Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A group of out-of-state pig farmers and a pork processor challenged a Massachusetts law that prohibits the use of certain confinement methods for breeding pigs (specifically, gestation crates) and bans the sale in Massachusetts of pork products derived from pigs confined in such a manner. The plaintiffs, who operate outside Massachusetts and use these confinement methods, argued that the law discriminates against out-of-state producers and is preempted by federal statutes. The law was enacted by ballot initiative and became enforceable after the Supreme Court’s decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ claims, including those based on the Privileges and Immunities Clause, preemption by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Import-Export Clause. The court allowed the dormant Commerce Clause claim to proceed, but ultimately granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs on that claim as well, after severing a provision of the law that it found discriminatory (the “slaughterhouse exemption”). The court found that the remaining provisions of the law did not discriminate against out-of-state interests and did not impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The First Circuit held that the Massachusetts law does not discriminate against out-of-state producers in purpose or effect, does not impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce under the Pike balancing test, and is not preempted by the FMIA or PSA. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claims under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Due Process Clause, and Import-Export Clause. The court found no procedural error in the district court’s handling of the case. View "Triumph Foods, LLC v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Several individuals who had received grants of parole under programs established by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela challenged the government’s decision to terminate those grants. The parole programs, created during the Biden Administration, allowed eligible individuals from these countries to enter the United States temporarily for up to two years, based on urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. When President Trump took office in January 2025, he issued executive orders directing DHS to end categorical parole programs, including the CHNV programs. DHS subsequently published a notice terminating the programs and revoking all existing grants of parole within thirty days, rather than allowing them to expire naturally.The plaintiffs, affected by the early termination, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court certified a class of affected individuals and granted a preliminary stay, preventing DHS from revoking their parole grants before the original expiration dates. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the categorical termination was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), in part because the agency’s rationale rested on a legal error and failed to adequately consider reliance and humanitarian interests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s order. The First Circuit held that the relevant statute requires DHS to grant parole only on a case-by-case basis, but does not impose the same limitation on the termination of parole. The court also found that the agency’s explanation for terminating the parole programs was not so deficient as to be arbitrary and capricious under the APA. Concluding that the plaintiffs had not made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the First Circuit vacated the district court’s stay and remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Noem" on Justia Law

In March 2025, the President issued an executive order directing federal officials to eliminate non-statutory functions and reduce statutory functions of three federal agencies: the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). These agencies, established and funded by Congress, provide grants and services to states and other entities. Following the executive order, the agencies terminated, reassigned, or placed on leave nearly all employees and canceled numerous grants, which plaintiffs—twenty-one states—alleged caused immediate and ongoing harm, including loss of services, forced layoffs, and canceled programming.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had suffered and would continue to suffer concrete injuries due to the agencies’ actions. The court determined that the agencies’ actions likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional provisions, including the Take Care Clause and separation of powers. The injunction barred implementation of the executive order as to the three agencies, required reversal of actions taken to implement the order, restoration of employees, and resumption of grant funding, while allowing for efficiency measures not motivated by the executive order. The district court denied the government’s request for a stay of the injunction pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed only the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The court denied the stay, holding that the government failed to make a strong showing of likely success on the merits, particularly because it did not adequately challenge the district court’s constitutional analysis and had not preserved certain arguments. The court also found that the balance of harms and public interest did not favor a stay. View "Rhode Island v. Trump" on Justia Law

Angel A. Perales-Muñoz was hired as a recruiter assistant by Document and Packaging Brokers, Inc. (Docupak), a contractor for the National Guard Bureau, to help recruit individuals for the Army National Guard. The Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) began investigating possible fraud in the recruiting program, which led to Perales being indicted on multiple federal charges related to conspiracy and fraud. After two years, the government moved to dismiss the charges against Perales, and the indictments were dismissed with prejudice. Perales and his wife subsequently filed administrative claims and then a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that the CID’s investigation was negligent and caused them emotional distress.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico reviewed the case. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA barred the claims, as the investigation involved policy discretion. The district court ordered limited jurisdictional discovery and referred the matter to a magistrate judge, who found that the CID’s investigation did not violate the Posse Comitatus Act or Army Regulation 195-2. The district court adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation, dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the discretionary function exception applied because Perales failed to show that the CID’s investigation violated any binding federal law or regulation. The court found no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act or Army Regulation 195-2 and concluded that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the claims. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Perales-Munoz v. United States" on Justia Law

Two brothers with developmental disabilities, Gaven and Jared, live with their parents, who are certified to provide in-home care. Both brothers qualified for Maine’s “Single Member Services,” which would allow each to receive one-on-one care from a designated provider. The family requested that each parent be reimbursed for providing care to one brother. However, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services determined that, because the brothers lived together, they were only eligible for “Two Member Services,” meaning a single provider would be reimbursed to care for both, at half the total rate. The parents continued to provide one-on-one care to both brothers, but were only reimbursed for one provider, resulting in a significant financial shortfall.The family challenged this determination in Maine Superior Court, which ruled in their favor, finding that the Department’s interpretation of its rules was arbitrary and inconsistent with its policies. Following this decision, the Department began reimbursing both parents for providing one-on-one care. The family then filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages for the period before the state court’s ruling, alleging discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The United States District Court for the District of Maine dismissed the case, holding that the Department was protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The First Circuit held that the Department was not entitled to sovereign immunity because Congress validly abrogated such immunity under Title II of the ADA in this context. The court found that the Department’s policy violated the brothers’ equal protection rights, as there was no rational basis for providing reduced services solely because the brothers lived together. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McKenna v. Maine Department of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

A coastal town in Maine, known for its small population and proximity to a national park, experienced a significant increase in cruise ship tourism, with large vessels bringing thousands of passengers daily. In response to concerns about congestion, public safety, and the impact on local amenities, residents approved an ordinance capping the number of cruise ship passengers who could disembark in the town to 1,000 per day. The ordinance imposed fines for violations and was intended to address issues primarily at the waterfront and, to a lesser extent, in the downtown area.Several local businesses, a business association, and a pilots’ association challenged the ordinance in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. They argued that the ordinance was preempted by federal and state law, violated the Commerce Clause (including its dormant aspect), and infringed on due process rights. After a bench trial, the District Court largely ruled in favor of the town and an intervening resident, rejecting most claims but finding that the ordinance was preempted by federal regulations only to the extent it restricted crew members’ shore access. The court declined to enjoin the ordinance, noting the town’s intent to address this issue through further rulemaking.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s rejection of the state law preemption, federal preemption (except for the now-moot crew access issue), and due process claims. The First Circuit also affirmed the dismissal of discrimination-based Dormant Commerce Clause claims, finding no similarly situated in-state and out-of-state competitors. However, the court vacated and remanded the District Court’s dismissal of the Pike balancing Dormant Commerce Clause claim, instructing further analysis of whether the ordinance’s burdens on interstate commerce are clearly excessive in relation to its local benefits. The court dismissed as moot the appeals related to the crew access issue. View "Ass'n to Preserve and Protect Local Livelihoods v. Town of Bar Harbor" on Justia Law

Employees of Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc. filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts state court, claiming they were entitled to prevailing wages under the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) for work performed. They argued that their work fell within the scope of the PWA. Veolia removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of Veolia. The court concluded that the Special Act of 1997, which pertains to the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission, exempted Veolia from the obligation to pay prevailing wages under the PWA. The employees appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The central issue was whether the Special Act required Veolia to pay prevailing wages. The court noted that the outcome depended on unresolved questions of Massachusetts law and significant policy concerns. Consequently, the First Circuit decided to certify the dispositive state law questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for clarification.The First Circuit certified two questions: the meaning of "construction and design of improvements" in the Special Act and whether the Special Act is incompatible with the PWA under the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Metcalf v. BSC Group, Inc. The First Circuit retained jurisdiction over the appeal pending the resolution of these certified questions. View "Nicholls v. Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc." on Justia Law

In early 2025, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) implemented a new policy prohibiting NIH from funding certain categories of scientific research grants. Two groups of plaintiffs, including private research organizations, individual researchers, and several states, sued, alleging that the new policy and the resulting grant terminations violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the U.S. Constitution. They argued that the policy was arbitrary and capricious, as the prohibited research categories were undefined and the rationale for discontinuing the research was circular.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a trial on the merits and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the agencies' actions to be "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious." The court set aside the new policy and related grant terminations as illegal under the APA. The court found that the decisions were based on circular reasoning, lacked a rational connection to the facts, and ignored significant reliance interests. The government then moved for a stay of the district court's order pending appeal, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to review the agency action under the APA and to grant declaratory relief. The court found that the district court's orders did not enforce a contractual obligation to pay money but rather provided declaratory relief that set aside agency actions as arbitrary and capricious. The court also determined that the grant terminations were reviewable under the APA and that the Department had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court denied the Department's motion for a stay, concluding that the balance of equities and the public interest favored the plaintiffs. View "American Public Health Assn v. National Institutes of Health" on Justia Law

A Puerto Rico-based poultry importer, Northwestern Selecta, Inc. (NWS), challenged a regulation by the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture (PRDA) requiring a PRDA inspector to be present when shipping containers of poultry meat are opened and unloaded. NWS argued that this requirement is preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), which regulates the inspection and distribution of poultry products. The PPIA includes a preemption clause that prohibits states from imposing additional or different requirements on official establishments beyond those established by the PPIA.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico agreed with NWS, finding that the PRDA's inspector requirement falls within the scope of the PPIA's preemption clause and is not exempted by the PPIA's savings clause. The district court granted declaratory relief to NWS and permanently enjoined the enforcement of the PRDA's regulation against NWS. The PRDA appealed the decision, arguing that the district court misinterpreted the scope of the PPIA's preemption clause and the application of the savings clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the PPIA's preemption clause broadly covers state regulations related to the operations of official establishments, which includes the opening and unloading of shipping containers at NWS's facility. The court found that the PRDA's inspector requirement directly impacts NWS's operations and is therefore preempted by the PPIA. Additionally, the court determined that the savings clause does not exempt the PRDA's regulation from preemption because it does not apply to poultry products outside of NWS's facility. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the permanent injunction against the enforcement of the PRDA's regulation. View "Northwestern Selecta, Inc. v. Gonzalez-Beiro" on Justia Law

Power Rental Op Co, LLC ("Power Rental") is a Florida-based company providing water and energy services. The Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority ("WAPA") is a municipal corporation in the U.S. Virgin Islands. In 2012, WAPA entered into a rental agreement with General Electric International, which Power Rental later acquired. By 2019, WAPA owed Power Rental over $14 million, which was reduced to approximately $9.3 million through a promissory note governed by New York law. WAPA defaulted on the note in 2020, leading Power Rental to sue in Florida state court for breach of the note and other claims.The case was removed to the Middle District of Florida, which dissolved pre-judgment writs of garnishment issued by the state court, granted partial summary judgment in favor of Power Rental, and ordered WAPA to complete a fact information sheet. The court found that WAPA waived its sovereign immunity defenses under the terms of the note. WAPA's appeal to the Eleventh Circuit was voluntarily dismissed.Power Rental registered the judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, which issued a writ of execution served on WAPA's account at FirstBank in Puerto Rico. WAPA filed an emergency motion to quash the writ, arguing that the funds were exempt under Virgin Islands law and that the Puerto Rico court lacked jurisdiction. The District of Puerto Rico denied the motion, finding that the separate entity rule did not apply and that it had jurisdiction to issue the writ.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District of Puerto Rico's order. The court held that the separate entity rule was outdated and did not apply, allowing the Puerto Rico court to have jurisdiction over the writ. The court also upheld the lower court's finding that WAPA had waived its statutory immunity defenses. View "Power Rental OP CO, LLC v. Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority" on Justia Law