Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on March 10, 2025, preventing the Government from terminating various education-related grants. The order also required the Government to pay past-due grant obligations and continue paying future obligations. The District Court concluded that the respondents were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The Government filed an application to vacate the District Court's order on March 26, 2025, which was extended on March 24, 2025. The application was presented to Justice Jackson and referred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the District Court's order had characteristics of a preliminary injunction, making it appealable. The Government argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the APA, as the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply to claims seeking money damages or to orders enforcing contractual obligations to pay money.The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Government's application to stay the District Court's order pending the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and any subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court found that the respondents had not refuted the Government's claim that it would be unlikely to recover the grant funds once disbursed and that respondents would not suffer irreparable harm while the TRO is stayed. The stay will terminate automatically if certiorari is denied or upon the sending down of the judgment of the Supreme Court if certiorari is granted. The Chief Justice would have denied the application. View "Department of Education v. California" on Justia Law

The case involves the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denying authorization for respondents to market certain flavored e-cigarette products. The FDA's decision was based on the lack of sufficient scientific evidence demonstrating that these products would be appropriate for the protection of public health. The FDA emphasized the need for evidence from randomized controlled trials or longitudinal cohort studies, which the respondents did not provide. Instead, respondents submitted literature reviews and cross-sectional surveys, which the FDA found inadequate.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed the FDA's denial orders. The court found that the FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by applying different standards than those articulated in its predecisional guidance. The court was particularly concerned with the FDA's failure to review marketing plans, which it had previously deemed critical. The Fifth Circuit rejected the FDA's argument that any errors were harmless and remanded the case to the FDA.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision. The Court held that the FDA's denial orders were consistent with its predecisional guidance regarding scientific evidence, comparative efficacy, and device type, and thus did not violate the change-in-position doctrine. However, the Court agreed with the FDA that the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of harmless error was overly broad. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit to reconsider the harmless-error question without relying on its expansive reading of Calcutt v. FDIC. View "FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves the interpretation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) in relation to weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers. The GCA mandates that those involved in the import, manufacture, or sale of firearms must obtain federal licenses, keep sales records, conduct background checks, and mark their products with serial numbers. The Act defines a "firearm" to include any weapon that can expel a projectile by explosive action and the frame or receiver of such a weapon. With the rise of weapon parts kits that can be assembled into functional firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) adopted a rule in 2022 to include these kits under the GCA's regulations.The District Court vacated the ATF's rule, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the GCA does not cover weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers. The Fifth Circuit affirmed this decision, holding that the GCA's definition of "firearm" does not extend to weapon parts kits or unfinished frames and receivers, regardless of their completeness or ease of assembly.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision. The Court held that the ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA. The Court found that some weapon parts kits, like Polymer80's "Buy Build Shoot" kit, qualify as "weapons" under the GCA because they can be readily converted into functional firearms. Additionally, the Court held that the GCA's definition of "frame or receiver" includes some partially complete frames or receivers that can be easily finished using common tools. The Court concluded that the ATF has the authority to regulate these items under the GCA. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Bondi v. Vanderstok" on Justia Law

A Utah-based transportation business, All Resort Group, became insolvent in 2013 due to poor management and financial malfeasance. Two shareholders misappropriated $145,000 in company funds to pay their personal federal tax liabilities. In 2017, the company filed for bankruptcy, and the trustee sought to recover the misappropriated funds under §544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, invoking Utah’s fraudulent-transfer statute as the applicable law.The Bankruptcy Court ruled in favor of the trustee, holding that §106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code waived the Government’s sovereign immunity for the state-law cause of action nested within the §544(b) claim. The District Court adopted this decision, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding that §106(a) abolished the Government’s sovereign immunity in an avoidance proceeding under §544(b)(1).The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and reversed the Tenth Circuit’s decision. The Court held that §106(a)’s sovereign-immunity waiver applies only to the §544(b) claim itself and not to the state-law claims nested within that federal claim. The Court emphasized that waivers of sovereign immunity are jurisdictional and do not create new substantive rights or alter pre-existing ones. The Court concluded that §106(a) does not modify the substantive requirements of §544(b) and that the trustee must still identify an actual creditor who could have voided the transaction under applicable law outside of bankruptcy proceedings. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

Petitioners, veterans Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton, applied for service-connected PTSD disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Bufkin's claim was denied due to insufficient evidence linking his PTSD to his military service. Thornton, who already received benefits, sought an increased disability rating, which the VA denied. Both cases were reviewed de novo by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which upheld the VA's decisions. Bufkin and Thornton then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, arguing that the evidence was in "approximate balance" and they were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.The Veterans Court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding no clear error in the approximate-balance determinations. Petitioners appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging the Veterans Court's interpretation of 38 U.S.C. §7261(b)(1). They argued that the Veterans Court should review the entire record de novo to determine if the evidence was in approximate balance. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument and affirmed the Veterans Court's decisions.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the VA's determination of whether evidence is in "approximate balance" is predominantly a factual determination, subject to clear-error review. The Court clarified that the Veterans Court must review the VA's application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule using the same standards as other determinations: de novo for legal issues and clear error for factual issues. The judgment of the Federal Circuit was affirmed. View "Bufkin v. Collins" on Justia Law

The City and County of San Francisco operates two combined wastewater treatment facilities that process both wastewater and stormwater. During heavy precipitation, these facilities may discharge untreated water into the Pacific Ocean or San Francisco Bay. In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a renewal permit for San Francisco's Oceanside facility, adding two "end-result" requirements. These requirements prohibited discharges that contribute to violations of water quality standards and discharges that create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined by California law. San Francisco challenged these provisions, arguing they exceeded the EPA's statutory authority.The California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the EPA approved the final Oceanside NPDES permit. San Francisco appealed to the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board, which rejected the challenge. The City then petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit, which denied the petition. The Ninth Circuit held that the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes the EPA to impose any limitations necessary to ensure water quality standards are met in receiving waters.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the CWA does not authorize the EPA to include "end-result" provisions in NPDES permits. The Court reasoned that determining the specific steps a permittee must take to meet water quality standards is the EPA's responsibility, and Congress has provided the necessary tools for the EPA to make such determinations. The Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's decision, emphasizing that the EPA must set specific rules for permittees to follow rather than imposing broad end-result requirements. View "City and County of San Francisco v. EPA" on Justia Law

Jewish survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust and their heirs sued Hungary and its national railway (MÁV) in federal court, seeking damages for property allegedly seized during World War II. They claimed that Hungary and MÁV liquidated the expropriated property, commingled the proceeds with other government funds, and later used funds from those commingled accounts in connection with commercial activities in the United States.The District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the plaintiffs' "commingling theory" satisfied the commercial nexus requirement of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) expropriation exception. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, reasoning that requiring plaintiffs to trace the particular funds from the sale of their specific expropriated property to the United States would make the exception a "nullity" in cases involving liquidated property.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that alleging commingling of funds alone cannot satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the FSIA’s expropriation exception. The Court emphasized that plaintiffs must trace either the specific expropriated property itself or any property exchanged for such property to the United States. The Court vacated the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Hungary v. Simon" on Justia Law

Several unemployed workers in Alabama applied for unemployment benefits and claimed that the Alabama Department of Labor unlawfully delayed processing their claims. They sued the Alabama Secretary of Labor in state court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing that the delays violated their due process and federal statutory rights. They sought a court order to expedite the processing of their claims. The Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claimants had not satisfied the administrative-exhaustion requirement under Alabama law. The state trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.The claimants appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which affirmed the dismissal on the grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court concluded that §1983 did not preempt the state's administrative-exhaustion requirement, effectively preventing the claimants from suing to expedite the administrative process until they had completed it.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that state courts may not deny §1983 claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds when the application of a state exhaustion requirement effectively immunizes state officials from such claims. The Court reasoned that Alabama's exhaustion requirement, as applied, prevented claimants from challenging delays in the administrative process, thus immunizing state officials from §1983 suits. The Court reversed the Alabama Supreme Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Williams v. Reed" on Justia Law

The E-Rate program, established under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, subsidizes internet and telecommunications services for schools and libraries. The program is funded by contributions from telecommunications carriers, managed by the Universal Service Administrative Company, and regulated by the FCC. The "lowest corresponding price" rule ensures that schools and libraries are not charged more than similarly situated non-residential customers. Todd Heath, an auditor, alleged that Wisconsin Bell overcharged schools, violating this rule and leading to inflated reimbursement requests from the E-Rate program.Wisconsin Bell moved to dismiss Heath's suit, arguing that E-Rate reimbursement requests do not qualify as "claims" under the False Claims Act (FCA) because the funds come from private carriers and are managed by a private corporation, not the government. The District Court and the Seventh Circuit rejected this argument. The Seventh Circuit held that the government "provided" E-Rate funding through its regulatory role and by depositing over $100 million from the U.S. Treasury into the Fund.The Supreme Court of the United States held that E-Rate reimbursement requests are "claims" under the FCA because the government provided a portion of the money by transferring over $100 million from the Treasury into the Fund. This transfer included delinquent contributions collected by the FCC and Treasury, as well as settlements and restitution payments from the Justice Department. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Seventh Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath" on Justia Law

A city is an “aggrieved person,” authorized to bring suit under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), according to the Supreme Court. The City of Miami sued Bank of America and Wells Fargo, alleging violations of the FHA prohibition of racial discrimination in connection with real-estate transactions, 42 U.S.C. 3604(b), 3605(a). The city claimed that the banks intentionally targeted predatory practices at African-American and Latino neighborhoods and residents, lending to minority borrowers on worse terms than equally creditworthy nonminority borrowers and inducing defaults by failing to extend refinancing and loan modifications to minority borrowers on fair terms, resulting in a disproportionate number of foreclosures and vacancies, impairing municipal effort to assure racial integration, diminishing property-tax revenue, and increasing demand for police, fire, and other municipal services. The Court reasoned that those claims of financial injury are “arguably within the zone of interests” the FHA protects. In remanding the case, the Court stated that the Eleventh Circuit erred in concluding that the complaints met the FHA’s proximate-cause requirement based solely on a finding that the alleged financial injuries were foreseeable results of the banks’ misconduct. Foreseeability alone does not ensure the required close connection to the prohibited conduct. Proximate cause under the FHA requires “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged,” considering the “nature of the statutory cause of action,” and an assessment “of what is administratively possible and convenient.” View "Bank of America Corp. v. Miami" on Justia Law