Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Brooklyn Coons (called "Brook" by her estate) died from being shaken and possibly struck on the head while in the care of her father's girlfriend. Her estate, the remaining plaintiff in this case, alleged that Defendant Linda Gillen, a social worker, knew that Brook was in danger and subject to abuse but did not respond to reports of the abuse, increasing Brook's vulnerability to danger. The estate sued Defendant under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violating Brook's right to substantive due process. The district court granted Defendant summary judgment, holding that she was entitled to qualified immunity because she did not take any affirmative action that increased the child's vulnerability to danger and because there was no clearly established law that her alleged conduct violated Brook's due-process rights. Finding that Defendant’s conduct was not a violation of clearly established law, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Estate of B.I.C., et al v. Gillen" on Justia Law

In an effort to reduce illegal gun trafficking "along and across the Southwest border" of the United States, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a demand letter to certain federal firearms licensees (FFLs) in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, requiring them to report sales to the same customer within five consecutive business days of "two or more semiautomatic rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine and with a caliber greater than .22." Appellants Ron Peterson Firearms, LLC, Dale Rutherford, doing business as The Cop Shop, and Tracy Rifle and Pistol, Inc. were FFLs subject to the letter. They argued that ATF lacked the statutory authority to issue the demand letter and that the decision to target FFLs in the four Mexican border states was arbitrary and capricious. Concluding that ATF neither exceeded its statutory authority nor engaged in arbitrary and capricious action, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant. View "Ron Peterson Firearms v. Jones" on Justia Law

Marvin Green, a former postmaster, claimed the U.S. Postal Service retaliated against him after he made employment-discrimination claims. He was investigated, threatened with criminal prosecution, and put on unpaid leave. Shortly after being put on leave, he signed a settlement agreement with the Postal Service that provided him paid leave for three and a half months, after which he could choose either to retire or to work in a position that paid much less and was about 300 miles away. Ultimately, he decided to retire. He then filed a complaint against the Postmaster General alleging five retaliatory acts in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: (1) a letter notifying him to attend an investigative interview; (2) the investigative interview; (3) a threat of criminal charges against him; (4) his constructive discharge; and (5) his placement on unpaid leave (also known as emergency placement). The district court dismissed the first three claims for failing to exhaust administrative remedies. On the two remaining claims it granted summary judgment for the Postmaster, holding that the constructive-discharge claim was untimely and that emergency placement was not a materially adverse action. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court in all respects save one: the Court agreed with Green that the emergency placement was a materially adverse action (being put on unpaid leave would dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity). The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Green v. Donahoe" on Justia Law

In September 2009, Plaintiff Bridget Dalpiaz was terminated from her position as the benefits administrator for Carbon County, Utah. She sued, raising several claims against the county and various county officials, including one claim of "Violation of the [Family and Medical Leave Act] – Interference with FMLA Rights" against the county. The district court granted summary judgment to all Defendants on all claims. On appeal, Plaintiff challenged only the denial of her FMLA claim against Carbon County. Based on all of the evidence in the record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the evidence, even taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, was sufficient to meet the county’s burden of establishing that Plaintiff would have been dismissed regardless of her request for FMLA leave. Plaintiff’s interference claim therefore failed as a matter of law. View "Dalpiaz v. Carbon County, Utah, et al" on Justia Law

In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a final Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to reduce regional haze by regulating emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) at the five units of the Four Corners Power Plant on the Navajo Reservation. WildEarth Guardians filed a petition under 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1) for review of the FIP. It argued that promulgation of the FIP did not comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because the EPA failed to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service about the effect of the FIP even though the EPA had discretion to act to protect endangered fish near the Plant from mercury and selenium emissions. WildEarth argued that the EPA had four grounds for the exercise of discretion that could have benefitted the fish. But the principal ground was mooted by the closure of three units of the Plant, and two other grounds were not raised in WildEarth’s opening brief. "As for the fourth alleged ground, it could not create a duty to consult under the ESA because it would have required the EPA to exceed the clearly delineated boundaries of the FIP." The Tenth Circuit denied the petition. View "WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, et al" on Justia Law

Anthony and Melissa Stonecipher became targets of an investigation because of their purchases and sales of firearms and explosives. During the investigation, federal officers discovered that Mr. Stonecipher had pled guilty in 2007 to a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in Missouri. One of the officers, Carlos Valles, concluded Mr. Stonecipher had violated federal law, which made it illegal for anyone convicted of even a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a firearm. Acting on this knowledge, Valles obtained a search warrant for the Stoneciphers' home, ending with Mr. Stonecipher's arrest. It turned out that Mr. Stonecipher had not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence for purposes of federal law. Prosecutors soon learned that the conviction did not count because the sentence had been suspended and, under Missouri law, a suspended sentence in these circumstances did not amount to a conviction. The government dismissed the criminal complaint. The Stoneciphers filed a "Biven"s action against Valles and other law enforcement officers involved in the investigation, alleging violations of their Fourth and First Amendment rights in connection with the search of their home and Mr. Stonecipher's arrest and prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. The Stoneciphers appealed the grant of summary judgment on their claims for unreasonable search and seizure, unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of their First Amendment rights. For purposes of qualified immunity, Valles had enough information to: (1) conclude he had probable cause to search the Stoneciphers' home; and (2) arrest and file charges based on Mr. Stonecipher's possession of firearms and explosives. Further, there was no evidence that Mr. Stonecipher's arrest and prosecution were in retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. View "Stonecipher, et al v. Valles, et al" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case were David and Barbara Green, their three children, and the businesses they collectively owned and operated: Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Mardel, Inc. As owners and operators of both Hobby Lobby and Mardel, the Greens organized their businesses with express religious principles in mind. As was particularly relevant to this case, one aspect of the Greens’ religious principles was a belief that human life begins when sperm fertilizes an egg. In addition, the Greens believed it was immoral for them to facilitate any act that caused the death of a human embryo. Plaintiffs brought an action to challenge portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) whereby employment-based group health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) were required provide certain types of health services for women that implicated contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling (without cost-sharing by plan participants or beneficiaries) - all "abortifacients" that went against plaintiffs' religious beliefs. Plaintiffs filed suit to challenge the contraceptive-coverage requirement of the ACA under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs simultaneously moved for a preliminary injunction on the basis of their RFRA and Free Exercise claims. The district court denied that motion. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of the injunction. After review by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that Hobby Lobby and Mardel were entitled to bring claims under RFRA, established a likelihood of success that their rights under statute were substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and established an irreparable harm. However, the case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings on two remaining factors governing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction. View "Hobby Lobby Stores, et al v. Sebelius, et al" on Justia Law

Dr. Collie Trant was the former Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Oklahoma at a time the office was recovering from a series of public scandals. Trant lost the confidence of the Oklahoma Board of Medicolegal Investigations, and was terminated. Trant filed suit in Oklahoma state court alleging a number of claims under federal and state law in connection with his tenure and termination. Oklahoma subsequently consented to removal of the case to federal court. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Trant’s First Amendment retaliation claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed for lack of standing Trant’s claim seeking a declaratory judgment the Board violated the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act. The court also dismissed Trant’s breach of implied contract claim for failure to state a claim under Oklahoma law. Finding no reversible error with respect to the district court's decision on Trant's First Amendment and breach of implied contract claims, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. With regard to Trant's declaratory judgment claim, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Trant v. Medicolegal Investigations, et al" on Justia Law

In late 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking comprehensively reforming and modernizing its universal service and intercarrier compensation systems. Petitioners, all parties to the rulemaking proceeding, filed petitions for judicial review of the FCC’s Order. In multiple briefs, petitioners asserted a host of challenges to the portions of the Order revising how universal service funds are to be allocated to and employed by recipients. After carefully considering those claims, the Tenth Circuit found them either unpersuasive or barred from judicial review. Consequently, the Court denied the petitions to the extent they were based upon those claims. View "IN RE: FCC 11-161" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the Clean Air Act, which requires states to adopt programs that will reduce emission of air pollutants that affect visibility. The State of Utah submitted a revised plan to the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency partially rejected the plan, and the State and one of the affected companies (PacifiCorp) filed petitions for review. Though all parties agree that the Tenth Circuit had jurisdiction over this case, the Court disagreed and dismissed their petitions. View "Utah v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law