Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against the OHA after she was terminated. At issue on appeal was whether plaintiff's appeal must be dismissed for failure to order the necessary portions of a trial transcript. Plaintiff ordered the portion of the trial transcript that contained her testimony and the remaining portions of the transcript were not transcribed and were not available. The court could not properly review the issues in the case based on the record plaintiff provided and, therefore, the court did not address the merits of plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim. Accordingly, the court granted the OHA's motion to dismiss plaintiff's appeal based on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b). View "Kelly v. Omaha Housing Authority, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of her application for Social Security disability benefits, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that plaintiff's doctor's opinion was inconsistent with the treatment record and thus not entitled to controlling weight; substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that plaintiff's impairments did not meet or equal a medical listing; because the residual functioning capacity (RFC) finding was supported by substantial evidence, it was proper for the ALJ to consider testimony of a vocational expert that was premised on the RFC; and the ALJ did not err in determining plaintiff's credibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's affirmance of the denial of benefits. View "Myers v. Astrue" on Justia Law

IRTL challenged the constitutionality of several Iowa campaign-finance laws, an administrative rule, and two forms. The court concluded, inter alia, that IRTL lacked standing to challenge the definitions of "political committee" and "permanent organization" because it faced no credible threat or present or future prosecution; the first two sentences of Iowa Code subsection 68A.404(3), the second sentence of subsection 68A.404(3)(a), the entirety of subsection 68A.404(4)(a), the first and third sentences of Iowa Administrative Code rule 351-4.9(15), and Form Ind-Exp-O were constitutional as applied to IRTL and groups whose major purpose was not nominating or electing candidates; the first and third sentences of subsection 68A.404(3)(a), the second sentence of Iowa Administrative Code rule 351-4.9(15), the entirety of subsections 68A.404(3)(a)(1) and 68A.402B(3), and Form Dr-3 were unconstitutional as applied to IRTL and groups whose major purpose was not nominating or electing candidates; and Iowa Code section 68A.503 was constitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Iowa Right To Life Committee v. Tooker, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individuals and entities who farm corn and soybeans, claimed eligibility to receive payment under the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payment Program (SURE Program) for the 2008 crop year. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants improperly calculated SURE program payments allegedly owed to them under 7 U.S.C. 1531. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit because plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit and no equitable doctrine excused their failure to exhaust. View "Bartlett, et al. v. USDA, et al." on Justia Law

After the Secretary denied Sandy Lake's request to hold an election so that Sandy Lake's members could vote on a proposed constitution, Sandy Lake filed suit seeking an order directing the Secretary to call an election. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Sandy Lake's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Sandy Lake then filed a second lawsuit without appealing the first lawsuit or exhausting its administrative remedies and subsequently appealed the adverse summary judgment on its claims alleged in the second lawsuit. The court affirmed the district court's original determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that issue preclusion barred the court from reaching the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the case, modifying it to be without prejudice. View "Sandy Lake Band v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

B&B, manufacturer and seller of a product called "Sealtight," filed suit against Hargis, manufacturer of a product called "Sealtite," claiming trademark infringement and unfair competition. Hargis counterclaimed for false advertising and false designation of origin. The jury returned a verdict which rejected B&B's claims but found in favor of Hargis on its counterclaims. On appeal, B&B argued that the district court should have given preclusive effect to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (TTAB) findings concerning the likelihood of confusion of the two companies' trademarks. B&B also appealed the award of attorney fees and costs. The court concluded that the district court properly refused to apply collateral estoppel to the TTAB's decision; rejected B&B's argument that the TTAB's factual findings from a trademark registration case were entitled to deference by the district court; and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the TTAB's decision from the evidence presented to the jury. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of B&B's motion for judgment as a matter of law or alternative motion for a new trial based on its claim of issue preclusion; affirmed the district court's evidentiary decisions; and remanded the award of attorney fees with directions to amend the award by deducting Hargis's attorney fees for the prior appeal. View "B & B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, et al" on Justia Law

Providers brought suit against the State, asserting that the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (CWA), 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq., gave them a privately enforceable right under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to receive payments from the State sufficient to cover the cost of certain statutorily enumerated components of foster care. At issue was whether Congress, in enacting the CWA, evinced a clear intent to grant foster care providers an individually enforceable right to foster care maintenance payments sufficiently large to cover the costs of each item enumerated in section 675(4)(A). The court held that Congress did not ambiguously confer such a right and, therefore, affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Providers' complaint for failure to state a claim. View "Midwest Foster Care, etc., et al v. Kincade, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a refugee immigrant, sued defendants, seeking a judgment declaring that the USCIS acted unlawfully by withholding adjudication on his application without periodically reviewing it, an injunction ordering USCIS to adjudicate his application within 30 days, and other relief. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, holding that the delay in adjudicating plaintiff's application was neither unlawful nor unreasonable as a matter of law. After intervening action by the Secretary, USCIS approved plaintiff's application for adjustment to permanent resident status. Because the case is now moot, the court dismissed the appeal, vacated the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint. View "Ayyoubi v. Holder, Jr., et al" on Justia Law

The League sought direct appellate review of two letters sent by the EPA to Senator Charles Grassley, arguing that these letters effectively set forth new regulatory requirements with respect to water treatment processes at municipally owned sewer systems. The League argued that the EPA lacked statutory authority to impose these regulations and violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., by implementing them without first proceeding through the notice and comment procedures for agency rulemaking. The court concluded that the case was ripe for judicial review and the League had standing to assert its claims; the court vacated both the mixing zone rule in the June 2011 letter and the blending rule in the September 2011 letter as procedurally invalid; and the court vacated the blending rule as an excess of statutory authority insofar as it would impose the effluent limitations of the secondary treatment regulations internally, rather than at the point of discharge into navigable waters. The court remanded to the EPA for further consideration. View "Iowa League of Cities v. EPA" on Justia Law

Northshore petitioned for review of a final decision of the Commission affirming a citation by the Secretary charging a violation of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. In January 2010, an inspector had issued a citation against Northshore for an alleged violation of 30 C.F.R. 56.12016. The text of section 56.12016 was ambiguous as to the crucial interpretive question regarding whether the section applied to abate the hazard of mechanical movement. Using rules of statutory construction to resolve the ambiguous language of the statute, the court vacated the Commission's decision and set aside the citation because it concluded that the Secretary erred in relying upon 30 C.F.R. 56.12016. View "Northshore Mining Co. v. Secretary of Labor, et al" on Justia Law