The Court of Appeals vacated the damages award for harms incurred after the October 2013 notice and reversed the award of attorneys' fees. However, it upheld the injunction against the County.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and vacated the Court of Appeals' decision to uphold the injunction, ruling that it exceeded the bounds of the Georgia Constitution's limited waiver of sovereign immunity. The Court directed the Court of Appeals to remand the case to the trial court to consider a new injunction within the constitutional limits. The Supreme Court also concluded that it should not have granted certiorari on the issue of damages for harms incurred after the October 2013 notice, as the Court of Appeals' ruling was specific to the facts of this case and did not establish a general rule of law. The petition for certiorari on this issue was therefore denied. View "Satcher v. Columbia County" on Justia Law

Ryan Milliron submitted an Open Records Act request to Manos Antonakakis, a professor at Georgia Tech, seeking records related to Antonakakis’s services to Georgia Tech as a private contractor. Milliron also sent a similar request to Georgia Tech. Antonakakis did not respond individually, but Georgia Tech provided some documents. Unsatisfied, Milliron sued Antonakakis, alleging he held additional public records in his capacity as a private contractor. Milliron claimed Antonakakis’s companies, formed to receive DARPA funding for Georgia Tech, maintained relevant records.The trial court dismissed Milliron’s complaint, ruling that only agencies, not individual employees or private contractors, are obligated to produce public records under the Open Records Act. The court also found that Milliron’s request to Antonakakis was improper because Georgia Tech had a designated open records officer. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing that Milliron’s request was not properly submitted to the designated officer.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and concluded that the Open Records Act applies to records held by private contractors performing services for public agencies. The Court held that requests for such records can be made directly to the custodian of the records, including private contractors, even if the agency has a designated open records officer. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine what records Antonakakis may hold and whether they are public records under the Act. View "Milliron v. Antonakakis" on Justia Law

Noncitizen laborers were brought into the United States to work for construction subcontractor defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants fraudulently applied for B-1 employment visas, which cost less than the petition-based visas they should have applied for, thereby violating the False Claims Act (FCA). Additionally, one plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated the Trafficking Victims Prevention Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) by threatening prosecution and suing him to coerce other workers to continue working.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The court held that the defendants did not have an "established duty" to pay for the more expensive visas because they never applied for them, thus no legal obligation existed under the FCA. The court also dismissed the TVPRA claim, finding that the plaintiff did not allege that the defendants' actions coerced him to provide any labor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court agreed that the defendants had no "established duty" to pay for the more expensive visas since they did not apply for them, and thus did not violate the FCA. The court also upheld the dismissal of the TVPRA claim, concluding that the plaintiff did not state a claim because the defendants' actions did not coerce him to provide any labor. The court's main holding was that potential liability for applying for the wrong visas does not constitute an "established duty" to pay under the FCA, and that the TVPRA claim failed because the plaintiff was not coerced into providing labor. The decision was affirmed. View "LESNIK V. ISM VUZEM D.O.O." on Justia Law

A charter school was accused of manipulating attendance records to receive excess state aid. The Minnesota Department of Education (the Department) audited the school based on these allegations and found significant discrepancies, leading to a retroactive reduction in aid by over $1.3 million. The school appealed the audit results administratively, but the Department upheld its decision.The school then appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing that the Department should have investigated the allegations under a statute dealing with violations of law (Minn. Stat. § 127A.42) rather than the statute used for auditing aid distributions (Minn. Stat. § 127A.41). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Department's decision, stating that the Department had the authority to conduct the audit under the statute it used.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the Department was required to investigate under the statute related to violations of law. The court held that the Department had the statutory authority to audit the school under Minn. Stat. § 127A.41 and was not required to investigate under Minn. Stat. § 127A.42, even though the allegations involved potentially illegal activity. The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the Department's actions were within its legal authority. View "Minnesota Internship Center vs. Minnesota Department of Education" on Justia Law

The case involves several states suing the President of the United States, the Secretary of Education, and the U.S. Department of Education to prevent the implementation of a plan to forgive approximately $475 billion in federal student loan debt. The plan, known as SAVE, significantly alters the existing income-contingent repayment (ICR) plan by lowering payment amounts, often to $0 per month, and forgiving principal balances much sooner than previous plans.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted a preliminary injunction in part, finding that Missouri had standing through its state instrumentality, MOHELA, which faced certain irreparable harm. The court concluded that the states had a fair chance of success on the merits, particularly that loan forgiveness under SAVE was not statutorily authorized and violated the separation of powers under the major-questions doctrine. However, the court only enjoined the ultimate forgiveness of loans, not the payment-threshold provisions or the nonaccrual of interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court that Missouri had standing. The court found that the states demonstrated a fair chance of success on the merits, noting that the SAVE plan's scope was even larger than a previously contested loan-cancellation program. The court also found that the Government's actions had rendered the district court's injunction largely ineffective. Balancing the equities, the court decided to grant in part and deny in part the states' motion for an injunction pending appeal, prohibiting the use of the hybrid rule to circumvent the district court's injunction. The injunction will remain in effect until further order of the court or the Supreme Court of the United States. View "State of Missouri v. Biden" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of North Carolina’s sex offender registration statute, arguing that it violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution by retroactively imposing new punishments for crimes committed in the past. The statute requires offenders to report personal information to law enforcement and restricts where they can live, work, and visit. The plaintiffs, including two nonprofit organizations and two individuals, sought to bar the retroactive application of certain amendments to the statute.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina held a bench trial and found that the statute was nonpunitive and thus did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. The court concluded that the legislature intended to create a civil, nonpunitive scheme and that the plaintiffs failed to show by the clearest proof that the statute’s effects were punitive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court agreed that the legislature intended to enact a civil, nonpunitive scheme aimed at protecting public safety. The court also found that the statute was rationally connected to this nonpunitive purpose and was not excessive in relation to its goal. Although the statute imposed significant burdens on registrants, the court concluded that these burdens did not amount to punishment. The court held that the plaintiffs did not provide the clearest proof that the statute’s effects were so punitive as to override the legislature’s intent.Therefore, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the constitutionality of North Carolina’s sex offender registration statute under the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "National Assoc. For Rational Sexual Offense Laws v. Stein" on Justia Law

The case involves the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) approval of Perdue's "Fresh Line" chicken and turkey product labels. ALDF claimed that the labels, which depicted birds roaming outside, were misleading because the birds were raised indoors. ALDF requested the USDA to disapprove these labels, arguing that they misled consumers. The USDA declined, leading ALDF to sue, alleging violations of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed ALDF's complaint, concluding that ALDF lacked standing to challenge the USDA's actions. The court found that ALDF failed to establish both organizational and associational standing. Specifically, the court determined that ALDF's member, Marie Mastracco, did not suffer a sufficiently concrete injury to confer standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court agreed with the district court, finding that ALDF did not demonstrate that Mastracco faced an ongoing or imminent injury. The court noted that while Mastracco was misled by the labels in the past, she now knows the truth about the birds' living conditions, making any future reliance on the labels self-inflicted. Additionally, the court found that ALDF failed to show that other poultry-product labels with similar misleading graphics existed, which would be necessary to establish a substantial likelihood of future harm.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of ALDF's complaint without prejudice, holding that ALDF lacked standing to pursue its claims. View "Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Medicare beneficiaries with chronic illnesses, rely on home health aides for essential care. They allege that Medicare-enrolled providers have either refused to provide in-home care or offered fewer services than entitled, attributing this to the policies of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. They sought systemwide reforms through a lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of Article III standing. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that their requested relief would redress any harm. The court noted that the injuries were caused by private home health agencies (HHAs) not before the court and that it was speculative whether enjoining the Secretary would change the HHAs' behavior. The court also found the plaintiffs' requested relief too general, making it difficult to evaluate its potential impact.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate redressability, a key component of standing. The court noted that the plaintiffs' injuries stemmed from the independent choices of private HHAs, and it was speculative that the requested injunctions would prompt these agencies to change their behavior. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the Secretary's enforcement policies were a substantial factor in the HHAs' decisions. Consequently, the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit, and the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed. View "Johnson v. Becerra" on Justia Law

In 2001, China and Nigeria signed a bilateral investment treaty to encourage investment between the two countries, agreeing to treat each other's investors fairly and protect their investments. Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment, a Chinese company, invested in Nigeria by participating in a joint venture with Ogun State to develop a free-trade zone. After years of development and significant investment, Ogun State abruptly terminated its relationship with Zhongshan, and Nigerian federal authorities expelled the company's executives. Zhongshan initiated arbitration proceedings, and an arbitrator found that Nigeria had breached its obligations under the treaty, awarding Zhongshan over $55 million in damages.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that it had jurisdiction over the case, finding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (FSIA) arbitration exception applied because the award was governed by the New York Convention, an international arbitration treaty. Nigeria appealed, arguing that it was immune from suit under the FSIA.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the FSIA’s arbitration exception applied because the arbitration award arose from a legal relationship considered commercial, governed by the New York Convention. The court found that Nigeria had an arbitration agreement with Zhongshan, an arbitration award was issued, and the award was governed by the New York Convention. The court rejected Nigeria's argument that the New York Convention only applies to private acts, holding that the treaty covers arbitral awards arising from sovereign acts when a state consents to arbitration. Thus, the court affirmed the district court's jurisdiction and the enforceability of the arbitration award. View "Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd v. Federal Republic of Nigeria" on Justia Law