Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

For many years, Warren, Michigan, has put up a winter holiday display in the atrium of its civic center, with a range of secular and religious symbols, including a lighted tree, reindeer, snowmen, a nativity, and a “Winter Welcome” sign. After the city refused to remove the nativity in 2010, the Foundation asked the city to add a sign: “At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, No heaven or hell. There is only our natural world, Religion is but Myth and superstition That hardens hearts And enslaves minds…. KEEP THEM SEPARATE”. The city refused. The district court rejected the Foundation’s constitutional claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The nativity scene, when accompanied by a collection of secular and seasonal symbols, does not amount to an establishment of religion or an impermissible endorsement of it. View "Freedom From Religion Found. v. City of Warren" on Justia Law

Governor Strickland appointed Terry to fill a vacancy on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Terry sought reelection to retain the seat and enlisted the help of County Auditor Russo, a presence in Cleveland politics. The FBI was investigating Russo and had tapped his phones. Russo had a phone conversation with an attorney about foreclosure cases on Terry’s docket and promised to make sure Terry did what he was “supposed to do.” Later, by phone, Russo told Terry to deny motions for summary judgment. Terry said he would and did so. Russo ultimately pled guilty to 21political corruption counts and received a 262-month prison sentence. Terry was convicted of conspiring with Russo to commit mail fraud and honest services fraud; and honest services fraud by accepting things of value from Russo and others in exchange for favorable official action, 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2).. The district court sentenced him to 63 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, quoting once-Speaker of the California General Assembly, Jesse Unruh, “If you can’t eat [lobbyists’] food, drink their booze, . . . take their money and then vote against them, you’ve got no business being [in politics],” View "United States v. Terry" on Justia Law

Diaz, a Michigan Department of Corrections employee, he was diagnosed with heart and abdominal conditions that forced him to take intermittent leave. Diaz alleges he was fired for attendance violations after taking leaves and brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking damages and reinstatement, alleging: interference with Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2612 (a)(1)(D) rights; retaliation for exercising FMLA rights; and deprivation of a protected federal right. Boden, an employee of the Michigan Department of Human Services, was placed on stress leave by her doctor; she claims that her supervisor dramatically increased her workload and disciplined her for petty infractions because of that leave. She brought suit with the same allegations. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit remanded the claim for reinstatement, but affirmed with respect to claims for damages. The Supreme Court has held that a state employee may recover damages for a state’s failure to comply with family-care provision of the FMLA, but the Sixth Circuit has held that the rationale did not extend to FMLA self-care provision. Suits against the states for damages under 2612(a)(1)(D) are barred by the states’ sovereign immunity and public employers cannot be held individually liable under the FMLA.View "Boden v. MI Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

In 2004 Taylor, an employee of the IRS, began applying for promotions and transfers, and was rejected until she received a promotion in 2006. In 2004, after being denied a promotion, Taylor filed her first discrimination complaint and was assigned to work in a unit supervised by Shields. While working in this unit, Taylor alleges that Shields took several retaliatory actions against Taylor, including written reprimands, a three-day suspension without pay, and providing negative references for Taylor to prospective employers. Based on these alleged actions, Taylor filed additional complaints for retaliation. In 2005, the IRS and Taylor entered into a settlement agreement. Taylor subsequently alleged noncompliance by the IRS. In 2006 and 2008, the agency issued decisions concluding that although the IRS had breached the agreement, it was currently in compliance. Taylor did not appeal either decision, but filed a complaint alleging retaliation under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a) and breach-of-settlement-agreement. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed with respect to the breach claim, holding that Congress has not waived sovereign immunity with respect to such claims, but reversed with respect to retaliation.View "Taylor v. Geithner" on Justia Law

Kohl, a certified bomb technician, participated in an experiment funded by the U.S. Department of Defense at the Tennessee State Fire Academy, which involved constructing and detonating explosives in vehicles and collecting post-blast debris for analysis. Officers of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives participated. Following detonation, after an “all-clear” was given, participants, including Kohl, entered the range to inspect the vehicles. Kohl searched the passenger’s side, while another technician attempted to search the driver’s side of the vehicle. The driver’s side door would not open. While other team members were preparing to winch the door a second time, Kohl returned to the passenger’s side door. Kohl’s negligence complaint alleged that due to the winching, the door came loose and the frame crashed into Kohl’s head. Kohl was diagnosed with “post-concussive syndrome with persistent headaches and cognitive changes” and has not been employed since the incident. Relying on the discretionary-function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671, the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the government’s decisions about how to extract evidence and what types of equipment to use are shielded from liability by the exception. View "Kohl v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2008 the Michigan Supreme Court held that the Detroit International Bridge Company was immune from the City of Detroit’s zoning ordinances because it was a federal instrumentality for the limited purpose of facilitating commerce over the Ambassador Bridge, which connects Detroit to Ontario, Canada. The federal government was not a party to the suit. Commodities Export, which owned property near the Bridge, later filed suit against Detroit and the United States, claiming that the Bridge Company had unilaterally condemned roads around its property, cutting off the land and causing a regulatory taking. It claimed that Detroit was liable for failing to enforce its own ordinances and demanded that the United States take a position on the Bridge Company’s federal-instrumentality status and control the Company’s actions. The United States cross-claimed against Bridge Company, alleging that it had misappropriated the title of “federal instrumentality.” The district court granted summary judgment for the United States and dismissed the action. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that federal courts have jurisdiction over the government’s cross-claim and owe no deference to the Michigan Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal common law. Bridge Company is not a federal instrumentality. View "Commodities Exp. Co. v. Detroit Int'l Bridge Co." on Justia Law

The Companies manufacture and distribute high-speed cigarette rolling machines that retailers offer to customers who want to roll their own roll cigarettes. Treasury and the Bureau are charged with enforcing the excise tax on tobacco products, 26 U.S.C. 5701. Before the Bureau issued Ruling 2010-4, retailers offering the Companies’ machines to customers were not liable for the excise tax because they were not considered manufacturers. The Ruling deems the retailers manufacturers, and requires them to acquire manufacturer permits and pay the excise tax. The Companies sought, and the district court granted, a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Ruling. During the pendency of appeal, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, which authorized funding for highways and other transit programs, with partial funding to come from amendment of the definition of “manufacturer of tobacco products” to include retailers who make roll-your-own machines available to customers, thereby achieving the same result as the Ruling. The Sixth Circuit vacated and directed that the case be dismissed. The statutory amendment mooted the controversy and the Anti-Injunction Act precluded the court’s exercise of jurisdiction View "Ryo Mach. Rental, LLC, v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury" on Justia Law

Leyse received a prerecorded telemarketing call from a radio station. He sued, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 2394, which prohibits certain prerecorded telemarketing calls. The district court dismissed, finding that the Federal Communications Commission had issued regulations exempting the type of call at issue from the TCPA’s prohibitions; that the FCC was authorized by Congress to do so; that the court should defer to the resulting regulation; and that the regulation passed muster under Chevron. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that “Chevron deference” applies to the regulation and that the regulation is valid under Chevron. The court rejected an argument that it lacked jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act. View "Leyse v. Clear Channel Broad. Inc." on Justia Law

Cooper, Brown’s former son-in-law, was one of several co-defendants charged with conspiracy to violate federal drug laws. He allegedly stored proceeds of this criminal activity in a safe at Brown’s residence. After obtaining Brown’s consent, officers searched her residence and recovered $102,570 from the safe. Brown was notified by letter that the money would be subject to forfeiture. Cooper eventually pled guilty and agreed to the forfeiture. Brown filed a claim for the $102,570 in an FBI administrative proceeding and then moved for return of the money under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), 18 U.S.C. 983, and the Due Process Clause. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction under 21 U.S.C. 853(k)(2). The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Brown’s assertion that the government unlawfully included the $102,570 in the criminal case against Cooper makes no difference until Brown establishes a legal interest in the money, which she can only do now through a 21 U.S.C. 853(n) proceeding. Brown has an adequate remedy at law. View "Brown v. United States" on Justia Law

After September 11, 2001, the FBI assigned informant Griffin to embed himself in the Toledo Muslim community. Griffin enrolled in mosque classes and obtained employment with a Muslim charity. Griffin met El-Hindi, who discussed kidnaping an Israeli soldier or politician; Amawi, who suggested recruiting Mazloum; and Mazloum, who agreed to participate in jihad training. The three were convicted of conspiracy to kill and maim persons outside the U.S., 18 U.S.C. 956(a)(1), and conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists in furtherance of killing U.S. nationals, 18 U.S.C. 2339A. Amawi and El-Hindi were also charged with distributing information regarding manufacture of explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction, 18 U.S.C. 842(p)(2)(A) and sentenced to below-Guidelines terms of 240, 144, and 100 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court upheld the district court’s decisions: to delete classified information from discovery under the Classified Information Procedures Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; to exclude defendants’ proposed expert testimony concerning Islamist culture and social norms; to reject entrapment and outrageous-conduct defenses; not to provide requested jury instructions concerning the First Amendment; and rejecting a claim of Miranda violations during interrogation that occurred on a jet returning Amawi from Jordan. View "United States v. Mazloum" on Justia Law