Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Steven Romero brought suit against Defendants Jeremy Story, Manuel Frias, and Vincent Shadd, Las Cruces, New Mexico law enforcement officers, alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court denied Defendants' claim to qualified immunity in the context of summary judgment, and Defendants appealed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to excessive force, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff-Appellant, World Publishing Company, publisher of the "Tulsa World" newspaper, appealed a district court's judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee the United States Department of Justice. Resolving various pretrial motions, the district court held that Tulsa World had standing, denied it discovery, and concluded that the United States Marshals Service properly withheld six booking photographs ("mug shots") requested by Tulsa World through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. On appeal, Tulsa World argued that the district court erred in granting the government's motion for summary judgment and denying it discovery so that it might better respond to that motion. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed its judgment in favor of the DOJ.

The issue on appeal to the Tenth circuit centered on what level of deference (if any) must be afforded to a local governmental entity's proffered plan to remedy an adjudged violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973), when that proposed remedy unnecessarily conflicted with state law. The Court surmised that when such plans in effectuating their remedial purposes do not adhere as closely as possible to the contours of the governing state law, they are not eligible for the deference customarily afforded legislative plans. Consequently in this case, the Court affirmed the district court's order that rejected the Fremont County Board of Commissioners' proposed remedial plan, and held under settled Supreme Court precedent that strongly favors single-member districts in court-ordered plans, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning a remedial plan solely consisting of single-member districts.

Two appeals arose out of a lawsuit filed against New Mexico state officials that sought declaratory and injunctive relief to redress alleged violations of New Mexico’s obligations under Sections 7 and 5 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq. The Section 7 claim was resolved on summary judgment, with the district court concluding that the Defendant officials responsible for overseeing New Mexico’s Human Services Department (HSD) violated the NVRA by failing to provide voter registration forms to those applicants for public assistance who left the Section 7-mandated declination form blank. The Section 5 claim, which alleged that New Mexico’s motor vehicle authority offices failed to provide necessary voter registration services, was resolved by written settlement agreement. Although two of the settling agencies reimbursed Plaintiffs for a portion of the attorneys' fees and expenses plaintiffs incurred in litigating the Section 5 claim, the New Mexico Secretary of State refused to contribute. Plaintiffs subsequently sought and were granted attorneys' fees and expenses related to the Section 5 claim against the Secretary of State. In Appeal No. 11-2063, Defendants appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Section 7 claim. In Appeal No. 11-2084, the Secretary of State appealed the district court’s order granting Plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees and expenses arising out of the Section 5 claim. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court in all respects.

Appellant Rick Strandlof was charged under the Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S.C. 704(b)) which makes it illegal to falsely claim to have received a military award or honor. The issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether the Act is constitutional. Despite never having served in the armed forces, Appellant founded the Colorado Veterans Alliance, and frequently told veterans he graduated from the United States Naval Academy, was a former U.S. Marine Corps Captain, and had been wounded in combat in Iraq. He bragged of receiving a Purple Heart, and he boasted that he had been awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in battle. A number of local veterans found Appellant to be an unconvincing imposter. Angered by Appellant's lies, they contacted the FBI and reported their suspicion that Appellant was a phony. After military officials confirmed Appellant never attended the Naval Academy or served in the military, the government filed a criminal complaint in the District of Colorado charging him with making false claims about receipt of military decorations or medals, in violation of the Act. Reasoning that false statements are generally protected by the First Amendment, the district court declared the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional and dismissed the charges against Appellant. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with that reading of Supreme Court precedent and reversed: "[a]s the Supreme Court has observed time and again, false statements of fact do not enjoy constitutional protection, except to the extent necessary to protect more valuable speech. Under this principle, the Stolen Valor Act does not impinge on or chill protected speech, and therefore does not offend the First Amendment."

Relying on "Atkins v. Virginia" (536 W.S. 304, 321 (2002)), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) granted Petitioner-Appellant George Ochoa a post-conviction jury trial to determine whether he was mentally retarded. The jury found Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he was mentally retarded, and the OCCA affirmed. The Tenth Circuit granted Petitioner permission to file a second 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition to raise his "Atkins" claims in federal court. After the district court denied Petitioner's second 2254 habeas petition on the merits, Petitioner appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Petitioner contended Oklahoma law, which focuses on whether a defendant is mentally retarded at the time of trial, instead of whether he was mentally retarded at the time of the commission of the crime, is "contrary to, or . . . an unreasonable application of" "Atkins." Furthermore, Petitioner contended his trial was fundamentally unfair. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the district court properly resolved Petitioner's case, and that none of the alleged errors at trial entitled him to habeas relief.

In August 2010, Defendant Byron Ventura-Perez pled guilty in Colorado to illegal reentry after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated-felony conviction. Defendant raised two issues on appeal: (1) he contended the district court miscalculated his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines; and (2) he contended that when the court imposed his sentence, it improperly refused to consider sentencing disparities created by fast-track programs in other districts. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Plaintiff-Appellant Stuart Guttman, MD had a history of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. His medical license was "qualified" by the New Mexico Board of Medical Examiners, which subjected him to quarterly psychiatrist reports and other conditions. The Board removed the qualifications in 1995. Several years later, the Board began receiving complaints about Plaintiff. The Board reviewed Plaintiff's conduct in his practice, and in 2000, the Board summarily suspended Plaintiff's medical license after finding "clear and convincing" evidence that having Plaintiff continue his practice would be an "imminent danger to public safety." In 2001, after recognizing an extensive pattern of disruptive and abusive behavior in dealing with patients and healthcare professionals, the Board revoked Plaintiff's license. The question presented in this appeal before the Tenth Circuit was whether the Eleventh Amendment protected New Mexico from a suit for money damages under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff challenged the Board's findings in state court, asserting that the Board's actions violated Title II of the ADA. The State court refused to consider Plaintiff's claim, and the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Eleventh Amendment indeed protects New Mexico from suit on sovereign immunity grounds. Accordingly, the Court found that the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's ADA claim.

In 2010, Oklahoma voters approved a state constitutional amendment that would prevent state courts from considering or using Sharia law. Members of the state election board asked the Tenth Circuit to review whether a federal district court abused its discretion when it granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the Board from certifying the result. Plaintiff Muneer Awad sued the Election Board to prevent the certification of ballot title "SQ 755" from the November 2, 2010 election. Plaintiff is an American citizen residing in Oklahoma, and is the executive director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Plaintiff alleged that SQ 755 violated his rights under both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. He objected to the amendment's singling out his religion for negative treatment. The district court granted a temporary restraining order on November 9, 2010. On November 22, 2010, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing and granted a preliminary injunction one week later. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, the Board argued that Plaintiff's claims were not justiciable, and even if Plaintiff's Establishment or Free Exercise claims were justiciable, each failed to meet preliminary injunction requirements. Upon careful consideration of the district court record and the constitutional questions posed by the parties' briefs, the Tenth Circuit held that Plaintiff's claims were justiciable and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction based on those claims.

Petitioner Zhi Wei Pang illegally entered the United States in 1993 from the People's Republic of China. Months after he arrived, he unsuccessfully applied for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed he suffered economic and emotional persecution due to his resistance to Chinese population control policies. But because the economic penalties imposed on Petitioner did not rise to the level of past persecution, the Board of Immigration Appeals recommended Petitioner's removal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and denied Petitioner's petition for review.