Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Several individuals and a firearms instruction company challenged various aspects of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) and the way the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD) implements the law. The individual plaintiffs, all Suffolk County residents, objected to requirements for obtaining a handgun license, including a “good moral character” standard, an in-person interview, disclosure of household members and character references, a list of social media accounts, and completion of eighteen hours of firearms training. They also alleged that the SCPD’s process for scheduling interviews and issuing licenses could take years, far exceeding statutory timelines. Additionally, the plaintiffs, including firearms instructors, challenged an alleged SCPD policy of arresting unlicensed individuals participating in live-fire training, despite a state law exemption for such training.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the individual applicants lacked standing to challenge the CCIA’s requirements because they had not completed the application process, and that none of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the SCPD’s arrest policy due to a lack of credible threat of enforcement. The district court did not address the challenge to the SCPD’s processing delays.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the applicants did have standing to challenge the CCIA’s requirements and the SCPD’s processing delays, but affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial Second Amendment challenges, except for the social media disclosure requirement, which was already preliminarily enjoined in another case, rendering that issue moot. The court also found that at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge the SCPD’s arrest policy and vacated the district court’s ruling on that issue, remanding for further proceedings. The disposition was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Giambalvo v. Suffolk Cnty." on Justia Law

Verizon Communications Inc. provided mobile voice and data services to customers and, until 2019, operated a program that sold access to customer device-location data through third-party aggregators. These aggregators resold the data to various entities for uses such as call routing and roadside assistance. Verizon relied on contractual arrangements and an external auditor to ensure that customer consent was obtained before disclosing location data. In 2018, a news report revealed that a third party, Securus Technologies, enabled law enforcement to access customer location data without proper consent, exposing flaws in Verizon’s safeguards. Verizon subsequently terminated access for Securus and related entities, but continued the program for other providers for several months.Following the news report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiated an enforcement action, issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability and, after considering Verizon’s response, a forfeiture order. The FCC found that Verizon’s device-location data qualified as “customer proprietary network information” under § 222 of the Communications Act, and that Verizon failed to reasonably protect this information both before and after the Securus incident. The FCC imposed a $46.9 million penalty, calculated as 63 continuing violations—one for each third-party relationship that persisted after the breach was publicized—and included a 50% upward adjustment for egregious conduct. Verizon paid the penalty and petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that device-location data is protected under § 222, the FCC’s liability finding was not arbitrary or capricious, and the penalty did not exceed statutory limits. The court also found that Verizon’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial was not violated, as Verizon could have obtained a jury trial by declining to pay the penalty and contesting the forfeiture in federal district court. The petition for review was denied. View "Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization sought to provide free legal advice to low-income New Yorkers facing debt-collection lawsuits by training nonlawyer “Justice Advocates” to help individuals complete a state-issued check-the-box answer form. The organization and a prospective Justice Advocate argued that many defendants in such cases default due to lack of understanding, leading to severe consequences. However, New York law prohibits nonlawyers from providing individualized legal advice, and all parties agreed that the proposed activities would violate the state’s unauthorized practice of law (UPL) statutes.The plaintiffs filed a pre-enforcement challenge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that applying the UPL statutes to their activities would violate their First Amendment rights. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits, holding that the UPL statutes, as applied, were a content-based regulation of speech that could not survive strict scrutiny. The court granted a preliminary injunction, barring the Attorney General from enforcing the UPL statutes against the plaintiffs and participants in their program.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that the UPL statutes, as applied, regulate speech. However, the Second Circuit held that the regulation is content neutral, not content based, and therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny. Because the district court applied the wrong standard, the Second Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct legal standard. The court did not reach a final decision on whether the statutes, as applied, ultimately violate the First Amendment, leaving that determination for the district court on remand. View "Upsolve, Inc. v. James" on Justia Law

Several groups of plaintiffs sought to access approximately $3.5 billion in assets held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the name of Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB), the central bank of Afghanistan. The first group, the Pre-Judgment Plaintiffs, sought to confirm a pre-judgment attachment order on these funds to secure potential future judgments against the Taliban for its alleged role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa. The second group, the Judgment Plaintiffs, who already held judgments against the Taliban for its role in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, sought turnover of the same funds to satisfy their judgments. The assets in question were blocked by the U.S. government after the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in August 2021, but the United States has not recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Valerie E. Caproni denied the Pre-Judgment Plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the attachment, finding that DAB’s funds were immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Judge George B. Daniels denied the Judgment Plaintiffs’ turnover motions, concluding that the FSIA and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) did not permit turnover of the funds, and that DAB was not an agency or instrumentality of the Taliban for TRIA purposes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed both district court orders. The court held that DAB, as the central bank of Afghanistan, is an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state recognized by the Executive Branch, and thus its assets are immune from attachment and execution under the FSIA. The court further held that while the TRIA abrogates FSIA immunity and provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, DAB was not an agency or instrumentality of the Taliban at the time the assets were blocked. Therefore, the TRIA did not apply, and the plaintiffs could not access the funds. View "Havlish v. Taliban" on Justia Law

The United States government brought suit against several defendants, including EZ Lynk, SEZC, Thomas Wood, and Bradley Gintz, alleging that their product, the EZ Lynk System, violated the Clean Air Act by enabling vehicle owners to bypass or disable emissions controls. The EZ Lynk System consists of a physical device that connects to a vehicle’s diagnostics port, a smartphone app, and a cloud-based service. Through this system, users can download and install “tunes” created by third-party technicians, including “delete tunes” that defeat emissions controls. The complaint detailed how EZ Lynk collaborated with tune creators, provided technical support, and maintained an online forum where users discussed using the system to delete emissions controls.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the government’s complaint sufficiently alleged that the EZ Lynk System was a “defeat device” under the Clean Air Act. However, the district court dismissed the complaint, holding that EZ Lynk and its principals were immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The court reasoned that EZ Lynk merely published third-party information (the delete tunes) and did not create them, thus qualifying for Section 230 immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Second Circuit agreed that the complaint adequately alleged the EZ Lynk System was a defeat device. However, it held that the complaint also sufficiently alleged that EZ Lynk, Wood, and Gintz directly and materially contributed to the creation of the unlawful delete tunes, making them ineligible for Section 230 immunity. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The main holding is that Section 230 immunity does not apply where a defendant directly and materially contributes to the creation of unlawful content. View "United States v. EZ Lynk" on Justia Law

Ferdinand E. Marcos, former President of the Philippines, deposited approximately $2 million in a New York Merrill Lynch account in 1972, which grew to over $40 million. These funds, known as the Arelma Assets, were proceeds of Marcos’s criminal activities. After Marcos’s ouster, multiple parties—including the Republic of the Philippines, a class of nearly 10,000 human rights victims, and the estate of Roger Roxas (from whom Marcos had stolen treasure)—asserted competing claims to these assets. The Republic obtained a forfeiture judgment from a Philippine court and requested the U.S. Attorney General to enforce it under 28 U.S.C. § 2467.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the enforcement application. The court rejected the class’s affirmative defenses, which included arguments based on statute of limitations, subject matter jurisdiction, lack of notice, and fraud. The court also found that Roxas lacked Article III standing because she failed to show a sufficient interest in the Arelma Assets, and denied her leave to amend her answer. The court entered judgment for the Government, allowing the assets to be returned to the Republic of the Philippines.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the class failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of its affirmative defenses and that Roxas lacked standing to participate as a respondent. The court also upheld the denial of intervention by Golden Budha Corporation, finding its interests adequately represented and lacking standing. The main holding is that the Government’s application to enforce the Philippine forfeiture judgment was timely and proper, and that neither the class nor Roxas could block enforcement or claim the assets. View "In re: Enforcement of Philippine Forfeiture Judgment" on Justia Law

After Congress enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, which capped the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) at $10,000, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and the Village of Scarsdale created or planned programs allowing residents to make contributions to state-administered charitable funds in exchange for significant state or local tax credits. These programs were designed to help residents recover some of the lost federal tax benefit by allowing them to claim a federal charitable deduction for the full amount contributed, despite receiving a state or local tax credit in return. In response, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Treasury Department issued a regulation (the “Final Rule”) requiring taxpayers to reduce their federal charitable deduction by the amount of any state or local tax credit received for the contribution.The States and Scarsdale sued the IRS and Treasury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that the Final Rule exceeded the IRS’s statutory authority under 26 U.S.C. § 170 and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the government, finding the IRS’s interpretation reasonable under Chevron deference and holding the rule was not arbitrary or capricious.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that New York and Scarsdale had Article III standing, and that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar the suit because there was no alternative procedure for the plaintiffs to challenge the rule. Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron, the Second Circuit independently interpreted § 170 and concluded that the IRS’s rule was consistent with the statute’s quid pro quo principle. The court also found the rule was not arbitrary or capricious. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "New Jersey v. Bessent" on Justia Law

Two limited liability companies, majority-owned by California residents, applied for provisional licenses to operate marijuana dispensaries in New York under the state’s Adult Use application program. New York law gives “Extra Priority” to applicants who meet three criteria: (a) membership in a community disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition, (b) income below 80% of the county median, and (c) a conviction for a marijuana-related offense under New York law (or a close relative with such a conviction). The plaintiffs met the first two criteria but had marijuana convictions under California, not New York, law, making them ineligible for Extra Priority. They alleged that this licensing scheme discriminates against out-of-state applicants in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary relief, holding that the dormant Commerce Clause does not apply to markets that Congress has criminalized, such as marijuana. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the state’s prioritization scheme was protectionist and that they had standing to challenge both the December Pool (in which they applied) and the November Pool (which was processed first and favored prior CAURD applicants, mostly New Yorkers).The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the December Pool’s Extra Priority regime and the November Pool’s precedence, but not the CAURD program. The court found the dormant Commerce Clause applies to New York’s marijuana licensing, as Congress has not clearly authorized state protectionism in this area. The court held that New York’s prioritization of applicants with New York marijuana convictions is a protectionist measure that violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The district court’s denial of preliminary relief was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Variscite NY Four, LLC v. New York State Cannabis Control Board" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff brought a defamation claim against Donald J. Trump, based on statements he made in June 2019 during his first term as President. The suit was initially filed in New York state court. In September 2020, the Department of Justice, acting under the Westfall Act, certified that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment and removed the case to federal court, seeking to substitute the United States as the defendant. The District Court for the Southern District of New York denied substitution, finding Trump was not acting within the scope of his employment. Trump appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and certified a question to the D.C. Court of Appeals regarding the scope of employment under D.C. law. The D.C. Court of Appeals clarified the law but did not resolve whether Trump’s conduct was within the scope of employment. The Second Circuit remanded for the District Court to apply the clarified law.On remand, the Department of Justice declined to certify that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment, and neither Trump nor the government sought substitution before trial. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding substantial damages. Trump appealed. After the appeal was fully briefed, and after Trump began his second term as President, Trump and the government jointly moved in the Second Circuit to substitute the United States as a party under the Westfall Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the motion to substitute. The court held that the motion was statutorily barred by the Westfall Act because it was not made before trial, that both Trump and the government had waived any right to seek substitution by failing to timely petition the District Court, and that equitable considerations also warranted denial of the belated motion. View "Carroll v. Trump" on Justia Law

A pharmaceutical company challenged the federal government’s implementation of a new program created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which authorizes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure prescription drugs under Medicare. The company’s drug was selected for the program, and it signed an agreement to participate “under protest” while filing suit. The company alleged that the program violated its constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, and that CMS failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when issuing the standard agreement for participation.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to the government on all claims. The district court found that participation in the program was voluntary, so there was no unlawful deprivation of rights. It also held that the program did not impose unconstitutional conditions on participation in Medicare and Medicaid, and that the Inflation Reduction Act expressly allowed CMS to implement the program for its first three years without notice-and-comment rulemaking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that, under its precedent in Garelick v. Sullivan, participation in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is voluntary, and thus the program does not effect a taking, deprive the company of property without due process, or compel speech in violation of the First Amendment. The court further held that the program does not impose unconstitutional conditions because it is designed to control Medicare spending and does not regulate the company’s private market conduct. Finally, the court concluded that the Inflation Reduction Act expressly exempted CMS from the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement for the program’s initial years. View "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs." on Justia Law