Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA), which allows certain qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms, and its relation to New Jersey’s more restrictive retired police officer permitting law. The retired law enforcement officers from various agencies claimed that LEOSA provided them with a federal right to carry concealed firearms in New Jersey, superseding the state law. The State of New Jersey argued that LEOSA did not provide an enforceable right and, if it did, it would only apply to officers who retired from federal or out-of-state law enforcement agencies—not to officers who retired from New Jersey law enforcement agencies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that LEOSA does provide certain retired officers who meet all the statutory requirements with an enforceable right, and that right extends equally to officers who retired from New Jersey agencies and those who retired from federal or out-of-state agencies. The court held that the federal statute also preempts contrary aspects of New Jersey law. Therefore, the court affirmed the District Court’s order granting declaratory and injunctive relief to the retired officers, allowing them to carry concealed firearms. View "Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association v. Attorney General New Jersey" on Justia Law

This case involves a lawsuit against the United States for allegations of negligence in a search-and-rescue mission by the U.S. Coast Guard. The plaintiffs, the estate of Aaron Greenberg (who drowned in a boating accident), Adrian Avena (who survived the accident), and AA Commercial, LLC, claimed that the Coast Guard was negligent in its response to the distress signal from their capsized vessel. They argued that the Coast Guard broadcasted incorrect information about the vessel in distress and did not deploy the closest helicopter for the rescue mission.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case, stating that the United States was immune from such a suit. According to the court, the plaintiffs failed to show how the Coast Guard's alleged negligence "increased the risk of physical harm" to Greenberg. The court noted that under the "Good Samaritan" doctrine, the Coast Guard would only be liable if its actions increased the risk of harm or if harm was suffered because of the plaintiffs' reliance on the Coast Guard. In this case, the court found that even if the Coast Guard had done nothing, the outcome would have been the same, thus the Coast Guard did not increase the risk of harm to Greenberg.Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint, stating it would be futile as they had not identified any set of facts that could demonstrate how the Coast Guard's actions increased the risk of physical harm to Greenberg. View "Avena v. Avena" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied petitions from energy generators and state utility commissions challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) acceptance of a tariff filed by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. The court held that FERC's constructive acceptance of the tariff was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by substantial evidence in the record. The tariff, filed under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), sought to change the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) used in interstate capacity auctions. The MOPR is designed to prevent the exercise of monopsony power by net buyers in the market. The new tariff would mitigate offers only where a capacity resource has the ability and incentive to exercise buyer-side market power or where a capacity resource receives state subsidies under a state program that is likely preempted by the FPA. The petitioners argued that the tariff was unjust, unreasonable, and discriminatory. They also argued that the FERC failed to adequately address potential reliance interests and unlawfully discriminates against competitive power suppliers. The court rejected these claims and upheld FERC's acceptance of the tariff. View "PJM Power Providers Group v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

In a consolidated action before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, several parties, including PJM Power Providers Group, Electric Power Supply Association, and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, challenged a tariff filed by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., concerning energy resources subject to price mitigation in interstate capacity auctions. The revised tariff, which took effect by operation of law in 2021, was the outcome of a deadlock between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) commissioners. The court found that the deadlock was to be treated as an affirmative order by the FERC, allowing for judicial review under Section 205(g) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The court held that it was required to review the FERC order under the same deferential standards set forth in the FPA and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court’s review included the entire record, including the deadlock commissioners' written statements explaining their reasoning. Upon review, the court denied all three petitions, holding that FERC’s acceptance of PJM’s tariff was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Electric Power Supply Associat v. FERC" on Justia Law

In this consolidated action, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed a case concerning the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) acceptance of a tariff filed by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), which took effect by operation of law in 2021. The tariff was at the center of a dispute over whether state-subsidized energy resources should be subject to price mitigation in interstate capacity auctions. Petitioners – the PJM Power Providers Group (P3), the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA), and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (State Entities) – sought review under Section 205(g) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), a provision allowing for review of FERC's action by inaction. The court held that its review of FERC action, whether actual or constructive, proceeds under the same deferential standards set forth in the FPA and Administrative Procedure Act. The court further held that its review properly encompasses the Commissioners’ statements setting forth their reasons for approving or denying the tariff filing. After reviewing the petitions, the court denied all three, finding FERC’s acceptance of PJM’s tariff was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Pennsylvania Public Utility Co v. FERC" on Justia Law

In this case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a US citizen, Abdoulai Bah, had his life savings of $71,613 seized by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under suspicion of being the proceeds of illegal activities. The CBP returned the money with interest two-and-a-half years later. Bah then sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), seeking damages for personal injury and property damage, arguing that the seizure of his money prevented him from conducting business, caused him to lose his livelihood, and resulted in health problems.The District Court dismissed Bah's case, asserting that the United States was immune from Bah's claims. The court held that the FTCA did not permit Bah's claims as they were seeking prejudgment interest— a type of relief for which the United States has not waived sovereign immunity.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the District Court's decision. The appellate court held that the Detention Exception of the FTCA, under which Bah's claim was filed, only waives sovereign immunity for "injury or loss of goods, merchandise, or other property while in the possession of any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer," but it does not waive immunity for personal "injury" or "loss" incurred due to the government's seizure of property. As such, the court concluded that Bah's cash was not injured or lost in the sense meant by the FTCA, and his personal injuries were not covered under the Act. Furthermore, the court determined that Bah's claim of "loss" was really a claim for "loss of use" of his cash, which is not covered under the FTCA. Thus, the court affirmed the dismissal of Bah's case. View "Bah v. USA" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard an appeal by Mark Jordan regarding his conviction for armed bank robbery and associated gun charges. The main issue was whether armed bank robbery can be considered a "crime of violence" under a federal gun statute. Jordan argued that armed bank robbery could be committed recklessly, and therefore should not count as a crime of violence.The court, however, found that the federal armed bank robbery statute is divisible into different crimes, and the specific crime that Jordan pleaded guilty to required purpose or knowledge, not recklessness. Therefore, using the modified categorical approach, the court held that armed bank robbery is a crime of violence. The court also held that whenever a federal crime is predicated on committing another crime, the elements of the predicate crime are considered elements of the first crime as well.In regards to the facts of the case, Jordan committed three bank robberies, during two of which he fired a gun. He was charged with three counts of armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and two gun charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He pleaded guilty to all five counts and was sentenced to 318 months in prison. He later challenged his sentence, arguing that § 2113(d) is not a "crime of violence" under § 924(c), which is what the court ultimately disagreed with. View "USA v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Sherelle Thomas, on behalf of the estate of Terelle Thomas, sued the City of Harrisburg, PrimeCare Medical, Inc., and several individual law enforcement officers (the Officers) alleging that they failed to provide medical care and to intervene in the prevention of a violation of Thomas's right to medical care. The Officers moved to dismiss the case on grounds of qualified immunity, but the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the motion. The Officers then appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, reviewing the case de novo, affirmed the District Court's denial of qualified immunity regarding the failure to render medical care. The court found that the Officers, based on their observations and knowledge, should have recognized that Thomas had ingested a significant amount of cocaine, presenting a serious medical need. The Officers' decision not to take Thomas to the hospital amounted to deliberate indifference to that need, constituting a violation of Thomas' constitutional right to medical care.However, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's recognition of a claim of failure to intervene. The court explained that neither the Supreme Court nor the Third Circuit have recognized a right to intervene in the context of rendering medical care. As such, the Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.The case was remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the claim regarding the Officers' failure to intervene. View "Thomas v. City of Harrisburg" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed a case involving the estate of Terelle Thomas who died after ingesting a large amount of cocaine while in police custody. The plaintiffs, acting on behalf of the estate, brought a suit against the City of Harrisburg, PrimeCare Medical, and several individual law enforcement officers, alleging that they failed to render medical care and intervene to prevent a violation of the right to medical care. The officers moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of qualified immunity, but the District Court denied the motion.On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for the failure to render medical care claim as the plaintiffs successfully alleged a violation of the constitutional right to medical care. The court found that the officers had a clear indication that Thomas had ingested a significant amount of drugs and thus had a serious medical need, and their decision to book Thomas instead of taking him to a hospital demonstrated deliberate indifference to that need.However, the court reversed on the failure to intervene claim. The court noted that neither the Third Circuit nor the Supreme Court had recognized a right to intervene in the context of rendering medical care. Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the failure to intervene claim. The case was remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the failure to intervene claim. View "Thomas v. City of Harrisburg" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed a consolidated action related to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) acceptance of a tariff filed by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), a Regional Transmission Organization managing a system that serves around fifty million consumers in thirteen mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states and the District of Columbia. The tariff was challenged by PJM Power Providers Group and Electric Power Supply Association, two nonprofit associations representing energy generators, and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. The challengers argued that the tariff, which was approved by inaction due to a deadlock among FERC commissioners, was arbitrary and capricious. The court disagreed, ruling that FERC's acceptance of the tariff was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence. The court also confirmed that it could review FERC's inaction under the Federal Power Act. View "PJM Power Providers Group v. FERC" on Justia Law