Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Meritor Bank failed in 1992 after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) breached a capital agreement with Meritor. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the government was liable for breach of contract, and awarding $276 million in “lost value” damages. On remand, the Claims Court applied 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11), the statute governing the distribution of a receivership surplus by the FDIC acting in its capacity as a receiver, and held that current Meritor shareholders are the proper recipients of the $276 million award. The court also denied a motion to intervene filed by McCarron, a former Meritor employee, on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and issue and claim preclusion. Intervenors, former shareholders who owned shares of Meritor at the time of its failure but later sold their shares, appealed from an order directing the FDIC-Receiver to distribute the receivership surplus to current shareholders. McCarron appealed denial of his motion to intervene. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Slattery v. United States" on Justia Law

Casitas Water District operates the Ventura River Project, which is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and provides water to Ventura County, California, using dams, reservoirs, a canal, pump stations, and many miles of pipeline. In 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the West Coast steelhead trout as an endangered species and determined that the primary cause of its decline was loss of habitat due to water development, including impassable dams. Casitas faced liability if continued operation of the Project resulted in harm to the steelhead, 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1), 1540(a)–(b). In 2003, NMFS issued a biological opinion concerning operation of a fish ladder to relieve Casitas of liability. Casitas opened the Robles fish ladder, then filed suit, asserting that the biological opinion operating criteria breached its 1956 Contract with the government or amounted to uncompensated taking of Casitas’s property. The Claims Court dismissed, citing the sovereign acts doctrine. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of the contract claim, but reversed dismissal of Casitas’s takings claim. The court again dismissed, holding that Casitas had failed to show that the operating criteria had thus far resulted in any reduction of water deliveries, so a takings claim was not yet ripe. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States" on Justia Law

Smith was disbarred by the Tenth Circuit in 1996, followed by reciprocal disbarments by the Fifth Circuit, the U.S. District of Colorado and Northern District of Texas, and the Colorado Supreme Court. In 2007, the Tenth Circuit granted reinstatement, provided that Smith met conditions. The conditions were satisfied, and Smith was reinstated. The other courts then readmitted him to their bars, except the Colorado Supreme Court. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado then reversed itself and denied reinstatement, because Smith remained disbarred by the Colorado Supreme Court. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. Smith filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims, seeking compensation and equitable relief, alleging violations substantive and procedural due process and of equal protection, and judicial takings of his private property right to practice law and make a living. The Claims Court dismissed, reasoning that absent a money-mandating statute providing for compensation for such government action, it had no jurisdiction and that because the revocation actions became final no later than 1999, suit under the Tucker Act was barred by the six-year limitations period, 28 U.S.C. 2501.. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Smith v. United States" on Justia Law

Sharp, a federal supply contractor, submitted a termination compensation claim to the Department of the Army contracting officer, and later brought a Contracts Dispute Act claim before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, claiming that, because the Army failed to exercise the entirety of the last option year under a delivery order, Sharp was entitled to premature discontinuance fees under its General Services Administration schedule contract. The ASBCA dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the Federal Acquisition Regulation, does not permit ordering agency contracting officers to decide disputes pertaining to schedule contracts. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Under FAR 8.406-6, only the GSA contracting office may resolve disputes that, in whole or in part, involve interpretation of disputed schedule contract provisions. View "Sharp Elec. Corp. v. McHugh" on Justia Law

In 2001, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement awarded Northrop a contract for lease and support of Oakley network monitoring software for one base year and three option years at about $900,000 per year. To obtain Oakley’s software, Northrop was required to pay $2,899,710, so Northrup assigned its payment rights to ESCgov for $3,296,093. ESCgov assigned its rights to Citizens, but the government was not notified. In 2005, ICE decided not to exercise the first option. Northrop sent the contracting officer a “Contract Disputes Act Claim for not Exercising Option,” citing the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 601. The letter did not mention the two assignments. The CO denied Northrop’s claim. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed, holding that Northrop had not supplied the CO “adequate notice” because it failed to reference potential application of the Anti-Assignment Act and Severin doctrine. While the matter was pending, Northrop filed a second claim, including documents on the financing arrangements. The CO determined that Northrop’s second claim was the same claim and declined to issue a final decision. The Claims Court again held that it lacked jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed, finding that the first letter constituted a valid claim. View "Northrop Grumman Computing Sys., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Prasch worked as a mail carrier for the Postal Service until suffering a work-related injury, compensable under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act. He received benefits from the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs from December 2007 until October 2008. Prasch applied for disability retirement. OPM approved his application and deposited $14,640.27, representing retroactive retirement annuity payments from December 2007 through the approval of his application. OPM paid him another $5,869.60 in retirement annuity benefits before determining that Prasch had received FECA disability benefits from OWCP during the period that OPM was paying him retirement annuity benefits. Because governing statutes prohibit dual benefits, OPM adjusted the commencement date of Prasch’s retirement annuity and computed an overpayment of $14,703.62.and sent a proposed repayment schedule. Prasch requested a waiver of the repayment obligation, lower installments, or a compromise payment, but he did not ask for reconsideration of OPM’s decisions as to the existence of the overpayment or its amount. OPM affirmed its initial decision, finding that Prasch should have known that he could not receive dual benefits and rejecting his claim of financial hardship, but extended the time for repayment. The Merit Systems Protection denied an appeal. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Prasch v. Office of Pers. Mgmt." on Justia Law

Denney served as a criminal investigator or special FBI agent from 1983 until her retirement in 2008. From 1983 until early 2001, Denney was eligible for and received “availability pay” under 5 U.S.C. 5545a, a form of premium pay equal to “25 percent of the rate of basic pay for the position” for criminal investigators that work at least 40 hours per week and actually work or are available to work an additional two hours per regular workday. The investigator and her supervisor must annually certify that the investigator meets the requirements. In 2001 Denney began working part-time and was no longer eligible for, and no longer received, availability pay. The Office of Personnel Management held that availability pay should not be included in “average pay” in calculating Denney’s retirement annuity. The Merit Systems Protection Board and Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Denney v. Office of Pers. Mgmt." on Justia Law

Indian Harbor sought reimbursement under the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993, 106 Stat. 2315, 2371; 107 Stat. 1547, 1745 for environmental cleanup costs associated with the development of the former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin military base in southern California. The Court of Federal Claims determined that Indian Harbor failed to identify a “claim for personal injury or property” that triggered the government’s duty to indemnify and dismissed. The Federal Circuit reversed, relying on the purposes of the Act, to encourage cleanup and redevelopment of former military installations. View "Indian Harbor Ins. v. United States" on Justia Law

Harris served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 1963 to 1966 and from 1967 to 1970. In 1985, he had a VA Medical Center examination; an “Agent Orange” form associated with that examination indicates that Harris complained of “skin rashes on trunk and arms.” Another form, listing his service in Vietnam, is an “Application for Medical Benefits,” stated that it “will be used to determine your eligibility for medical benefits.” In 2002, Harris, pro se, sought service-connected disability compensation for contact dermatitis and latex allergy. The DVA regional office ultimately granted the claims and assigned an effective date of 2002. Harris sought an effective date of 1985. The Board held that the report of the Agent Orange Registry examination did not constitute a claim. The Veterans Court affirmed The Federal Circuit vacated, stating that pro se filings must be read liberally; the Veterans Court did not apply the proper legal standard for determining whether the Board had correctly determined the earliest applicable date for the claim. View "Harris v. Shinseki" on Justia Law

Judge Abrams was an ALJ with the Social Security Administration since 2001. In 2007 the national office sent regional offices guidelines to facilitate case processing and service delivery. A Collective Bargaining Agreement between SSA and its ALJs provided that the benchmarks were guidelines, and would not be used as a source of any disciplinary or performance action. Later that year a nationwide initiative began to move cases through the process more quickly, with a particular focus on completing cases that were more than 900 days old. Abrams had frequently come to management’s attention due to his difficulty in timely processing cases. Efforts to address this included agreeing to exchange his older cases for newer cases, not assigning new cases or giving him “thin” cases, offering him docket management training, and offering to have his aged cases reassigned; the latter two he refused. After attempts to work with Abrams in 2007-2008, the SSA filed three complaints and sought suspensions for failure to follow instructions. The three complaints were combined, and a hearing was conducted. The ALJ concluded the evidence weighed in favor of removal. The initial decision was affirmed by the full Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Circuit. View "Abrams v. Soc. Sec. Admin." on Justia Law