Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Several employees of Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc. sued their employer, seeking prevailing wages under the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) for certain repair and replacement work they performed pursuant to a contract between Veolia and the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission. That contract was authorized by a 1997 Massachusetts Special Act, which provided that work falling within "the construction and design of improvements" remained governed by the PWA. The disputed work occurred during the contract’s second stage, which involved ongoing operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of wastewater facilities.After both sides moved for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled for Veolia. The court concluded that the employees’ work did not fall under "construction and design of improvements" as used in the Special Act and, relying on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts’s (SJC) decision in Metcalf v. BSC Group, Inc., determined that the structure of the procurement scheme made the PWA inapplicable to the service contract as a whole. The employees appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, reviewing the case, certified two questions regarding Massachusetts law to the SJC. The SJC clarified that "construction and design of improvements" in the Special Act is broader than the PWA’s definition of “construction” but does not include ordinary repairs or maintenance. The SJC also held that the Special Act was not incompatible with the PWA and that Metcalf was not controlling. Based on the SJC’s answers, the First Circuit held that the district court’s summary judgment for Veolia could not stand, reversed the order, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine which, if any, of the employees’ tasks fell within the statutory phrase. View "Nicholls v. Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc." on Justia Law

LUMA Energy, LLC and LUMA Energy ServCo, LLC entered into a long-term contract to operate and maintain Puerto Rico’s electric power transmission and distribution system, previously managed by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), a Title III debtor under PROMESA. The agreement included a liability waiver provision, which was subsequently approved with modifications by the Puerto Rico Energy Bureau (PREB). After LUMA invoked the waiver to deny numerous consumer claims, the Puerto Rico Department of Consumer Affairs (DACO) brought suit in Puerto Rico’s courts against LUMA, PREPA, and PREB, challenging the constitutionality of the waiver. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico accepted the case for review.While the DACO action was pending, LUMA, without participation from PREPA or the Financial Oversight and Management Board (the Board), sought an order from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (acting as the Title III court) to enforce the automatic bankruptcy stay and halt the DACO litigation. The Title III court denied LUMA’s motion, finding the police and regulatory power exception to the automatic stay applicable because DACO’s action was an exercise of governmental authority to protect consumers. LUMA appealed this order.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The main holding was that LUMA lacked statutory standing to appeal the Title III court’s denial of its motion to enforce the automatic stay. The First Circuit clarified that LUMA was not a “person aggrieved” for purposes of appellate standing under the Bankruptcy Code as incorporated by PROMESA, because LUMA did not show it suffered a direct and adverse pecuniary injury of the type the automatic stay is meant to prevent. Accordingly, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. View "LUMA Energy LLC v. Puerto Rico Dep't of Consumer Affairs" on Justia Law

Several nonprofit organizations filed suit after President Trump issued an executive order and subsequent memorandum directing federal agencies to pause the disbursement of funds appropriated under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The nonprofits, which had been awarded grants under these statutes, alleged that the “freeze” on funding had resulted in denial of financial assistance and disruption of their operations. The complaint named several federal agencies and officials, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island found that the plaintiffs had Article III standing and rejected the government’s arguments regarding prior pending actions in other courts and the nature of the claims as contract disputes. The District Court determined that the challenged agency actions were not committed to agency discretion, likely constituted final agency actions, and were likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering agencies to resume processing and payment of already-awarded funds and prohibiting further implementation of the funding freeze directives.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed much of the District Court’s order, finding that the nonprofits demonstrated standing and were likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claims. The Court held that the categorical funding freezes constituted final agency actions and that agencies failed to consider reliance interests, rendering their actions likely arbitrary and capricious. However, the Court vacated the portion of the order that directly compelled agencies to make monetary payments under contractual grants, finding it exceeded the District Court’s authority under the APA. The remainder of the injunctive relief was affirmed. View "Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. USDA" on Justia Law

Several nonprofit organizations that rescue stray puppies from Caribbean islands and arrange for their adoption in the United States challenged a 2024 regulation issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This regulation requires all dogs imported into the United States to be at least six months old, denying entry to younger dogs regardless of their country of origin. The CDC implemented this rule to prevent the reintroduction of rabies, citing both the difficulty of accurately assessing rabies risk and age in younger puppies and concerns about fraudulent documentation regarding the dogs’ origins and vaccination status.After the regulation was enacted, the plaintiffs argued that it exceeded the CDC’s statutory authority under 42 U.S.C. § 264(a) and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment to the CDC, finding the age requirement within the agency’s statutory authority as an inspection measure directly related to preventing the introduction of communicable diseases. The district court also concluded that the CDC had reasonably explained its rationale for the rule and had not acted arbitrarily.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s judgment de novo, applying the standards articulated in recent Supreme Court decisions. The First Circuit held that the CDC’s age requirement is a permissible inspection measure under its statutory authority and is rationally connected to the goal of preventing rabies reintroduction. The court further held that the CDC’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious, as it considered relevant concerns and provided an adequate explanation, including addressing the plaintiffs’ reliance interests. Accordingly, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Bruno Project Rescue, Inc. v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" on Justia Law

The appellant, a former Marine, sought to upgrade his 1986 discharge from “Other Than Honorable” to “Honorable.” He argued that his misconduct while in the service was the result of undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder, which he claimed were caused by racial harassment and traumatic experiences during his time in the Marine Corps. He supported his application with a psychologist’s assessment diagnosing him with PTSD and major depressive disorder linked to his service. The Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) also considered an advisory opinion from a Navy psychologist, who concluded that while some of the appellant’s misconduct might be attributable to PTSD or depression, not all incidents were clearly connected.After the BCNR denied his request for a discharge upgrade, the appellant brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. He argued that the BCNR did not apply Department of Defense guidance requiring liberal consideration for discharge-upgrade applications involving PTSD and that the Board failed to adequately explain its reasoning. The district court, applying an “unusually deferential” standard of review to the BCNR’s decision, found that the Board’s denial was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious. The court granted summary judgment for the Secretary of the Navy and denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the administrative record de novo but accorded the BCNR “unusual deference” under governing law. The court held that the BCNR properly considered all relevant Department of Defense memoranda and the evidence linking the appellant’s mental health conditions to his misconduct. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the BCNR’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious and adequately explained. View "Taylor v. Cao" on Justia Law

A religious nonprofit organization sought to purchase a former university campus property after being selected as the winning bidder in a competitive process conducted by a state university system. Following the public announcement of the award, there was significant public opposition to the sale, particularly due to the religious nature of the winning bidder. Two unsuccessful bidders filed administrative protests, raising both procedural and substantive objections, including criticism of the university's decision to sell to a religious organization. The university's designated official initially denied these protests, but upon further internal review, a higher-level administrator determined that a flaw in the bid evaluation process—specifically, the failure to consider cost-saving proposals for existing infrastructure—warranted rescinding the award and restarting the process. In the new round, the property was awarded to a different bidder who scored higher under revised criteria.The original winning bidder, the religious organization, challenged the university's decision in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, alleging violations of the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The district court denied the plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of either claim. The court credited testimony that the university’s decision was motivated by cost-saving considerations rather than religious bias, and found no clear evidence of procedural irregularity or pretext.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. The Court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the lower court applied the correct legal standards and did not clearly err in its factual findings. The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its constitutional claims. View "Calvary Chapel Belfast v. University of Maine System" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs had their property taken by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico through eminent domain. They received over two million dollars in compensation, including interest accrued up to the time of payment. However, they alleged a second violation occurred when the court-administered disbursement process failed to notify them of further accrued interest and deducted a 15% administrative fee from that interest. They challenged these practices as unconstitutional takings and violations of due process, seeking declaratory and equitable relief against the Administrator of the Administration of Tribunals.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico initially dismissed most claims, finding plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not alleged an attempt to withdraw the accrued interest, making their injury speculative. After reconsideration, the court revived the claim challenging the deduction of administrative fees, but limited relief to prospective injunctive relief due to Eleventh Amendment constraints. The court ultimately granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding the administrative fee reasonable and not an unconstitutional taking, as plaintiffs provided no evidence to the contrary.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and confronted jurisdictional issues arising from Puerto Rico’s Title III bankruptcy under PROMESA. The court held that the administrative fee claim was void for violating the automatic stay provisions, as it amounted to a demand for property of the debtor (the Commonwealth), and dismissed that portion of the appeal. Regarding the interest claim, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, ruling plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to allege they sought disbursement or challenged existing procedures. The First Circuit thus dismissed the appeal from summary judgment and affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Hernandez-Castrodad v. Steidel-Figueroa" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two unions representing Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees and the VA itself, along with the VA Secretary. The core issue centers on the VA’s termination of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that was signed in August 2023 and set to last three years. The termination followed a March 2025 executive order by President Trump that excluded the VA from coverage under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), citing national security. The VA Secretary then terminated the CBA, prompting the unions to file suit, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment.Prior to this case, unions not party here challenged the executive order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which issued a preliminary injunction. That injunction was later stayed and ultimately vacated on appeal by the Ninth Circuit. In the present case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction requiring the VA to reinstate the CBA and later issued an enforcement order when the VA attempted to re-terminate the agreement. The district court found that the termination was likely retaliatory and arbitrary and capricious.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed requests to stay both the preliminary injunction and the enforcement order. The First Circuit denied the VA’s request to stay the preliminary injunction, finding the VA had not made a strong showing of likely success on appeal. However, the court granted a partial stay of the enforcement order, holding that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to order specific compliance with every term of the CBA under threat of contempt. The court otherwise denied the VA’s requests. View "American Federation of Gov't Employees Local 2305 v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a regional fishermen’s association and the federal government concerning changes to catch limits for several fish species in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. The association, representing commercial fishermen allegedly harmed by reduced catch limits, challenged the legality of the Framework Adjustment 65 Final Rule and its implementing regulations. At the core of the association’s argument was the claim that the involvement of the New England Fishery Management Council in the development of these rules violated the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The association argued that the Council exercised significant authority in the regulatory process but its members were not properly appointed as federal officers.The United States District Court for the District of Maine reviewed the case. It concluded that the association had standing due to the economic injury suffered by its members. The district court rejected the primary constitutional claim, holding that the Council’s role was advisory and final binding authority rested solely with the Secretary of Commerce, who promulgated the regulations. The court did, however, agree with the association in part, finding certain unrelated statutory provisions unconstitutional, but determined that this did not entitle the association to its requested relief. The district court severed those statutory provisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard the appeal. After reviewing the statutory framework and the specific facts, the court held that the Council’s role was advisory and did not amount to the exercise of significant federal authority under the Appointments Clause. The harm to the association’s members derived from the Secretary’s independent decision to promulgate the binding regulations, not from the Council’s recommendations. The First Circuit affirmed the denial of injunctive and declaratory relief and reversed the district court’s severance of the unrelated statutory provisions. View "New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association v. Lutnick" on Justia Law

Arthur Miles was sentenced to a total of 300 months’ imprisonment following two separate federal convictions. After his first sentencing in October 2022, Miles was housed at the Marion County Jail in Indiana for fifteen months—some of this time was before and some after his second federal sentencing. During his time at the county jail, Miles worked as an orderly. He later argued that under the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”), he was entitled to earn time credits for this work, which could reduce his sentence, because his federal sentence had commenced and the work was equivalent to an evidence-based recidivism reduction (“EBRR”) program.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reviewed Miles’s habeas petition after a magistrate judge recommended denying the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge found that BOP regulations preventing prisoners from earning FSA credits until they arrived at a federal facility conflicted with the FSA’s language. The district court, however, rejected this recommendation and dismissed Miles’s petition, holding that the BOP’s rules did not violate the FSA.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the BOP’s regulation, which delayed the accrual of FSA time credits until a prisoner’s arrival at a federal facility, was invalid because it conflicted with the statutory definition of when a sentence commences. The court further held that a risk and needs assessment is not a prerequisite for earning FSA credits, and that prisoners may earn credits for qualifying programming—such as work as an orderly—performed after sentencing even while housed in non-federal facilities. The court vacated the dismissal of Miles’s habeas petition and remanded for further proceedings to determine his entitlement to credits for his time at the county jail. View "Miles v. Bowers" on Justia Law