Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The United States filed suit against E. Wayne Hage, who is now deceased, and his son, Wayne N. Hage, alleging that they grazed cattle on federal lands without a permit or other authorization. The court concluded that defendants' unauthorized grazing of cattle on federal lands was unlawful, and their water rights have no effect on the analysis. Further, defendants' counterclaim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2), is barred by the statute of limitations. The court reversed the judgment for defendants on their counterclaims and remanded with instructions that the district court enter judgment for the government; vacated the judgment with respect to the government’s trespass claims and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard; and, on remand, the district court shall determine, among other things, whether the source of law - state law or federal law - has any effect on the calculation of damages. On remand, the court ordered the cased assigned to a different district judge. View "United States v. Estate of E. Wayne Hage" on Justia Law

After the district court found that USCIS engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the Freedom of Information Act’s (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A), (B), (C), time limits, USCIS challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment, a permanent injunction, and an attorneys’ fees award in favor of plaintiffs. USCIS also challenged the district court’s jurisdiction to enforce a 1992 Settlement Agreement entered into by an INS attorney. Determining that the court has jurisdiction to review the summary order, the court dismissed USCIS's challenge to the permanent injunction for lack of jurisdiction given its prematurely filed notice of appeal; held that while the district court may assert supplemental jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement claims, plaintiffs have failed to show an “unequivocally expressed” waiver of sovereign immunity; and clarified the standing requirements to assert a FOIA pattern or practice claim. Therefore, the court vacated the injunction and remanded with instructions to conduct further proceedings on an open record to determine whether the attorney has standing to bring a pattern or practice claim under this standard. The court also found plaintiffs' pattern or practice claim moot and reversed the summary judgment order, remanding for further proceedings. The court vacated and remanded the attorneys' fees award for further consideration. View "Hajro v. USCIS" on Justia Law