Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Stuart Harrow, a Department of Defense employee who was furloughed for six days. Harrow challenged this decision before the Merit Systems Protection Board. After a five-year delay, the Board ruled against him. Harrow had the right to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit within 60 days of the Board's final order. However, Harrow did not learn about the Board's decision until after the 60-day period had elapsed, and he filed his appeal late. Harrow requested the Federal Circuit to overlook his untimeliness and equitably toll the filing deadline. The Federal Circuit, however, denied his request, believing that the deadline was an unalterable "jurisdictional requirement."The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case. The main issue was whether the 60-day filing deadline under Section 7703(b)(1) was jurisdictional, meaning it marked the bounds of a court's power and could not be waived or subject to exceptions. The Supreme Court held that the 60-day filing deadline was not jurisdictional. The Court reasoned that procedural rules, even when phrased in mandatory terms, are generally subject to exceptions like waiver, forfeiture, and equitable tolling. The Court found no language in Section 7703(b)(1) that suggested it was a jurisdictional requirement. The Court also rejected the Government's argument that the term "pursuant to" in a different statute, 28 U.S.C. §1295(a)(9), made the deadline jurisdictional.The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Federal Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Federal Circuit was directed to determine whether equitable tolling was available and, if so, whether Harrow was entitled to that relief given the facts of the case. View "Harrow v. Department of Defense" on Justia Law

The case involves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and its funding mechanism. The CFPB, unlike most federal agencies, has a standing source of funding outside the ordinary annual appropriations process. Congress authorized the CFPB to draw from the Federal Reserve System an amount that its Director deems “reasonably necessary to carry out” the Bureau’s duties, subject only to an inflation-adjusted cap. Several trade associations representing payday lenders and credit-access businesses challenged this funding mechanism, arguing that it violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the associations, ruling that the CFPB's funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause. The court reasoned that the Appropriations Clause requires both Chambers of Congress to periodically agree on an agency’s funding, which ensures that each Chamber reserves the power to unilaterally block those funding measures through inaction. The CFPB's funding mechanism, the court argued, allows it to draw funds indefinitely unless both Chambers of Congress step in and affirmatively prevent the agency from doing so.The Supreme Court of the United States, however, reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision. The Supreme Court held that Congress’ statutory authorization allowing the Bureau to draw money from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out the Bureau’s duties satisfies the Appropriations Clause. The Court reasoned that under the Appropriations Clause, an appropriation is a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes. The statute that provides the Bureau’s funding meets these requirements. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Bureau’s funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, both of which provide educational benefits to veterans. The petitioner, James Rudisill, served in the U.S. Army for nearly eight years over three separate periods, earning entitlements under both bills. He used a portion of his Montgomery benefits for his undergraduate degree and sought to use his Post-9/11 benefits for divinity school. However, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) limited his Post-9/11 benefits to the duration of his unused Montgomery benefits, arguing that by requesting Post-9/11 benefits before exhausting all of his Montgomery benefits, Rudisill could receive only 36 months of benefits in total, not the 48 months to which he would otherwise be entitled.The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed the VA’s decision, but the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reversed. The Federal Circuit, however, reversed the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, holding that veterans with multiple periods of qualifying service are subject to a limit on the duration of their benefits.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit. The Court held that veterans who separately accrue benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills are entitled to both benefits. Neither the Montgomery GI Bill nor the Post-9/11 GI Bill restricts veterans with two separate entitlements who simply seek to use either one. Thus, Rudisill may use his benefits, in any order, up to a 48-month aggregate-benefits cap. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Rudisill v. McDonough" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the United States decided in the case of Mark Pulsifer, who was convicted for distributing methamphetamine and sought to minimize his sentence using the "safety valve" provision of federal sentencing law. This provision allows a sentencing court to disregard the statutory minimum if a defendant meets five criteria, one of which is related to the defendant's criminal history. The government argued that Pulsifer did not meet this requirement due to his previous three-point offenses, disqualifying him under the safety valve provision. Pulsifer, however, contended that he should be considered eligible as he did not have a two-point violent offense, arguing that only the combination of all three elements of the provision could prevent him from receiving safety-valve relief.The court held that a defendant is eligible for safety-valve relief only if he or she satisfies each of the provision’s three conditions. More specifically, a defendant is eligible only if they do not have more than four criminal-history points, do not have a prior three-point offense, and do not have a prior two-point violent offense. This interpretation aligns with the text and context of the law and the Sentencing Guidelines. The court rejected Pulsifer’s attempts to invoke the rule of lenity, as the court found no ambiguity in the statute and, therefore, no room for lenity to play a role. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. View "Pulsifer v. United States" on Justia Law

A consumer, Reginald Kirtz, secured a loan from the Rural Housing Service, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Although Kirtz repaid his loan by mid-2018, the USDA continued to tell credit report company TransUnion that his account was past due, harming his credit score. The USDA failed to correct its records after being notified of the error, and Kirtz sued the agency under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.The USDA argued that the case should be dismissed based on sovereign immunity, since the Supreme Court has held that the federal government is immune from suits for damages unless Congress waives that immunity. The agency claimed that the FCRA does not make the federal government amenable to suit for a violation. The district court agreed, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the FCRA authorizes suits for damages against any person who violates the Act, and “person” is defined to include any government agency.The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Third Circuit, finding that sovereign immunity did not bar Kirtz’s claim. The Court held that the federal government is susceptible to suit when it provides false information to credit reporting agencies. It noted that dismissing a suit like Kirtz’s case would effectively negate a claim that Congress has clearly authorized. The Court’s ruling resolved a circuit split between the Third, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits, with which the Court agreed, and the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, with which it disagreed. View "Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz" on Justia Law

Before the resumption of federal student-loan repayments that had been suspended during the coronavirus pandemic, the Secretary of Education announced a Plan that would discharge $10,000-$20,000 of an eligible borrower’s debt. The Secretary invoked the 2003 Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act), which authorizes the Secretary “to waive or modify any provision” applicable to federal student financial assistance programs as “necessary” to ensure that recipients of student financial assistance are no worse off “financially in relation to that financial assistance because” of a national emergency or disaster, 20 U.S.C. 1098. The Act exempts rules promulgated under it from otherwise-applicable negotiated rulemaking and notice-and-comment processes. Borrowers who did not qualify for the Plan's maximum relief alleged that the Secretary was required to follow those rulemaking procedures.The Supreme Court held that the borrowers lacked Article III standing, having failed to establish that any injury they suffer from not having their loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the Plan.The Department also claims authority to forgive loans under the Higher Education Act (HEA), 20 U.S.C. 1082(a)(6). The borrowers cannot show that their purported injury of not receiving HEA loan relief is fairly traceable to the Department’s decision to grant relief under the HEROES Act. They are not claiming that they are injured by not being sufficiently included among the Plan’s beneficiaries but argue the Plan is unlawful and instead seek HEA debt forgiveness. The Department’s authority to grant HEA loan relief is not affected by whether the Plan is lawful. Any incidental effect of the Plan on the likelihood that the Department will undertake loan forgiveness under a different statute is too speculative to show that the absence of HEA-based loan forgiveness is fairly traceable to the Plan. View "Department of Education v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Higher Education Act governs federal financial aid, 20 U.S.C. 1070(a), and authorizes the Secretary of Education to cancel or reduce loans held by some public servants and borrowers who have died, become permanently and totally disabled, are bankrupt, or whose schools falsely certify them, close down, or fail to pay lenders. Under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act (HEROES Act), the Secretary “may waive or modify" any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the loan programs as the Secretary deems "necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.” As the COVID–19 pandemic was ending, the Secretary invoked the HEROES Act to issue “waivers and modifications” reducing or eliminating most borrowers' federal student debt. States challenged the plan. The Eighth Circuit issued a nationwide preliminary injunction.The Supreme Court found that the plan exceeded the Secretary’s authority, first holding that at least Missouri had standing. The plan would cost the state's nonprofit government corporation about $44 million a year in fees.The HEROES Act allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory provisions but does not allow the Secretary to rewrite the Education Act to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal. The Secretary may make modest adjustments to existing provisions, not transform them. The Act includes narrowly-delineated situations that qualify a borrower for loan discharge; the Secretary has extended such discharge to nearly every borrower. The plan constitutes “effectively" a "whole new regime.” The question is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it. The basic and consequential tradeoffs inherent in mass debt cancellation are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself. View "Biden v. Nebraska" on Justia Law

The U.S. Constitution's Election Clause requires the legislature of each state to prescribe rules governing federal elections. Following the 2020 decennial census, North Carolina’s General Assembly drafted a new federal congressional map. The map was challenged under the North Carolina Constitution as impermissible partisan gerrymandering. The North Carolina Supreme Court acknowledged that gerrymandering claims are outside the reach of federal courts but held that such questions were not beyond the reach of North Carolina courts. The court enjoined the use of the maps but subsequently addressed a remedial map adopted by the trial court, repudiated its holding that gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the state constitution, and dismissed the suits without reinstating the 2021 maps.The Supreme Court first held that it had jurisdiction to review the Elections Clause holding. The court’s decision to withdraw its second decision and overrule the first did not moot the case; it did not amend the judgment concerning the 2021 maps nor alter the first decision’s analysis of the federal issue.The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections. In prescribing such rules, they remain subject to state judicial review and to state constitutional constraints. When legislatures make laws, they are bound by the documents that give them life. When a state legislature carries out its federal constitutional power to prescribe rules regulating federal elections, it acts both as a lawmaking body created and bound by its state constitution and as the entity assigned particular authority by the U.S. Constitution. Both constitutions restrain that exercise of power. Federal courts must not abandon their duty to exercise judicial review. The Court declined to decide whether the North Carolina Supreme Court strayed beyond the limits derived from the Elections Clause. View "Moore v. Harper" on Justia Law

In 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law that prioritize the arrest and removal from the U.S. of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals or who have unlawfully entered the country only recently. Texas and Louisiana claimed that the Guidelines contravened federal statutes that require the arrest of certain noncitizens upon their release from prison (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)) or entry of a final order of removal (1231(a)(2)). The district court found that the states had standing, citing costs they would incur, then found the Guidelines unlawful. The Fifth Circuit declined to stay the judgment.The Supreme Court reversed. Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact caused by the defendant and redressable by a court order. The alleged injury must “be legally and judicially cognizable.” There is no precedent, history, or tradition of federal courts entertaining lawsuits of this kind; a plaintiff lacks standing to bring such a suit “when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.” Such lawsuits implicate the Executive’s Article II authority to decide how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law, which extends to the immigration context. The Court stated that the standing calculus might change if the Executive Branch wholly abandoned its statutory responsibilities to make arrests or bring prosecutions and that policies governing the continued detention of noncitizens who have been arrested arguably might raise different standing questions. View "United States v. Texas" on Justia Law

An 1868 treaty established the Navajo Reservation that today spans some 17 million acres, almost entirely in the Colorado River Basin. While the Tribe has the right to use water from the reservation’s numerous water sources, the Navajos face water scarcity problems. The Navajos sought to compel the United States to take affirmative steps to secure needed water for the Tribe, by assessing the Tribe’s water needs, developing a plan to secure the needed water, and potentially building infrastructure. Three states intervened to protect their interests in Basin's water. The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the suit.The Supreme Court reversed. The treaty reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation but did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe. The federal government owes judicially enforceable duties to a tribe “only to the extent it expressly accepts those responsibilities.” While the treaty “set apart” a reservation for the “use and occupation of the Navajo tribe,” 15 Stat. 668, and did impose several specific duties on the United States, it contains no language imposing a duty on the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe. Indian treaties cannot be rewritten or expanded beyond their clear terms. The United States maintains a general trust relationship with tribes, but unless Congress has created a conventional trust relationship with a tribe as to a particular trust asset, common-law trust principles do not imply duties not found in the text of a treaty, statute, or regulation. It is unsurprising that an 1868 treaty did not provide for all of the Navajos’ current water needs 155 years later; a breach-of-trust claim “cannot be premised on control alone.” View "Arizona v. Navajo Nation" on Justia Law