Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Gregory Bonnie was serving a 144-month federal prison sentence in South Carolina, consisting of 120 months for drug trafficking convictions and a consecutive 24 months for violating supervised release, which included a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. While incarcerated, Bonnie sought to earn time credits under the First Step Act (FSA) for the 120-month portion of his sentence related to drug offenses, acknowledging that the 24-month portion for the § 924(c) conviction was disqualifying under the FSA.The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) denied Bonnie’s request, treating his consecutive sentences as a single, aggregate term of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3584(c), and finding him ineligible for FSA time credits because his aggregate sentence included a disqualifying § 924(c) conviction. After exhausting administrative remedies, Bonnie filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The district court granted summary judgment for the warden, holding that the plain text and statutory context of the FSA and § 3584(c) required aggregation of sentences, making Bonnie ineligible for FSA time credits for the entire 144-month sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo. The court held that, under the FSA and § 3584(c), the BOP must treat multiple consecutive or concurrent sentences as a single, aggregate sentence for administrative purposes, including the computation of FSA time credits. Because Bonnie’s aggregate sentence included a conviction under § 924(c), he was ineligible for FSA time credits for any portion of the sentence. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment denying Bonnie’s habeas petition. View "Bonnie v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

Several individuals whose livelihoods depended on interacting with spinner dolphins challenged a federal regulation that restricted human proximity to these dolphins. The regulation, known as the Approach Rule, was issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The plaintiffs included a psychotherapist who used dolphin encounters in therapy, a boat captain who operated dolphin swim tours, and a dolphin guide and photographer. They argued that the regulation was unconstitutional because it was signed and promulgated by an official who, they claimed, was not properly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland reviewed the case after the plaintiffs filed suit seeking to invalidate the regulation and enjoin its enforcement. During the litigation, Dr. Richard Spinrad, the Senate-confirmed NOAA Administrator and a principal officer, ratified the regulation, affirming that he independently evaluated and approved it. The district court found that this ratification cured any potential Appointments Clause defect and granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, under established principles of agency law, a principal officer’s ratification of a regulation can cure any constitutional defect arising from its initial promulgation by a non-principal officer. The court found that Dr. Spinrad’s ratification was valid and not impermissibly retroactive, as it did not impose new liabilities for past conduct but merely confirmed the regulation’s validity from the time of its original publication. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the suit. View "Wille v. Lutnik" on Justia Law

Two inmates in Virginia, each serving sentences for attempted aggravated murder, were initially informed by the Department of Corrections that they would be released in July 2022 due to a new state law expanding sentence credits for good behavior. This law, H.B. 5148, allowed certain inmates to earn more credits and thus reduce their incarceration time. However, after a change in the Attorney General’s office, the new Attorney General issued an advisory opinion stating that inmates convicted of inchoate offenses related to aggravated murder were not eligible for the enhanced credits. As a result, the Department reversed its earlier decision and kept the inmates incarcerated for an additional year, until the Supreme Court of Virginia later clarified that such inmates were indeed eligible for the credits and ordered their release.The inmates then filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that the Attorney General and the Director of Corrections violated their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to their over-incarceration. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that both officials had acted reasonably in interpreting an unsettled question of state law and that their conduct did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference or conscience-shocking behavior.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the officials’ actions did not constitute deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, nor did they shock the conscience under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court emphasized that federal courts should not hold state officials personally liable for reasonable legal interpretations of unsettled state law, especially when those interpretations are made in good faith and with conventional legal reasoning. View "Swart v. Miyares" on Justia Law

The case involved two related companies and three individuals who operated a business targeting immigrants detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and eligible for release on immigration bonds. The companies marketed their services as an affordable way to secure release, but in reality, they charged high fees for services that were often misrepresented or not provided. The agreements were complex, mostly in English, and required significant upfront and recurring payments. Most consumers did not understand the terms and relied on the companies’ oral representations, which were deceptive. The business was not licensed as a bail bond agent or surety, and the defendants’ practices violated federal and state consumer protection laws.After the plaintiffs—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia—filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, the defendants repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations and court orders. They did not produce required documents, ignored deadlines, and failed to appear at hearings. The district court, after multiple warnings and opportunities to comply, imposed default judgment as a sanction for this misconduct. The court also excluded the defendants’ late-disclosed witnesses and exhibits from the remedies hearing, finding the nondisclosures unjustified and prejudicial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Fourth Circuit held that the default judgment was an appropriate sanction for the defendants’ repeated and willful noncompliance. The exclusion of evidence and witnesses was also upheld, as was the issuance of a permanent injunction and the calculation of monetary relief, including restitution and civil penalties totaling approximately $366.5 million. The court found no abuse of discretion or legal error in the district court’s rulings and affirmed the final judgment in all respects. View "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Nexus Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Horace Meredith worked as a coal miner for several decades, with his last employment at Hobet Mining, Inc. During Meredith’s tenure at Hobet, Arch Coal Company, Inc. was Hobet’s parent company and provided self-insurance for black lung liabilities. Years after Meredith left Hobet and after Arch had sold Hobet to Magnum Coal (which was later acquired by Patriot Coal Company), Meredith filed a claim for black lung benefits. By the time of his claim, both Patriot and Hobet were defunct, and the Department of Labor sought to hold Arch liable for Meredith’s benefits, despite Arch no longer owning or insuring Hobet.After Meredith filed his claim, the district director designated Hobet as the responsible operator and Arch as the insurance carrier. Arch and Hobet contested this designation, arguing that Arch was no longer responsible for Hobet’s liabilities and that the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund should cover the claim. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Hobet to be the responsible operator and Arch liable as its self-insurer at the time of Meredith’s last employment. The Department of Labor’s Benefits Review Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision, holding Hobet and Arch liable for the claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. The court held that neither the Black Lung Benefits Act nor its regulations imposed liability on Arch under these circumstances. Specifically, the court found that Hobet did not meet the regulatory requirements to be a financially capable responsible operator, and Arch could not be held liable as a self-insurer for claims filed long after it ceased to own or insure Hobet. The Fourth Circuit granted the petition for review, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hobet Mining, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs" on Justia Law

A flight attendant on a Delta Air Lines flight observed a 13-year-old passenger crying during turbulence and believed the man accompanying her was behaving inappropriately. Concluding that the man was sexually assaulting and trafficking the child, the attendant reported her concerns to the flight captain, who relayed the information to a station manager. The manager contacted local police, who detained and questioned the man, Nicholas Cupp, and his daughter upon landing. After investigation, police determined Cupp was the child’s father and released him without charges. Cupp later filed suit, alleging the report was false and reckless, and claimed significant emotional distress and harm to his relationship with his daughter.The case was initially filed in the Circuit Court of Newport News, Virginia, but was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia based on diversity jurisdiction. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing immunity under Virginia Code § 63.2-1512 for good-faith reports of suspected child abuse. The district court granted the motion, finding the immunity statute applicable even though the report was made to law enforcement rather than directly to social services, and concluded that Cupp had not sufficiently alleged bad faith or malicious intent.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether a nonmandatory reporter who makes a good-faith complaint of suspected child abuse to law enforcement, rather than directly to social services, is entitled to immunity under Virginia Code § 63.2-1512. Finding no controlling Virginia precedent, the Fourth Circuit certified this question to the Supreme Court of Virginia, as its answer will determine whether the district court’s dismissal should be affirmed or reversed. View "Cupp v. Delta Air Lines, Inc." on Justia Law

After the 2025 Presidential Inauguration, the federal government initiated mass terminations of thousands of probationary employees across numerous federal agencies. These employees, who were subject to one- or two-year probationary periods, were dismissed without the advance notice typically required for reductions in force (RIFs). The affected states alleged that the lack of notice hindered their ability to provide rapid response services to the terminated employees, resulting in increased unemployment claims and diversion of state resources.Nineteen states and the District of Columbia filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, arguing that the terminations violated statutory RIF procedures, including the requirement to provide 60 days’ notice to state governments. The district court granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction, ordering the federal government to reinstate the terminated employees and prohibiting further terminations without compliance with all applicable laws and notice requirements. The injunction was later stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the plaintiff states lacked Article III standing to bring the suit. The court found that the states did not suffer a cognizable and redressable injury, as the direct harm was to the terminated employees, not the states. The court also determined that the relief sought by the states—indefinite reinstatement and broad injunctive relief—was not tailored to their alleged informational injury and primarily served to vindicate the rights of non-party employees. As a result, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action. View "State of Maryland v. USDA" on Justia Law

Tim Landholt was arrested in South Carolina after failing to pay child support, pursuant to a bench warrant issued by a family court judge. After Landholt appeared in court, paid a fine, and resolved the matter, the warrant was supposed to be recalled, but the clerk’s office failed to do so. Over five years later, Landholt was arrested again on the same, now-stale warrant and spent three days in jail. He then brought a negligence claim under South Carolina law against Jeanette McBride, in her official capacity as the Richland County Clerk of Court, alleging that the failure to recall the warrant caused his wrongful arrest and detention.Landholt initially filed suit in state court, asserting both federal and state-law claims. After procedural delays and amendments, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to McBride on the negligence claim, finding her immune under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, specifically S.C. Code § 15-78-60(2), which provides immunity for administrative actions or inactions of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature. The district court adopted this recommendation, holding that the immunity applied even to non-discretionary (ministerial) acts, and granted summary judgment to McBride.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that, under South Carolina precedent, immunity under S.C. Code § 15-78-60(2) applies only to discretionary, not ministerial, acts. Because the record did not establish that the failure to recall the warrant was a discretionary act, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment to McBride on this ground and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Landholt v. Corley" on Justia Law

Louise Trauma Center LLC submitted four Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) between January and June 2021, seeking records about the training and performance of asylum officers. After receiving only boilerplate acknowledgment letters and no substantive response for over two years, Louise Trauma Center filed suit, alleging that USCIS had unlawfully failed to produce the requested records. Following the lawsuit, USCIS produced 2,756 pages of documents, many of which were heavily redacted, and informed Louise Trauma Center of its right to file an administrative appeal regarding the redactions.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted USCIS’s motion to dismiss, holding that the case was moot because the agency had produced the requested records. The district court also found that Louise Trauma Center had not constructively exhausted its administrative remedies and was required to pursue an administrative appeal regarding the redactions before seeking judicial review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Louise Trauma Center had constructively exhausted its administrative remedies because USCIS failed to provide a timely determination on the FOIA requests, as required by statute. The court further held that the case was not moot, since USCIS had not produced all unredacted records and Louise Trauma Center continued to challenge the adequacy of the production. Finally, the court concluded that Louise Trauma Center was not required to exhaust new administrative remedies regarding the redactions after filing suit, as the constructive exhaustion provision applied. The district court’s dismissal was therefore reversed. View "Louise Trauma Center LLC v. Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

A United States citizen, formerly known as Paul Anderson and now Saadiq Long, was placed on the federal government’s Terrorist Screening Dataset (commonly called the Terrorist Watchlist) and, at one point, on its No Fly List subset. After experiencing travel restrictions, employment issues, and other alleged harms, Long challenged his placement on these lists, asserting constitutional and statutory violations. He claimed that his inclusion was based on impermissible factors such as race, religion, and protected activities, and that the government’s information-sharing practices and redress procedures were unlawful. While the litigation was ongoing, Long was removed from the No Fly List, but remained on the broader Watchlist. He also alleged that his Watchlist status led to the denial of credentials necessary for his work as a truck driver.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially transferred some of Long’s claims to the Fourth Circuit and stayed others. After Long’s removal from the No Fly List, a prior Fourth Circuit panel found his No Fly List claims moot and remanded for the district court to determine which claims remained justiciable. On remand, the district court dismissed all of Long’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that his removal from the No Fly List mooted those claims and that he lacked standing for his Watchlist-related claims, as his alleged injuries were either resolved or not sufficiently imminent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in FBI v. Fikre, Long’s removal from the No Fly List did not necessarily moot his claims, as the government had not shown it could not repeat the challenged conduct. The court also found that Long had standing to challenge his Watchlist status based on the denial of transportation credentials, and remanded for the district court to consider the merits of his claims. View "Long v. Bondi" on Justia Law