Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case centers on a dispute involving the Iowa Auditor of State’s authority to subpoena records from the City of Davenport, including documents claimed to be protected by the attorney–client privilege, in connection with a reaudit of city settlement payments. The city provided some documents but refused to produce others, asserting privilege. The Auditor sought enforcement of the subpoena, while the city moved to modify it. The controversy escalated due to public interest in the timing and propriety of the city’s settlements and the Auditor’s investigation into their legality.The Iowa District Court for Scott County ruled in favor of the Auditor, holding that Iowa law gave the Auditor broad access to city records, including attorney–client privileged materials, except for attorney work product, and ordered an in camera review of the contested documents. The city appealed, arguing the Auditor did not have authority to access attorney–client communications. During the appeal, the Auditor and the Iowa Attorney General disagreed fundamentally about the scope of the Auditor’s subpoena power and whether to defend the district court’s ruling. The Attorney General declined to make arguments supporting the Auditor’s position, citing broader state interests and a perceived conflict of interest.The Supreme Court of Iowa determined that, due to this conflict of interest, the Auditor may be represented by his own general counsel, rather than the Attorney General. The court reasoned that the Attorney General’s duties are materially limited by her responsibilities to other state agencies, constituting a conflict under Iowa’s professional conduct rules. The court further held that the Auditor does not need executive council approval to be represented by in-house counsel, as statutory provisions requiring such approval apply only to hiring outside counsel at state expense. The Attorney General was permitted to participate as amicus curiae. View "City of Davenport v. Office of the Auditor of the State of Iowa" on Justia Law

A municipal water and gas board entered into four contracts with a contractor to replace and expand gas lines in and around a city. The total project cost exceeded $4 million, and the contractor began work after being the sole bidder for each project phase. After paying the contractor over $2.8 million, the board ceased payments, leaving over $800,000 due for completed work. The board asserted it could not continue payments because the advertisement for sealed bids had not strictly complied with the version of the applicable Alabama statute in effect at the time the bids were solicited. The contractor then sued the board for breach of contract and other claims.The Franklin Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the board, finding, in effect, that strict compliance with the statutory advertising requirements was necessary and that the contracts were void due to noncompliance. The trial court denied the contractor’s postjudgment motion, and the contractor appealed.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo. It held that substantial compliance, rather than strict compliance, with the advertising requirements for public works contracts under the relevant statute can satisfy the law’s objectives. The court distinguished this situation from prior precedent where there was a complete absence of competitive bidding and evidence of favoritism or corruption. Here, there was no such evidence, and the board had taken affirmative steps to advertise, including publication and online postings. The court concluded that the contractor presented substantial evidence of substantial compliance, creating a genuine issue of material fact. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pinpoint Locating, Inc. v. The Water Works and Gas Board of the City of Red Bay" on Justia Law

A registered voter in Pacific County, Washington filed a recall petition against an elected county commissioner, alleging two violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) in connection with executive sessions held to discuss litigation or potential litigation following two inmate deaths at the county jail. The petition claimed the commissioner attended executive sessions on several dates without legal counsel present, as required by law, and accused her of disregarding public input and misrepresenting the decision-making process leading to the creation of a new jail services department.The Pacific County Superior Court held a sufficiency hearing and found both charges in the recall petition factually and legally sufficient, thus permitting the recall to proceed. The petitioner relied primarily on county meeting minutes and metadata from prepared statements to support the allegations, while the commissioner challenged the accuracy and reliability of the minutes and argued there was no evidence of intent to violate the law.Upon review, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington considered the sufficiency of each charge de novo. The court found that the evidence for some meetings contradicted the allegations about the absence of legal counsel, and for others, although legal counsel was not listed in the minutes, there was no evidence of intentional violation. The petitioner’s supporting exhibits only showed the commissioner received OPMA training, not that she intended to violate the Act. Regarding the second charge, the court found the allegations lacked specific facts about the date, location, and nature of the alleged misconduct and did not cite a law or standard making the conduct unlawful.The Supreme Court of Washington held both charges in the recall petition were factually and legally insufficient and reversed the superior court’s decision. View "In re Recall of Olsen" on Justia Law

A group of homeowners, all over the age of 65, entered into contracts for energy efficiency improvements to their homes under California's Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program. This program allows local governments to offer financing for such improvements, with repayment made through voluntary special assessments added to the homeowners’ property tax bills. Most local governments contracted private companies to administer these PACE loans. The homeowners alleged that these private administrators failed to comply with consumer protection and lending laws applicable to consumer lenders, such as providing required warnings and avoiding prohibited security interests. They filed suit under the Unfair Competition Law, seeking injunctive relief and restitution, including the return of assessment monies paid and prohibitions on future collection of delinquent assessments unless the assessments were removed from their properties.The San Diego County Superior Court sustained the defendants’ demurrers, concluding that the plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative tax remedies before pursuing their claims in court. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that because PACE assessments are collected as part of property taxes and the relief sought would invalidate those assessments, plaintiffs first needed to pay the assessments and seek administrative relief through the established tax refund procedures.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine whether plaintiffs were required to follow statutory procedures for challenging taxes. The court held that when plaintiffs’ claims effectively seek to invalidate PACE assessments or prevent their future collection, they must first pay the assessments and pursue administrative tax remedies. However, the court also held that plaintiffs are not required to use tax challenge procedures for claims that do not directly or indirectly challenge a tax, such as those solely addressing the administration of the PACE program. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case remanded to consider whether plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaints to state only non-tax-related claims. View "Morgan v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc." on Justia Law

A nonprofit research foundation affiliated with a state university entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the university in 2007, becoming a statutorily regulated direct-support organization (DSO). The MOU provided that the foundation’s board would include two appointees from the university but was otherwise silent on board approval and on budget approval processes. In 2018, the Florida Legislature enacted a law requiring all DSO board appointments to be approved by the university’s board of trustees. Around the same time, a regulation by the Board of Governors (BOG) required university boards of trustees to approve DSO budgets. The foundation challenged these requirements, arguing that they impaired its contractual rights under the MOU.The Circuit Court conducted a trial and found that the MOU limited the university’s involvement to only the two appointees and that the statutory board approval requirement impaired the MOU. It concluded that the university failed to show a significant and legitimate public purpose for the statute. However, regarding the budget approval dispute, the court held that the MOU did not address budget approval, so there was no contractual impairment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed both findings, concluding that the statutory board approval requirement rewrote the parties’ contract, while the regulation on budget approval did not impair the MOU.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case. It held that the MOU only addressed the university’s power to appoint two board members and was silent on approval of other appointments or on budget approval. Therefore, the statutory and regulatory changes did not impair any specific contractual obligations. The court reversed the Fourth District’s ruling on the board appointment issue and otherwise affirmed, holding that neither the statute nor the regulation unconstitutionally impaired the MOU. View "Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees v. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute Foundation, Inc." on Justia Law

Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, LLC imported a spiral-bound paper product that combines monthly calendars, weekly planning pages, note sections, and additional pages for goals and contacts. Blue Sky labeled this item a “weekly/monthly planning calendar,” while the government referred to it as a “planner.” The product was designed for users to schedule future appointments and events.Initially, Customs and Border Protection classified this product under subheading 4820.10.40.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), as “[o]ther” stationery items. Blue Sky protested, seeking classification under heading 4910 as a “calendar,” but Customs denied the protest. Blue Sky then filed suit in the United States Court of International Trade. The Trade Court granted summary judgment, rejecting both parties’ proposed classifications and instead classified the product as a “diary” under subheading 4820.10.20.10. The Trade Court reasoned that “diary” covers both retrospective journals and prospective scheduling devices, and found Blue Sky’s product fit this category.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Trade Court’s summary judgment de novo. The Federal Circuit found that the Trade Court’s definition of “diary” conflicted with the controlling precedent set in Mead Corp. v. United States, which held that a “diary” is retrospective, not prospective. Because Blue Sky’s product is used to note future appointments, the Federal Circuit concluded that it cannot be classified as a “diary.” The court reversed the Trade Court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, directing the Trade Court to reconsider the proper classification under the HTSUS. View "BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF IMAGINATION, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

Several environmental organizations sued a California county, alleging that the county’s operation of the Lopez Dam and Reservoir had harmed the threatened South-Central California Coast steelhead trout by altering water flows and degrading downstream habitat. The steelhead population in Arroyo Grande Creek depends on high, pulsing freshwater flows for migration and spawning, but the dam’s operational schedule reduced these flows, impeded migration, and facilitated predatory species’ access to the creek. The plaintiffs claimed that these practices violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by causing unlawful “take” of steelhead and also breached California Fish & Game Code section 5937, which requires dam operators to maintain fish in “good condition.” The creek is also home to two other ESA-listed species: the California red-legged frog and the tidewater goby.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a mandatory preliminary injunction, compelling the county to take affirmative actions such as changing flow releases and implementing new habitat protection measures. The court ordered the county to consult with federal agencies about these measures but did not specifically weigh the potential harm to the frog and goby, which the county argued might result from the new water release schedule. Both sides presented competing expert evidence on the impact to all three species.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case. The appellate court held that when mandatory injunctive relief under the ESA could benefit one protected species while potentially harming another, the district court must consider the balance of equities and public interest as they relate to the other listed species. The court clarified that this balancing does not include economic or developmental interests but is limited to the welfare of other endangered or threatened species. Because the district court had not conducted this analysis, the injunction was vacated for further proceedings. View "SAN LUIS OBISPO COASTKEEPER V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO" on Justia Law

Several current and former employees of the City of Chicago, including police officers and an emergency management officer, challenged the City’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. The policy, issued in October 2021, required city employees to either be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo regular testing and report their status through an employee portal. Religious exemptions from vaccination were available and granted to these plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs objected to having to submit their vaccination status and test results in the portal, arguing that this reporting requirement violated their constitutional and statutory rights.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, raising claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First and Fourteenth Amendments via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (IRFRA). The district court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. It found the Title VII claims factually implausible and concluded that the plaintiffs did not allege a religious practice conflicting with the reporting requirements. The court also held that, since the plaintiffs were granted their requested exemptions from vaccination, they could not succeed on claims based on their refusal to comply with reporting requirements.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the policy’s reporting requirements were neutral and generally applicable, subject only to rational-basis review, which the policy satisfied. The court determined that the reporting and disciplinary provisions were rationally related to the City’s legitimate interest in public health and workplace safety. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all constitutional, statutory, and state-law claims, finding the plaintiffs’ arguments insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. View "Kondilis v City of Chicago" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was an employee who brought claims for wrongful termination, Labor Code violations, and breach of contract against two defendants: the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Public Transportation Services Corporation (PTSC). MTA had created PTSC, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, to provide retirement and employment benefits to certain workers and to manage employees who support MTA’s transportation functions. The plaintiff did not file a prelitigation claim under the Government Claims Act (GCA) before suing these entities.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County first granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of both defendants, finding that the plaintiff had not alleged compliance with the GCA’s claim presentation requirements. The plaintiff was given leave to amend but continued to argue that PTSC was not a public entity subject to the GCA, and that even if it was, the claims presentation requirement should not apply because PTSC had not registered as required by statute. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, finding both defendants to be public entities and that PTSC was not required to register separately from MTA. The court entered judgment for both defendants.On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, the plaintiff did not challenge the judgment in favor of MTA but contested the ruling as to PTSC. The appellate court held that PTSC qualifies as a public entity for purposes of the GCA’s claims presentation requirement, given its creation and control by MTA. However, the court found that if PTSC failed to register properly on the Registry of Public Agencies—including with county clerks where it maintains offices—this would excuse the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the GCA. The judgment for MTA was affirmed, but the judgment for PTSC was reversed and remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint. View "Black v. L.A. County Metropolitan Transp. Authority" on Justia Law

A homeowners association in San Diego, governed by the Davis-Stirling Act and its own bylaws, held a recall election to remove a board director. The association distributed recall ballot materials, including a candidate statement from the sole candidate seeking to replace the director if the recall succeeded. The sitting director sought to include her own statement in these materials to advocate against her removal but was denied by the elections inspector, who reasoned that only candidate statements were included. The association’s election rules defined “association media” to exclude candidate forms or statements attached to ballots.Previously, the Superior Court of San Diego County, in a separate action brought by the same director, found no violation of the statutory equal-access requirement for association media, concluding that all candidates had equal opportunity to submit statements using the association’s forms for regular board elections. Following the recall, the director filed a new petition and complaint challenging the association’s refusal to distribute her statement, alleging violations of Civil Code section 5105, various Corporations Code provisions, and negligence. After a bench trial, the Superior Court again ruled for the association and the inspector, finding the candidate statement was not “association media” under the relevant statute and that the recall vote met statutory requirements.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed. It held that “association media” as used in Civil Code section 5105 does encompass ballot materials containing candidate statements distributed by the association during an election. The court concluded the director was entitled to equal access to these materials to advocate her position. The court remanded for further proceedings to determine, under Civil Code section 5145, whether the association’s failure to provide equal access affected the election outcome. The judgment was reversed and remanded with directions. View "Arroyo v. Pacific Ridge Neighborhood Homeowners Assn." on Justia Law