Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A group of associations representing infusion centers, cancer patients, and pharmaceutical manufacturers challenged the constitutionality of a program created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), to negotiate prices for high-expenditure prescription drugs under Medicare Parts B and D. The program allows HHS to select drugs based on certain criteria, negotiate a “maximum fair price” with manufacturers, and impose an excise tax on manufacturers who refuse to negotiate. The tax is calculated as a high percentage of sales reimbursed by Medicare. Manufacturers may avoid the program by withdrawing from Medicare and Medicaid participation. The statutory scheme also limits administrative and judicial review of key program decisions and allows HHS to implement early cycles of the program through guidance rather than notice-and-comment rulemaking.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and improper venue. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that at least one plaintiff had standing and venue was proper. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the government, holding that the program did not violate the nondelegation doctrine, that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim, and that the plaintiffs lacked a protected property interest to support their due process claim.Upon further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the statute provided an “intelligible principle” sufficient to withstand a nondelegation challenge, that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar the Eighth Amendment claim but the excise tax did not constitute a punitive fine, and that neither manufacturers, providers, nor patients possessed a protected property or liberty interest implicated by the program. The government’s summary judgment was affirmed in full. View "Natl Infusion Center v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Several tobacco companies and retailers challenged a rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that required cigarette packaging and advertisements to display eleven rotating health warnings, each paired with a graphic image illustrating the harms of smoking. Congress had previously enacted the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA), which enumerated nine specific warning statements to appear on cigarette packaging and gave the FDA limited, conditional authority to adjust the format or text of these warnings to promote public understanding of smoking risks. The FDA’s new rule went beyond these statutory warnings by mandating two additional warnings, raising industry concerns that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority.The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. That court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and enjoined enforcement of the rule on First Amendment grounds, without addressing their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The FDA appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, ruling that the rule did not violate the First Amendment and remanding the case for consideration of the APA claims. Upon remand, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ request for interim relief under the APA, finding a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the FDA lacked statutory authority to increase the number of required warnings and that enforcement would inflict irreparable harm through unrecoverable compliance costs. The court postponed the rule’s effective date.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The Fifth Circuit held that the TCA’s nine statutory warning statements form a closed set and that the FDA exceeded its authority by requiring eleven warnings. The court also found that the equities favored interim relief and that universal postponement of the rule’s effective date was appropriate under the APA. View "R J Reynolds Tobacco Company v. FDA" on Justia Law

A conservation district in Montgomery County, Texas, required large water users to reduce groundwater usage by 30%. To facilitate compliance, the San Jacinto River Authority (the “River Authority”), a political subdivision of Texas, created a joint groundwater reduction plan and entered into contracts with about 80 utilities, including Quadvest, L.P. (“Quadvest”). These contracts required participants to pay certain fees and, at the River Authority’s discretion, to connect to surface water provided by the River Authority. The fees aimed to equalize costs between groundwater and surface water users and to finance new infrastructure. Quadvest, a family-owned utility, initially operated only in the retail market and later expanded into wholesale water supply.After the relevant groundwater regulations were rescinded due to political changes and litigation, Quadvest challenged the lawfulness of its contract with the River Authority in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. It alleged that the contract constituted an unlawful restraint of trade under the Sherman Act, specifically as per se illegal horizontal price-fixing and market allocation. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the River Authority, concluding that Quadvest failed to prove its claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the challenged contract did not constitute a per se illegal horizontal restraint because the parties were not competitors at the time of contracting, and the agreement was vertical in nature. The court further determined that the contract did not fix prices or allocate markets in a manner prohibited by the Sherman Act. Under the rule of reason, Quadvest also failed to define the relevant market and thus could not demonstrate anticompetitive effects. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Quadvest v. San Jacinto River Auth" on Justia Law

A company applied to construct a deepwater port off the coast of Texas, including a pipeline that would cross the pipeline of another recently approved deepwater port. The relevant federal statute, the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (DWPA), requires that only one deepwater port be licensed per “application area.” An environmental group, comprised of local residents near the proposed pipeline and tank farm, objected to the approval, claiming that the pipeline should have been included in the application area. Their concerns included increased risks of flooding, pollution, and negative impacts on property value and quality of life.The United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), acting under authority delegated by the Secretary of Transportation, processed the application. Unlike with previous applications for similar projects, MARAD excluded the proposed pipeline from Texas GulfLink’s application area, reasoning that the DWPA gave it discretion to do so. MARAD then approved Texas GulfLink’s application. The environmental group filed a timely petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging MARAD’s decision on the basis that it violated the DWPA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the DWPA requires the application area to encompass the entire deepwater port site, including pipelines located seaward of the high water mark. The court found MARAD’s designation of the application area to be unlawful because, if the pipeline had been properly included, the application area would overlap with that of another approved port, contrary to the DWPA’s requirement. The court granted the petition for review, vacated MARAD’s approval of the application, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Citizens for Clean Air v. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Several organizations and individuals challenged provisions of a 2021 Texas law known as Senate Bill 1, which imposed new requirements on mail-in voting, regulated voter assistance, and restricted compensation for certain election-related activities. The plaintiffs, including advocacy groups and individuals with disabilities, argued that these provisions discriminated against voters with disabilities in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Key facts included reports of rejected mail-in ballots due to missing identification numbers and claims that the law’s requirements created barriers for disabled voters.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held a bench trial and found that nine provisions of Senate Bill 1 were inconsistent with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court permanently enjoined the Texas Secretary of State and various local officials from enforcing these provisions. The defendants, including the Governor of Texas and other state and county officials, appealed the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision in its entirety. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the identification provisions, as they could not show a substantial risk of future injury to any specific member or demonstrate organizational standing under Supreme Court precedent. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ challenges to voter assistance and compensation provisions were foreclosed by prior Fifth Circuit decisions and failed for lack of standing or on the merits. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court’s grant of permanent injunctive relief was improper and reversed the injunction, declining to interfere with the Texas Legislature’s election regulations. View "La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Several states challenged a federal agency’s attempt to set new energy efficiency standards for consumer cooking appliances, including gas stoves. The Department of Energy (DOE) had initially tried to implement these standards through the standard notice-and-comment rulemaking process, but after facing substantial opposition, including critical comments from industry groups and states, it abandoned that effort. Subsequently, the DOE used a “Direct Final Rule” (DFR) process to impose similar standards, bypassing the usual public comment period by relying on a joint statement from selected stakeholders. The new rule included a ban on certain power supplies and set limits on annual energy consumption for appliances.After the DFR was published, the DOE solicited public comments as required by statute. Several states, led by Nebraska, Utah, and Montana, submitted timely adverse comments on the last day of the comment period, arguing that the joint statement did not fairly represent all stakeholders, particularly states opposed to the rule. They also asserted that the DOE failed to properly consider the impact on product reliability and lifespan. The DOE later issued a notice confirming it would not withdraw the DFR, despite these objections.The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court first held that it had authority to review the petition, determining that the rule became “prescribed” for purposes of judicial review only when the DOE confirmed its adherence to the DFR after considering comments. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit found that the DOE failed to meet statutory requirements for using the DFR process, especially by excluding key stakeholders and not adequately addressing concerns about reliability and economic justification. The court granted the states’ petition for review, set aside the rule, and remanded the matter to the DOE for further proceedings. View "State of Mississippi v. DOE" on Justia Law

A major industrial accident occurred at a petroleum refinery in Texas operated by a large energy company. During repairs, a pipe ruptured, leading to an explosion and fire that injured several workers and required an extensive emergency response. One employee, who played a critical role in the emergency efforts, later sought counseling and was diagnosed by multiple healthcare professionals with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) attributed to the incident. The company, following its procedures and the relevant Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule, reviewed these diagnoses to determine if they should be recorded as work-related mental illnesses under federal recordkeeping requirements.After receiving differing opinions from healthcare providers, the company ultimately concluded that the employee did not have a recordable work-related mental illness, relying on its designated medical evaluator’s assessment. The employee’s union reported the matter to OSHA, which investigated and cited the company for failing to record the PTSD diagnosis as required by OSHA’s rule. The company challenged the citation before an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC). The ALJ upheld the citation and imposed a monetary penalty. When the company sought further review, OSHRC declined, and the ALJ’s decision became the agency’s final order. The company then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that OSHA lacked statutory authority under 29 U.S.C. § 657(c)(2) to require employers to record work-related mental illnesses. The court determined that the term “illnesses” in the statute referred only to physical ailments. As a result, the Fifth Circuit vacated OSHA’s rule, the citation, and the penalty imposed on the company. View "Exxon Mobil Corporation v. OSHC" on Justia Law

A fire captain who served as vice president of a local firefighters’ union was also a member of the Jefferson Parish Fire Civil Service Board. The union previously paid for legal counsel for members appearing before the Civil Service Board, but stopped doing so after the Louisiana Board of Ethics issued an advisory opinion, and later a binding declaratory opinion, stating that such payments violated Louisiana law while any union officer served on the board. The union challenged the Board of Ethics’ interpretation in state court, arguing that it misapplied state law, and then filed a federal lawsuit claiming this restriction violated its First Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the union a preliminary injunction on First Amendment grounds, preventing enforcement of the ethics board’s opinion against the union. The district court also declined to abstain under the doctrines established in Younger v. Harris and Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. The Louisiana defendants appealed, arguing the district court should have abstained and that granting the injunction was an abuse of discretion. While the appeal was pending, all relevant state court proceedings concluded, and, just before oral argument, the fire captain resigned from the Civil Service Board.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the case was moot due to the resignation, as neither party retained a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. The court determined that no live controversy remained, rejected arguments that mootness exceptions applied, and ruled that the appeal and the entire case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case. View "Jefferson Parish Firefighters Association, Local 1374 v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Texas law allows certain students, including those who are not lawfully present in the United States, to qualify for in-state tuition rates at public colleges if they meet residency requirements. The Texas Education Code provisions in question—sections 54.051(m) and 54.052(a)—permit illegal aliens who establish residency in Texas to pay discounted tuition, while out-of-state U.S. citizens must pay higher rates. The United States brought suit against Texas, alleging that these provisions violate federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a), which bars states from granting postsecondary education benefits to illegal aliens based on residency unless all U.S. citizens and nationals are eligible for the same benefit regardless of residency.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved a consent judgment permanently enjoining Texas from enforcing the challenged provisions. After judgment, advocacy groups, a community college, and a student moved to intervene and sought to vacate or alter the judgment, arguing the provisions were not preempted by federal law. The district court denied intervention, reasoning it was legally futile because 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a) expressly preempts the Texas statutes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo and affirmed. The court held that intervention was futile because federal law expressly preempts the Texas provisions, barring states from conferring in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens based on residency unless all U.S. citizens and nationals may receive the same benefit without regard to residency. The court also dismissed the remaining claims for lack of appellate jurisdiction, as the movants were not parties to the case and therefore had no right to appeal the consent judgment. View "USA v. Texas" on Justia Law

Delfin LNG sought approval to construct and operate a deepwater liquefied natural gas export facility in the Gulf of America, consisting of onshore infrastructure in Louisiana and floating offshore vessels. The Maritime Administration (MARAD), after extensive environmental review and public comment, initially approved the project in 2017. Over subsequent years, Delfin altered key aspects of the project, including its design and financing. MARAD determined these changes required further review and asked Delfin to submit an amended application, which Delfin did not do. In 2025, following a presidential executive order, MARAD concluded that the modifications would not cause significantly different environmental impacts and issued the license.Three environmental organizations challenged MARAD’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. They argued MARAD violated the Deepwater Port Act by not requiring an amended application and additional public comment, the National Environmental Policy Act by not preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement, and the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing a license after finding the prior approval was insufficient. They requested the court vacate MARAD’s licensing decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that none of the petitioners demonstrated Article III standing. The court held that the organizations failed to identify a member who suffered a concrete and particularized injury fairly traceable to MARAD’s licensing decision. The declarations submitted did not show a personal and project-specific harm, nor did they establish a sufficient geographic nexus to the affected area. As a result, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits and denied the petition for review. The main holding is that, in the absence of standing, the court cannot reach the substantive environmental or procedural claims. View "Center for Bio Diversity v. TRAN" on Justia Law