Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants, eleven inmates in the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections (DOC), brought this action against members of the Virginia Parole Board in their official capacities. The Inmates contended the Board adopted policies and procedures with respect to parole-eligible inmates imprisoned for violent offenses that violated the Due Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States Constitution. Most notably, they asserted that the Board implemented an unwritten policy of denying parole to persons incarcerated for violent offenses. The district court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss the complaint, and the Inmates appealed. Because the Fourth Circuit agreed that the complaint failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish a plausible entitlement to relief under either a due process or ex post facto theory, the Court affirmed.

The Government appealed the district court's grant of Defendants-Appellees WIlliam Danielczyk and Eugene Biagi's motion to dismiss count four, paragraph 10(b) of their indictment, which alleged that they conspired and facilitated direct contributions to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign in violation of federal election laws. The district court reasoned that in light of "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" (130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)), section 441b(a) of the Election Campaign Act of 1971 was unconstitutional as applied to Appellees. Upon review, the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the district court and reversed, finding that the lower court misapplied "Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont," (539 U.S. 146 (2003)) as the basis for its dismissal of count four.

A group of local volunteer fire and rescue departments ("LFRDs") and several of their former administrative employees brought suit against Defendants Montgomery County, Maryland, the County Council, and certain county officials contending that Defendants eliminated part of their funding in retaliation for opposing to legislation supported by Defendants. The district court dismissed the LFRDs' complaint, declining to inquire into Defendants’ alleged illicit motive behind an otherwise facially valid budgetary enactment, finding that certain individual defendants were protected by legislative immunity, and concluding that because the individual Plaintiffs were not County employees, they could not bring an abusive discharge claim under state law. Upon review, the Fourth Circuit found no error nor abuse of discretion in the district court's judgment. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision.

Plaintiff Jane Huggins, trading as SADISCO of Maryland (SADISCO) sued Prince George’s County, Maryland and five County officials after the County shut down the salvage automobile wholesaling business operated by SADISCO on a parcel of land that SADISCO owned within the County. SADISCO’s complaint alleged one count under federal law and four counts under Maryland’s common law. The district court dismissed certain counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and granted summary judgment in favor of the County and officials with respect to the remaining counts. Plaintiff appealed, and after review, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court correctly rejected Plaintiff's arguments.

Centro Tepeyac a filed suit against Montgomery County, Maryland, the Montgomery County Council, the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services, and Marc Hansen, the acting County Counsel, challenging the constitutionality of Montgomery County Resolution No. 16-1252. In its complaint, it contended that in compelling speech, the resolution violated its free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The resolution required "limited service pregnancy resource centers," such as Centro Tepeyac, to display a sign on their premises stating (1) "the Center does not have a licensed medical professional on staff"; and (2) "the Montgomery County Health Officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider." Violation of the resolution was punishable as a "Class A civil violation." For relief, Centro Tepeyac sought a declaratory judgment that Resolution 16-1252 was unconstitutional and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against its enforcement. Applying strict scrutiny, the district court entered an order denying Centro Tepeyac’s motion for a preliminary injunction as to the first statement required by Resolution 16-1252 (regarding the medical professional on staff) and granting its motion as to the second mandated statement("the Montgomery County Health Officer encourages women who are or may be pregnant to consult with a licensed health care provider.") Montgomery County appealed the district court’s preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the second mandated statement, and Centro Tepeyac cross-appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for an injunction with respect to the first. For the reasons given in "Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore," (___ F.3d ___, No. 11-1111 (4th Cir. June 27, 2012)) the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction and reversed its denial of the preliminary injunction requested by Centro Tepeyac with respect to the first mandated statement. The Court concluded that the goals of the "no licensed medical professional" disclosure could readily be achieved through less speech-restrictive methods. "Such methods might include a more vigorous enforcement of laws against practicing medicine without a license."

Archbishop Edward F. O'Brien, St. Brigid's Roman Catholic Congregation, Inc., and the Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. ("the Pregnancy Center") filed suit against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, challenging the constitutionality of the City’s Ordinance 09-252, which required that "limited-service pregnancy centers," such as the Pregnancy Center, post signs disclaiming that they "do[ ] not provide or make referral for abortion or birth control services." The complaint alleged that the ordinance, both facially and as applied to the plaintiffs, violated the plaintiffs' free speech, free exercise, and equal protection rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the plaintiffs' rights under the Conscience Clause of Maryland's health law. The district court granted summary judgment to the Pregnancy Center on its freedom of speech count, dismissed the Archbishop and St. Brigid's as plaintiffs for lack of standing, and dismissed the remaining counts without prejudice, in view of its free speech ruling. The court held that the disclaimer required by Ordinance 09-252 is "a form of compelled speech" that "alters the course of a [pregnancy] center’s communication with a client or prospective client about abortion and birth-control" and "is based, at least in part, on disagreement with the viewpoint of the speaker." The court entered a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the ordinance. Upon review of the briefs submitted by both the parties and numerous amici briefs in this case, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the ordinance in question was not narrowly tailored to promote the City's interest so as to justify its intrusion on the Pregnancy Center's speech.

Former co-pastors of the Greater Salem Church in North Carolina Defendants-Appellants Anthony and Harriet Jinwright appealed their convictions and sentences arising from a tax evasion scheme in which they omitted millions of dollars in taxable income from their jointly filed returns. Defendants raised a variety of challenges on appeal. Finding each contention to be without merit, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

In August 2004, Plaintiff-Appellant Gwyniece Hutchins, a letter carrier with the United States Postal Service, stepped on an improperly fitted manhole cover maintained by the Town of Ninety Six, South Carolina. The manhole cover flipped up, and Plaintiff fell into the manhole, sustaining serious injuries. Because she was injured in the course of her duties as a United States Postal Service employee, she filed a claim for workers’ compensation under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). The Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs accepted Plaintiff's claim as covered by FECA and paid her lost wages and medical benefits. In 2007, Plainitff accepted an offer of judgment arising from a South Carolina state court action that she brought against the Town. The Department of Labor asserted that it was entitled to recover a portion of that judgment. Plaintiff opposed the Department of Labor's assertion, arguing that the Town was not a "person" under 5 U.S.C. sections 8131 and 8132 and that if 5 U.S.C. section 8131 was construed to allow such a claim, it would be unconstitutional. The Office of Workers' Compensation rejected Plaintiff's arguments and determined that the Department of Labor was entitled to reimbursement. Plaintiff paid the sum but appealed the Office of Workers’ Compensation's decision to the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board. The Appeals Board affirmed. Because the Fourth Circuit agreed with the Department of Labor that the Town qualified as a "person other than the United States," the Court upheld the district court's determination that Plaintiff reimburse the Department of Labor from her judgment.

Plaintiff brought a discrimination claim against her former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., for denying her a reasonable accommodation following her foot surgery. The district court dismissed her case after concluding she had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by not filing her proposed accommodation with the EEOC. The court held that plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies under the circumstances and reversed the district court's judgment.

Relator brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq., alleging that appellees defrauded the United States Department of Education by knowingly making fraudulent claims by engaging in various non-economic transactions to inflate their loan portfolios eligible for Special Allowance Payments (SAP), a federal student loan interest subsidy. The district court granted appellees' motions to dismiss on the ground that they were "state agencies" and therefore not subject to suit under the FCA as interpreted in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens. Because the district court did not employ the arm-of-the-state analysis in determining whether each of the appellees was a state agency subject to suit under the FCA, the court vacated its judgment and remanded the case for the court to apply this analysis in the first instance.