Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A renewable energy developer was awarded a standard-offer contract in 2014 to build a solar facility in Bennington, Vermont, with a requirement to commission the project by 2016. The developer repeatedly sought and received extensions to this deadline, while simultaneously pursuing a certificate of public good (CPG), which is also required for construction. The Public Utility Commission (PUC) granted the CPG in 2018, but it was appealed, reversed, and ultimately denied on remand due to violations of local land conservation measures and adverse impacts on aesthetics. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the final CPG denial in 2023.While litigation over the CPG was ongoing, the developer continued to seek extensions of its standard-offer contract’s commissioning milestone. The fifth extension request, filed in 2021, asked for a deadline twelve months after the Supreme Court’s mandate in the CPG appeal. The hearing officer recommended granting it, but the PUC did not act on the request until 2024, by which time the developer’s CPG had been finally denied. The PUC dismissed the fifth extension request as moot, finding the contract had expired by its own terms. The PUC also denied the developer’s motion for reconsideration and a sixth extension request, on the same grounds.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the PUC’s actions with deference, upholding its factual findings unless clearly erroneous and its discretionary decisions unless there was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the PUC properly concluded the requested extension was moot, the contract was null and void by its terms, and there was no abuse of discretion. The Court also rejected arguments that the PUC’s actions were inconsistent with other cases or violated constitutional rights. The orders of the PUC were affirmed. View "In re Petition of Apple Hill Solar LLC" on Justia Law

Three nonprofit organizations filed a nationwide class action against the United States, alleging that the federal judiciary overcharged the public for access to court records through the PACER system. They claimed the government used PACER fees not only to fund the system itself but also for unrelated expenses, contrary to the statutory limits set by the E-Government Act. The plaintiffs sought refunds for allegedly excessive fees collected between 2010 and 2018.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia oversaw extensive litigation, including class certification and an interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously affirmed that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act and that the government had used PACER fees for unauthorized expenses. After remand, the parties reached a settlement totaling $125 million. The district court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also approved attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, and incentive awards to the class representatives. An objector, Eric Isaacson, challenged the district court’s jurisdiction, the fairness of the settlement, the attorneys’ fees, and the incentive awards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act because each PACER transaction constituted a separate claim, none exceeding the $10,000 jurisdictional limit. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in approving the class settlement, the attorneys’ fees, or the incentive awards. The court also held that incentive awards are not categorically prohibited and are permissible if reasonable, joining the majority of federal circuits on this issue. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "NVLSP v. US " on Justia Law

The plaintiffs were injured when their car was struck by a vehicle driven by a deputy sheriff responding to an emergency call. The accident occurred at an intersection where the deputy, traveling westbound, proceeded against a red light while the plaintiffs, traveling southbound, had the green light. Although the deputy activated her emergency lights and slowed down, coming to a complete stop at least once and waiting for northbound traffic to yield, it was disputed whether she used her air horn or siren, and whether she looked for or could see southbound traffic due to possible obstructions. It was also undisputed that she did not notify dispatch as required by departmental policy.The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the defendants had established entitlement to summary judgment by showing Deputy Fong had not acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and that the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The appellate court observed that the deputy took several safety precautions before entering the intersection. Two justices dissented, reasoning that a jury could find recklessness based on the evidence.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence did not support a finding that the deputy acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. The court emphasized that police vehicles are statutorily exempt from the requirement to use audible signals when exercising emergency driving privileges and that violations of internal policies exceeding statutory requirements do not establish liability. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, dismissing the complaint. View "Granath v Monroe County" on Justia Law

Several individuals facing involuntary civil commitment under Washington’s Involuntary Treatment Act were entitled to appointed counsel. The King County Department of Public Defense (DPD) was responsible for providing this representation. During the spring and summer of 2024, DPD’s attorneys assigned to these cases reached their annual caseload limits, which are set by state standards. Despite having sufficient funding, DPD was unable to recruit additional attorneys and therefore notified the court when it could not assign counsel to new cases without exceeding the limits. When the court ordered DPD to provide counsel, DPD complied. The King County Executive was also ordered by the trial court to provide counsel, although in King County, only DPD has that authority.The King County Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing and subsequently issued orders requiring both DPD and the King County Executive to provide counsel to respondents. The court’s amended orders clarified that the decision of which attorney to appoint, and how to allocate caseloads, rested with DPD and the Executive, not with the court. Both DPD and the King County Executive sought review in the Washington Supreme Court. The Executive argued it should not be included in the orders due to the county’s charter, which provides DPD with exclusive authority and independence. DPD argued the orders effectively required it to violate mandatory caseload limits.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that the caseload limits for public defenders in the Standards for Indigent Defense are mandatory and that courts lack authority to order attorneys or agencies to violate these limits. However, the court found that the trial court did not actually order DPD to violate the caseload limits, as it left the method of compliance to DPD. The court reversed the orders as they applied to the King County Executive but affirmed the orders requiring DPD to provide counsel. View "In re Det. of M.E." on Justia Law

Douglas Hodge and Timothy Shane, both parolees, challenged the procedures used by the Kentucky Parole Board to revoke parole. Hodge’s parole was revoked after he failed to report his new address and absconded, following difficulties with his living arrangements and subsequent lack of communication with his parole officer. Shane was revoked after being caught driving under the influence and violating a condition prohibiting alcohol use. In each case, the final evidentiary hearing was conducted by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), not the Parole Board itself, with both parolees represented by counsel and able to present evidence and witnesses.For Hodge, the Kenton Circuit Court dismissed his petition, finding the two-hearing process and the Board’s review complied with Morrissey v. Brewer, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, holding due process was satisfied and the Board did not abuse its discretion. Hodge sought discretionary review in the Supreme Court of Kentucky. Shane’s claim was denied by the Franklin Circuit Court, which concluded the Board could delegate the final hearing to an ALJ. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, holding statutory and constitutional requirements mandate the Parole Board itself conduct final revocation hearings, but found Shane’s appeal moot due to his release, applying the public interest exception.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed both cases to resolve conflicting appellate rulings. It held that the Kentucky Parole Board is authorized to delegate the conduct of final parole revocation hearings to ALJs, provided the Board retains the ultimate decision-making authority. However, the Court determined that due process is not fully satisfied unless parolees have an avenue, such as the ability to file exceptions to the ALJ’s findings, to present arguments directly to the Board. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in Hodge’s case and affirmed the appellate decision in Shane’s case. View "HODGE V. KENTUCKY PAROLE BOARD" on Justia Law

An individual submitted a candidate filing form to appear on the ballot for Douglas County sheriff in the May 2026 primary election. Alongside his filing, he provided a letter from the director of the Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center certifying that he possessed an “inactive” Nebraska law enforcement officer certificate. His certificate had been active from 1984 to 2009 but was inactive at the time of filing. The Douglas County Republican Party objected to his candidacy, arguing that Nebraska law required a candidate to hold an “active” certificate. The objection was supported by a memorandum and legislative materials suggesting legislative intent to require active certification.The Douglas County election commissioner reviewed the objection and determined that the candidate did not meet the requirements to run for sheriff, based on the inactive status of his law enforcement certificate. The candidate then filed an emergency application for special proceedings with the Nebraska Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the commissioner’s decision and compel his placement on the ballot. The Republican Party intervened, asserting that legislative history and statutory context supported the requirement of an active certificate.The Supreme Court of Nebraska heard the case as a special, summary proceeding under state election law. The court held that the relevant statute required only that a candidate “possess a law enforcement officer certificate,” and made no distinction between active and inactive status. The court found the statutory text to be unambiguous and declined to consider legislative history or administrative regulations. Accordingly, the court concluded that possession of an inactive certificate satisfied the statutory qualifications for candidacy. The judgment ordered that the candidate’s name appear on the ballot for the sheriff’s office. View "Martinez v. Jensen" on Justia Law

A group of individuals who were victims of a Ponzi scheme obtained a default judgment for fraud against two corporations involved in the scheme. Unable to collect on this judgment, they each applied to the California Secretary of State for restitution from the Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund, which compensates victims when a corporation’s fraud leads to uncollectible judgments. The Secretary denied their claims, arguing primarily that the underlying fraud lawsuit had been filed after the statute of limitations had expired, making the judgment invalid for purposes of fund payment.The victims challenged the Secretary’s denial by filing a verified petition in the Superior Court of Orange County, seeking an order compelling payment from the fund. The Secretary maintained that the statute of limitations barred the underlying fraud claim, but the trial court disagreed. The court held that because the defendant corporations had defaulted and thus waived the statute of limitations defense in the original lawsuit, the Secretary could not raise that defense in the current proceeding. The trial court ordered payment from the fund to the victims in the amounts awarded in the underlying default judgment.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appellate court clarified that under the statutory scheme, neither the Secretary nor the trial court may relitigate the merits of the underlying fraud claim, including whether it was time-barred. The court held that the trial court’s inquiry is limited to whether the claimant submitted a valid payment claim under the specific statutory requirements; it cannot revisit defenses such as the statute of limitations. However, the court found error in the trial court’s failure to cap payments at $50,000 per claimant as required by statute, and remanded the case for correction of this aspect of the order. View "Dion v. Weber" on Justia Law

Amazon Services, LLC operated the online marketplace Amazon.com, which allowed third-party merchants to sell products to South Carolina residents. In 2016, although Amazon Services collected and remitted sales tax for products it and its affiliates sold, it did not do so for sales made by third-party merchants. After an audit, the South Carolina Department of Revenue assessed Amazon Services for $12,490,502.15 in unpaid sales taxes, penalties, and interest, claiming that Amazon Services was legally required to collect and remit sales taxes on third-party merchant sales due to the company's significant involvement in those transactions.Amazon Services contested the assessment before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court, which upheld the Department of Revenue’s determination, finding Amazon Services was “engaged in the business of selling” under the South Carolina Sales and Use Tax Act and thus responsible for remitting the tax. Amazon Services appealed, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Administrative Law Court’s ruling, agreeing with the interpretation that Amazon Services’ role in third-party sales triggered the statutory obligation to collect and remit sales tax.The Supreme Court of South Carolina granted certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that, under the plain language of subsection 12-36-910(A) of the South Carolina Sales and Use Tax Act, Amazon Services was “engaged in the business of selling” due to its comprehensive control and involvement in third-party transactions and was therefore required to remit sales tax on those sales. The Court also held that this application did not violate due process, as the relevant statutory provisions were in effect prior to the challenged assessment, and clarified that its holding was not based on interpreting tax statutes broadly but on ordinary statutory interpretation principles. View "Amazon Services v. SCDOR" on Justia Law

A property owner on West Point Island sought to extend an existing dock into Barnegat Bay. The owner obtained permits from both the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Army Corps of Engineers, and received a tidelands license from the Tidelands Resource Council (TRC). After the extension was completed, it was found to be slightly south of the permitted location, prompting the owner to seek a modified permit and license for the as-built dock. The adjacent property owner objected, arguing the extension created navigational hazards and interfered with their own dock’s use.The TRC held public hearings, considered testimony and written submissions, and ultimately approved the modified license, finding the extension complied with applicable rules and did not interfere with navigation or the rights of the objecting neighbor. The DEP approved the decision. The neighbor appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, arguing that the TRC lacked authority to set or modify pierhead lines through individual license proceedings and that such lines must be established uniformly around islands in advance under Section 19 of the Tidelands Act. The Appellate Division affirmed the TRC’s decision, finding it was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and holding that the TRC was permitted to establish or modify pierhead lines in connection with individual licenses.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that the Tidelands Act authorizes the TRC to set or modify pierhead lines in the context of reviewing individual tidelands license applications, rather than requiring the TRC to establish uniform pierhead lines around all islands prospectively. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment, concluding that the TRC did not exceed its statutory authority in issuing the licenses at issue. View "In the Matter of Jibsail Family Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

Several insurance companies participate in Indiana’s Assigned Risk Plan, a statutory system designed to ensure workers’ compensation coverage for employers unable to obtain insurance in the voluntary market. One participating insurer, Technology Insurance Company, provided coverage under this system. After handling a significant workers’ compensation claim and settling for over $2 million, the company sought reimbursement from the Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau, as provided in their agreements. The Bureau denied reimbursement, alleging the company had acted fraudulently. The company followed the dispute-resolution procedures required by contract, ultimately securing a favorable ruling from an administrative law judge, who ordered full reimbursement. The company then sought additional relief—attorneys’ fees, interest, and expenses—from the agency, but received no response despite repeated requests.After payment of the principal settlement amount but no fees or interest, the company sought judicial review in the Marion Superior Court, which found the Department of Insurance’s failure to rule was arbitrary and contrary to law. The trial court ordered the Bureau to pay fees, interest, and expenses. The Bureau appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding the company’s claims for fees were not governed by the parties’ agreements and must be presented anew to the Bureau.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the appellate court’s decision. The Court held that the company was required to exhaust administrative remedies, as set out in the Assigned Risk Plan and related agreements, but found the company had done so by pursuing its claims through the prescribed channels. The Court further held that the company was entitled to prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and expenses under the contracts, and that these collateral claims could properly be added in the judicial review proceedings without further agency exhaustion. The judgment for the company was affirmed and the case remanded to the trial court for calculation and award of appropriate fees, interest, and expenses. View "Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau v. Technology Insurance Company" on Justia Law