Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Lisa Wheeler, a physician assistant and former Assistant Medical Director at Acadia Healthcare Company’s Asheville, North Carolina clinic, filed a complaint alleging that Acadia falsified medical records to claim payments from government healthcare programs. Wheeler claimed that Acadia, which provided methadone-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder, failed to provide required therapy and counseling services, instead fabricating therapy notes to submit fraudulent claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina dismissed Wheeler’s amended complaint, concluding that she failed to adequately plead that Acadia’s false claims were material or submitted to the government. The court found that Wheeler did not sufficiently allege that Acadia’s failure to provide therapy was material to the government’s payment decisions or that false claims were actually submitted to the government.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Wheeler adequately pled her claims of presentment, false statement, false certification, and fraudulent inducement under the False Claims Act. The court found that Wheeler’s allegations of falsified therapy notes and non-compliance with federal opioid treatment standards were material to the government’s payment decisions. The court also concluded that Wheeler sufficiently alleged that Acadia submitted false claims to government healthcare programs and that the fraudulent conduct was central to the government’s decision to pay.Additionally, the Fourth Circuit held that Wheeler adequately pled her reverse false claim, finding that the stipulated penalties in Acadia’s Corporate Integrity Agreement with the government constituted an obligation under the False Claims Act. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States ex rel. Wheeler v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Environmental groups challenged the issuance of a permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the development of the Cainhoy Plantation in South Carolina. The plaintiffs argued that the permit violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). They claimed the permit improperly used a habitat surrogate to set the level of anticipated take of an endangered species and was issued after an Environmental Assessment (EA) rather than a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that they did not have a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. The court concluded that the Corps' decision to issue the permit based on an EA was reasonable and that the use of a habitat surrogate was justified under the circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the Corps had taken the required "hard look" at the environmental consequences of the project as mandated by NEPA and that the use of a habitat surrogate was appropriate given the impracticality of monitoring the take of individual bats. The court found that the Corps' decision to rely on an EA instead of preparing an EIS was entitled to deference and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. The court also noted that the surrogate used by the Service was enforceable and set a clear standard for determining when the level of anticipated take had been exceeded. View "South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. United States Army Corps of Engineers" on Justia Law

The Pharmaceutical Coalition for Patient Access (the Coalition), a charitable organization involving drug manufacturers, challenged an unfavorable advisory opinion issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The dispute centered on the Coalition’s proposed patient assistance program for Medicare beneficiaries, which aimed to subsidize co-pays for oncology drugs. The OIG determined that the program would violate the Anti-Kickback Statute if the required mens rea were present, as it would offer remuneration to induce the purchase of specific drugs.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the United States, HHS, and related officials, and dismissed the Coalition’s claims. The court found that the OIG’s advisory opinion was not arbitrary or capricious and that the Coalition’s program would indeed fall within the Anti-Kickback Statute’s prohibitions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that the word “induce” in the Anti-Kickback Statute should be construed under its ordinary meaning, not its specialized criminal law meaning. The court also concluded that “remuneration” in the statute includes any payment or compensation, not just corrupt payments that distort medical decision-making. The court found that the Coalition’s program involved a quid pro quo, as it offered subsidies for the purchase of specific drugs.The Fourth Circuit also upheld the district court’s dismissal of the Coalition’s disparate treatment claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that the OIG’s enforcement discretion is not subject to judicial review. The court concluded that the OIG had consistently applied the Anti-Kickback Statute to similar proposals and that the Coalition’s challenge was directed against the OIG’s enforcement discretion, which is unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. View "Pharmaceutical Coalition for Patient Access v. United States" on Justia Law

Courthouse News Service, a news organization, sought remote online access to civil court records from the Circuit Court for Prince William County, Virginia, similar to the access granted to Virginia attorneys. Virginia law prohibits the clerk from providing such access to non-attorneys. Courthouse News sued, claiming this restriction violated its First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Courthouse News's Equal Protection claim and granted summary judgment for the defendants on the First Amendment claims. The court found the restrictions to be content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations justified by the state's interests in the orderly administration of justice and protecting sensitive personal information.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's ruling on the First Amendment and Equal Protection claims, holding that the access restriction was a content-neutral regulation narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests. The court found that the restriction did not violate the First Amendment as it provided ample alternative channels for accessing court records and did not burden more access than necessary. The court also concluded that the restriction did not violate the Equal Protection Clause for the same reasons it passed First Amendment scrutiny.However, the court vacated the district court's ruling on the Dissemination Restriction claim, finding that Courthouse News lacked standing to challenge it since the restriction only applied to those with remote access, which Courthouse News did not have. The case was remanded for the district court to dismiss this claim without prejudice. View "Courthouse News Service v. Smith" on Justia Law

Danny Fox, an active-duty servicemember, purchased a property in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2015. The City of Norfolk determined the property was unsafe and uninhabitable, repeatedly notifying Fox of building code violations. Despite these notices, Fox did not make the necessary repairs. In December 2018, the city demolished the house, deeming it a public nuisance. Fox subsequently sued the city, claiming inverse condemnation, among other things, arguing the property was not a nuisance and that the city's actions were pretextual to increase its tax base.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of the city. The court held that Fox's federal constitutional claims were barred by the statute of limitations. It also ruled that Fox's inverse condemnation claim failed because, whether or not the property was a nuisance, he could not demonstrate the city's public use requirement. The court found no evidence to support Fox's claim that the city's actions were pretextual.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Fox's inverse condemnation claim failed regardless of whether the property was a nuisance. If the property was a nuisance, the city had the authority to abate it without compensation. If it was not a nuisance, Fox could not show a public use, a necessary element for an inverse condemnation claim. The court also found that Fox provided no evidence to support his pretext argument. Thus, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the city. View "D.A. Realestate Investment, LLC v. City of Norfolk" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed in substantial part the district court's issuance of a nationwide injunction as to Section 2(c) of the challenged Second Executive Order (EO-2), holding that the reasonable observer would likely conclude EO-2's primary purpose was to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs. Section 2(c) reinstated the ninety-day suspension of entry for nationals from six countries, eliminating Iraq from the list, but retaining Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.Determining that the case was justiciable, the Fourth Circuit held that plaintiffs have more than plausibly alleged that EO-2's stated national security interest was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for its religious purpose. Because the facially legitimate reason offered by the government was not bona fide, the court no longer deferred to that reason and instead may look behind the challenged action. Applying the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court held that the evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, created a compelling case that EO-2's primary purpose was religious. Then-candidate Trump's campaign statements revealed that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States. President Trump and his aides have made statements that suggest EO-2's purpose was to effectuate the promised Muslim ban, and that its changes from the first executive order reflect an effort to help it survive judicial scrutiny, rather than to avoid targeting Muslims for exclusion from the United States. These statements, taken together, provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated both executive orders: President Trump's desire to exclude Muslims from the United States and his intent to effectuate the ban by targeting majority-Muslim nations instead of Muslims explicitly. Because EO-2 likely fails Lemon's purpose prong in violation of the Establishment Clause, the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. The court also held that plaintiffs will likely suffer irreparable harm; the Government's asserted national security interests do not outweigh the harm to plaintiffs; and the public interest counsels in favor of upholding the preliminary injunction. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a nationwide injunction was necessary to provide complete relief, but erred in issuing an injunction against the President himself. View "International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump" on Justia Law

Wikimedia and eight other organizations filed suit challenging Upstream surveillance, an electronic surveillance program operated by the NSA. First, Wikimedia alleged that the sheer volume of its communications makes it virtually certain that the NSA has intercepted, copied, and reviewed at least some of its communications (Wikimedia Allegation). Second, all plaintiffs alleged that in the course of conducting Upstream surveillance the NSA was intercepting, copying, and reviewing substantially all text-based communications entering and leaving the United States, including their own (Dragnet Allegation). The district court dismissed the complaint based on lack of Article III standing. The Fourth Circuit held that the analysis of speculative injury in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013), was not controlling in this case because the central allegations were not speculative. As to Wikimedia, the court vacated and remanded because Wikimedia made allegations sufficient to survive a facial challenge to standing. As to the other plaintiffs, the court affirmed because the complaint did not contain enough well-pleaded facts entitled to the presumption of truth to establish their standing. View "Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA/CSS" on Justia Law

BBII filed suit against the City for breach of contract, alleging that the City unlawfully assessed liquidated damages against the company for failure to complete a construction project on time. This case involved two public works contracts entered into by the parties, in which BBII agreed to build certain parts of a wastewater treatment system aimed at reducing pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. The court agreed with the district court that BBII is not excused from the normal requirement of administrative exhaustion under Maryland law. The court rejected BBII's remaining claims and affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Balfour Beatty Infrastructure v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore" on Justia Law

Relators filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, alleging that Agape fraudulently billed Medicare and other federal health care programs for services to thousands of patients. The district court determined that using statistical sampling to prove relators' case would be improper. The district court also rejected a proposed settlement between relators and Agape, because the Attorney General of the United States objected to it. The district court concluded that the Government — despite not having intervened in an FCA qui tam action — possesses an unreviewable veto authority over the action's proposed settlement. Then the district court certified both its rulings for these interlocutory appeals. The court concluded that, under the plain language of section 3730(b)(1), the Attorney General possesses an absolute veto power over voluntary settlements in FCA qui tam actions. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's unreviewable veto ruling. In regard to the statistical sampling ruling, the court concluded that relators' appeal does not present a pure question of law that is subject to the court's interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Accordingly, the court dismissed as improvidently granted relators' appeal as to this rule. View "United States ex rel. Michaels v. Agape Senior Community" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., alleging that Navy officers negligently allowed a training structure to remain in a dangerous condition and failed to warn her of the dangerous gap between the mats placed adjacent to the structure. Plaintiff, a sheriff's deputy, was seriously injured when she jumped from the structure onto the set of mats and landed in a gap between them. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the challenged Navy conduct fell within the FTCA’s “discretionary function exception” and therefore that Congress had not waived sovereign immunity for plaintiff's claim. The court affirmed and concluded that the Navy’s decisions regarding the maintenance of its military bases for use by civilian law enforcement involved policy judgments that Congress sought to shield from tort liability under the FTCA. View "Wood v. United States" on Justia Law