Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

An inmate in Missouri, facing imminent execution, requested that his two daughters—both ordained ministers—be allowed to serve as his spiritual advisors in the execution chamber. One daughter would administer communion and anoint him with oil, then move to the viewing area, while the other would enter the chamber to pray over and touch him during the execution. The Missouri Department of Corrections denied this request, citing security concerns, but offered alternatives: a non-relative spiritual advisor, prison clergy, or his attorney could perform the rituals, with his daughters directing the proceedings from behind glass.After exhausting administrative remedies and just five days before his scheduled execution, the inmate filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. He alleged that the Department’s refusal violated his rights under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). He sought a preliminary injunction and a stay of execution. The district court denied his requests and dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of a stay of execution. The court focused on whether the inmate had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, specifically whether the Department’s policy imposed a “substantial burden” on his religious exercise under RLUIPA. The court found that, while the inmate preferred his daughters as spiritual advisors, he did not demonstrate that only they could perform the rituals in accordance with his beliefs. The court concluded that the Department’s alternatives did not significantly inhibit his religious exercise and that security concerns justified the restriction. The Eighth Circuit denied the motion for a stay of execution. View "Shockley v. Adams" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge to a 2024 rule issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) that revised the method for calculating the “petroleum equivalency factor” (PEF), which is used to determine the fuel economy values of electric vehicles for regulatory purposes. The DOE had previously used a “fuel content factor” of 1/0.15, which significantly inflated the fuel economy ratings of electric vehicles. In its 2023 proposal, DOE suggested eliminating this factor, but in the final rule, it opted to phase it out gradually over several model years. The final rule also introduced a new method for calculating the PEF, using a “cumulative gasoline-equivalent fuel economy of electricity” based on the projected useful life of an electric vehicle fleet—a method not included in the proposed rule.Several states and the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce petitioned for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. They argued that the DOE exceeded its statutory authority by retaining the fuel content factor and violated notice-and-comment requirements by adopting a new calculation method not previously proposed. The petitioners asserted standing based on increased costs to maintain public roads due to heavier electric vehicles and environmental harms from increased greenhouse gas emissions.The Eighth Circuit found that the petitioners had standing and that the case was not moot, even in light of new EPA emissions standards. The court held that DOE exceeded its statutory authority by retaining the fuel content factor, as the relevant statute did not authorize such an approach. Additionally, the court determined that DOE violated notice-and-comment procedures by failing to provide adequate notice of the new cumulative calculation method. The court concluded that these deficiencies were not severable from the rest of the rule.Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit granted the petition for review, vacated the 2024 final rule, and remanded the matter to DOE. View "State of Iowa v. Wright" on Justia Law

Several commercial air tour operators challenged federal regulations that banned all commercial air tours over Mount Rushmore National Memorial and Badlands National Park. The dispute arose after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service, in response to statutory requirements and litigation, issued air tour management plans (ATMPs) in 2023 that prohibited such tours, citing negative impacts on visitor experience, wildlife, and tribal cultural resources. The operators argued that the agencies’ actions were arbitrary and capricious, violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and failed to consider reasonable alternatives or aviation safety.Previously, the agencies had attempted to negotiate voluntary agreements with the tour operators, as permitted by the Air Tour Management Act. However, after one operator declined to participate, the agencies shifted to developing ATMPs. This change was influenced by a writ of mandamus issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in In re Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which compelled the agencies to bring certain parks into compliance with the Act. The agencies then considered several alternatives before ultimately banning all commercial air tours in the final plans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the petitions for review filed by the tour operators. The court held that the agencies’ decision to end voluntary agreement negotiations and proceed with ATMPs was not arbitrary or capricious. It further found that the agencies complied with NEPA’s procedural requirements, used reasonable data, considered an adequate range of alternatives, and sufficiently addressed aviation safety concerns. The court concluded that the agencies’ decisions were reasonable and reasonably explained, and therefore denied the petitions to vacate the air tour management plans. View "Badger Helicopters Inc. v. FAA" on Justia Law

A group of business associations challenged a Minnesota law that prohibits employers from taking adverse action against employees who decline to attend meetings or receive communications about religious or political matters. The law also requires employers to post a notice of employee rights and directs the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry to develop an educational poster about these rights. The plaintiffs sued the Minnesota Attorney General, the Commissioner, and the Governor, seeking to prevent enforcement of the law. The Attorney General and Commissioner both declared that they had not enforced, nor intended to enforce, the law. The Governor, who was added as a defendant after making public statements about the law, also had no direct enforcement role.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which was based on state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The court found that the Governor’s public statements and removal power over the Commissioner, as well as the Commissioner’s duties under the law, were sufficient to allow the suit to proceed under the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. The court also found that the Attorney General’s statutory enforcement authority was enough to keep him in the case, despite his declaration of no present intent to enforce the law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. It held that the Governor’s administrative powers, such as appointing or removing the Commissioner, were too attenuated from enforcement to make him a proper defendant under Ex parte Young. The Commissioner’s role in developing an educational poster was deemed ministerial, not enforcement-related. As for the Attorney General, the court found that his sworn declaration of no present intent to enforce the law deprived the plaintiffs of standing. The court ordered dismissal with prejudice as to the Governor and Commissioner, and without prejudice as to the Attorney General. View "MN Chapter of Assoc. Builders v. Ellison" on Justia Law

West Central Agri Services operates a grain handling facility in Missouri, where employees load grain into railcars by accessing the tops of the cars, which are about fifteen feet above the ground. Employees open and close lids on the railcars to facilitate grain transfer, and a Trackmobile moves the railcars into position. An OSHA inspector, investigating an unrelated explosion, discovered that employees frequently worked atop railcars without wearing fall protection personal protective equipment (PPE), despite the facility having a fall protection system in place on one track and safety training instructing use of such equipment. Supervisors were aware of the lack of PPE use, and employees were not disciplined for noncompliance.Following the investigation, the Secretary of Labor cited West Central for a willful and serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(d)(1)(i), which requires employers to ensure employees use appropriate PPE for identified hazards. After a three-day evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission upheld the citation and imposed a penalty of $122,878.80, finding that West Central recognized the fall hazard and failed to enforce PPE use. The Commission denied discretionary review of the ALJ’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has exercised statutory authority over the working conditions on top of railcars, specifically through its 1978 policy statement asserting jurisdiction over walking-working surfaces and employee protection around railcars. As a result, the FRA’s authority preempts OSHA’s jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(1). The court vacated the citation and reversed the ALJ’s order, concluding that OSHA cannot enforce its PPE regulation for employees working on top of railcars at this facility. View "MFA Enterprises, Inc. v. OSHRC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a Nebraska resident, received Medicaid benefits administered by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS). In April 2024, she was sent a notice stating her Medicaid eligibility was ending due to income exceeding program standards. The notice informed her of her rights to request a conference or appeal and outlined the process for a fair hearing. She did not appeal the termination, and her coverage ended on May 1, 2024. Subsequently, she filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, alleging that the termination notices failed to meet due process requirements and seeking class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, including reinstatement of benefits until proper notice was provided.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska considered only her individual claims, as she did not challenge the court’s decision to exclude class claims on appeal. The district court denied her request for a temporary restraining order, finding she was unlikely to succeed because her claims sought retroactive relief barred by sovereign immunity and because the notices likely satisfied due process. The court then dismissed her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding she had not alleged an ongoing violation of federal law and was not seeking prospective relief, as required to invoke the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s alleged due process violation was a discrete past event—the issuance of the notice and termination of benefits—not an ongoing violation. The court further held that the relief sought was retrospective, not prospective, and thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court concluded that the Ex parte Young exception did not apply, and affirmed the dismissal. View "Filyaw v. Corsi" on Justia Law

A certified nurse midwife in Nebraska sought to provide home birth services but was prevented from doing so by state law. The Nebraska Certified Nurse Midwifery Practice Act requires midwives to work under a supervising physician through a practice agreement and prohibits them from attending home births outside authorized medical facilities. The midwife alleged that these restrictions forced her to turn away women seeking home births and sued state officials, claiming the law violated her constitutional rights and the rights of her prospective patients.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed the midwife’s claims. The court found that she failed to state a claim for violation of her own rights under the Due Process Clause and lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of her prospective patients. The district court concluded that the statutory requirements were rationally related to legitimate state interests in health and safety and that the midwife did not have a sufficiently close relationship with prospective patients nor could she show that those patients were hindered from bringing their own suits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the Nebraska law regulating midwifery is subject to rational basis review and that the legislature could rationally believe the restrictions serve legitimate interests in public health and safety. The court also held that the midwife lacked third-party standing to assert the rights of prospective patients because she did not have a close relationship with them and they were not hindered from bringing their own claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, upholding the dismissal of all claims. View "Swanson v. Hilgers" on Justia Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated a civil enforcement action against several individuals, alleging they orchestrated profitable “pump-and-dump” schemes to artificially inflate stock prices and then sell shares at a profit, harming investors. The SEC ultimately obtained final judgments and recovered over $11 million in sanctions. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC is required to pay whistleblower awards to individuals who voluntarily provide original information leading to successful enforcement actions. After posting a Notice of Covered Action, five claimants submitted applications for whistleblower awards related to this enforcement action.The SEC’s Claims Review Staff awarded 30 percent of the monetary sanctions to Daniel Fisher, a former executive at a company central to the investigation, finding that Fisher provided new, helpful information that substantially advanced the investigation. The staff denied the other applications, including those from Lee Michael Pederson, John Amster, and Robert Heath, concluding that their information was either duplicative, based on publicly available sources, or not used by enforcement staff. Pederson and Fisher were found not to have acted jointly as whistleblowers, and Amster and Heath’s information was not relied upon in the investigation. The SEC affirmed these determinations in its final order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the SEC’s final order, applying a deferential standard to the agency’s factual findings and reviewing legal conclusions de novo. The court held that substantial evidence supported the SEC’s determinations: Pederson and Fisher did not act jointly, Pederson’s individual tips were not original or helpful, and Amster and Heath’s information did not lead to the enforcement action. The court also rejected Pederson’s due process and procedural arguments and denied his motion to compel. The petitions for review were denied, and the SEC’s order was affirmed. View "Pederson v. U.S. Securities Exch. Comm." on Justia Law

Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, sought a refund of unrelated business income tax (UBIT) imposed by the IRS for tax years 2003, 2005-2007, and 2010-2012. The IRS assessed Mayo $11,501,621 in unpaid UBIT, concluding that Mayo was not a qualified educational organization under IRC § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) because its primary function was not the presentation of formal instruction, and its noneducational activities were not merely incidental to its educational activities. Mayo paid the assessed amount and filed a refund action.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted Mayo summary judgment, holding that Mayo is an educational organization as defined in § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and invalidating Treasury Regulation § 1.170A-9(c)(1) for adding requirements not present in the statute. The United States appealed, and the Eighth Circuit reversed the invalidation of the regulation and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court concluded that Mayo had a substantial educational purpose and no substantial noneducational purpose, granting Mayo judgment for the full refund amount plus interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that "primary" in this context means "substantial" and that Mayo's substantial patient care activities are not noneducational due to the integration of education and clinical practice. The court concluded that Mayo qualifies as an educational organization under § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) and that its patient care function does not disqualify it from this status. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Mayo Clinic v. United States" on Justia Law

A group of television and radio broadcasters challenged the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) 2023 Order, which retained all existing media ownership rules and tightened one of them following the 2018 Quadrennial Review. The broadcasters argued that the FCC erred by defining the relevant video and audio markets too narrowly, retaining all parts of the radio and television ownership rules, and tightening Note 11 of the television ownership rule.The FCC's 2023 Order was issued after the 2018 Quadrennial Review, which included a notice of proposed rulemaking and a public comment period. The FCC retained the Local Radio Ownership Rule and the Local Television Ownership Rule, defining the markets narrowly to exclude non-broadcast sources. The FCC justified its decision by emphasizing the unique aspects of broadcast sources and the need to prevent excessive consolidation. The FCC also modified Note 11 to prevent circumvention of the Top-Four Prohibition by including low-power TV stations and multicast streams.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in retaining the Top-Four Prohibition part of the television ownership rule and improperly tightened Note 11. The court vacated and remanded the Top-Four Prohibition and the amendment to Note 11 but withheld the issuance of the mandate for 90 days to allow the FCC an opportunity to provide adequate justification. The court denied the remainder of the petition, upholding the FCC's market definitions and retention of the Local Radio Ownership Rule and the Two-Station Limit. View "Zimmer Radio of Mid-Missouri, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission" on Justia Law