Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

An employee worked for Cowin & Company for nearly three decades, performing construction in coal mines and regularly being exposed to coal dust. Years after his employment ended, he filed a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, alleging total disability due to pneumoconiosis (“black lung disease”) caused by his coal mine work. The claimant relied on a regulatory presumption that applies to miners who have a disabling breathing impairment and at least fifteen years of qualifying coal mine employment. A key dispute in the case involved how to calculate a “year” of coal mine employment under Department of Labor regulations.An administrative law judge initially granted benefits, finding the claimant had at least fifteen years of qualifying employment, thus triggering the presumption. Cowin & Company appealed to the Benefits Review Board, which vacated the benefits award in part and instructed the judge to recalculate the length of coal mine employment, questioning the method used to credit years of employment. On remand, the judge again found more than fifteen years, but the Board disagreed with the method, holding that a claimant must prove both a 365/366-day period of employment and at least 125 working days during that period. Ultimately, after further proceedings, the administrative law judge found only 13.76 years of qualifying employment, and the Board affirmed the denial of benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. The court held that, under the plain text of the relevant regulation, a claimant establishes a “year” of coal mine employment by showing at least 125 working days in or around coal mines during a calendar year or partial periods totaling one year. The court granted the petition for review, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hayes v. Director, OWCP" on Justia Law

A retired public employee who was a participant in the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) filed suit against the State Treasurer, challenging the constitutionality of the Energy Discrimination Elimination Act of 2022 (EDEA). The EDEA required companies doing business with the state to certify they do not boycott energy companies, and it compelled state entities, including OPERS, to divest from financial companies that used ESG (environmental, social, and governance) principles if those companies were deemed to boycott energy companies. The plaintiff claimed the Act violated several provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, particularly the requirement that public retirement system funds be used solely for exclusive purposes related to the retirement system.The District Court for Oklahoma County granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, issuing a permanent injunction preventing the Treasurer from enforcing the EDEA with respect to OPERS. The court found the Act violated multiple constitutional provisions, including the exclusive purpose clause of Article XXIII, §12 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The Treasurer appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, and the Supreme Court retained the appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that the plaintiff’s death after the case was submitted did not deprive the Court of jurisdiction. The Court concluded the plaintiff had standing as a retiree with a direct interest in OPERS. Most significantly, the Court determined that the EDEA is unconstitutional in its entirety when applied to OPERS, because it creates a dual purpose for retirement system funds, contrary to the exclusive purpose mandated by Article XXIII, §12 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed in part the District Court’s judgment, upholding the permanent injunction against enforcement of the EDEA as applied to OPERS. View "KEENAN v. RUSS" on Justia Law

A public entity contracted with a general contractor to construct a major rail line project. The general contractor, in turn, subcontracted a significant portion of the work to a subcontractor. As the project progressed, it experienced numerous delays and disruptions, which the subcontractor claimed increased its costs. After completing its performance, the subcontractor, relying on expert analysis of its additional costs, filed a verified statement of claim under the Colorado Public Works Act, asserting it was owed additional millions for labor, materials, and other costs, including those stemming from delay and disruption.Following the filing, the general contractor substituted a surety bond for the retained project funds and the subcontractor initiated litigation in Denver District Court. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the subcontractor, concluding that its verified statement of claim was not excessive and that there was a reasonable possibility the claimed amount was due. The court awarded the subcontractor damages for delay, disruption, and unpaid funds. The general contractor appealed, contending the claim was excessive and should result in forfeiture of all rights to the claimed amount. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed in relevant part, holding that the verified statement of claim was excessive as a matter of law and that the subcontractor forfeited all rights to the amount claimed. This disposition left certain issues raised by the subcontractor on cross-appeal unaddressed.The Supreme Court of Colorado granted review and held that, under the Public Works Act, disputed or unliquidated amounts—including delay and disruption damages—may be included in a verified statement of claim if they represent the specified categories of costs and the claim is not excessive under the statute. The court also held that filing an excessive claim results only in forfeiture of statutory remedies under the Act, not all legal remedies. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ralph L. Wadsworth Constr. Co. v. Reg'l Rail Partners" on Justia Law

This case involves several dialysis providers, a nonprofit organization, and individual patients challenging a California law (AB 290) aimed at regulating relationships between dialysis providers and nonprofits that assist patients with health insurance premiums. The law was enacted due to concerns that providers were donating to nonprofits to help keep patients on private insurance, which led to higher reimbursements for providers compared to public insurance. Key provisions of the law included capping provider reimbursements if they had a financial relationship with a nonprofit offering patient assistance, requiring disclosure of patients receiving such assistance, restricting nonprofits from conditioning assistance on patient treatment choices, mandating disclosure to patients of all insurance options, and a safe harbor for seeking federal advisory opinions.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted in part and denied in part motions for summary judgment. It upheld the constitutionality of the reimbursement cap, coverage disclosure requirement, and safe harbor provision, but found the anti-steering, patient disclosure, and financial assistance restriction provisions unconstitutional. The district court also ruled that the unconstitutional parts were severable from the remainder of the statute and rejected claims that federal law preempted the state law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the reimbursement cap, patient disclosure requirement, and financial assistance restriction violated the First Amendment because they burdened the rights of expressive association and were not narrowly tailored to serve the state’s interests. The court found the coverage disclosure requirement constitutional under the standard for compelled commercial speech, as it required only factual, uncontroversial information reasonably related to a state interest. However, it concluded that the unconstitutional provisions were not severable from the coverage disclosure requirement. The court also held challenges to the safe harbor provision moot. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. View "DOE V. BONTA" on Justia Law

A mining company sought to expand its underground coal mine situated beneath Indian lands. To proceed, it needed approval for a revised permit, a new federal lease, and a modification of its operations plan. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and the Bureau of Land Management jointly conducted an environmental assessment, solicited public comments, and ultimately granted the necessary authorizations for expansion.Two advocacy groups opposed the expansion, citing potential impacts on water resources and basing their challenges on the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. They previously sued, raising claims under the rescinded Stream Protection Rule, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected those claims. The groups later amended their complaint to invoke different provisions of the Act, specifically Sections 1270 and 1276. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied their petition for judicial review, concluding the claims were substantially similar to those previously rejected and finding the agency had fulfilled its nondiscretionary duties.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the advocacy groups could not obtain relief under Section 1270 because they failed to provide adequate notice of the alleged violations and had advanced claims implicating discretionary, not mandatory, agency actions. The court also found that Section 1276 did not authorize judicial review for the groups because they had not participated in the permit-review process as required by the statute. The court clarified that commenting on an environmental assessment was not a substitute for objecting to the permit application itself. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the petition for judicial review. View "Citizens for Constitutional Integrity v. United States" on Justia Law

Several oil refineries with average daily crude oil throughput below 75,000 barrels in 2024 applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2025 for exemptions from their obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program for the 2024 compliance year. The RFS program, established under the Clean Air Act, requires refineries to blend renewable fuels into transportation fuels. The Act provides for a “small refinery” exemption for facilities that do not exceed the 75,000-barrel threshold in a calendar year. The petitioning refineries did not seek exemptions for 2023 and based their applications solely on their 2024 throughput.After the refineries submitted their applications, the EPA informed them that, under its 2014 regulation, eligibility required a refinery to meet the “small refinery” definition both for "the most recent full calendar year prior to seeking an extension" and for "the year or years for which an exemption is sought." The EPA interpreted this to mean petitioners needed to satisfy the throughput limit in both 2023 and 2024. Since the refineries exceeded the threshold in 2023, the EPA denied the exemption requests. The refineries then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The D.C. Circuit held that the EPA’s interpretation of its 2014 regulation was contrary to the regulation’s plain text. The court found that, because the applications were filed in 2025 for the 2024 compliance year, both the “most recent full calendar year prior to seeking an extension” and “the year for which an exemption is sought” referred to 2024. Since the petitioners met the threshold in 2024, they were eligible under the regulation. The court vacated the EPA’s denial orders and remanded for further proceedings. View "Alon Refining Krotz Springs, Inc. v. EPA" on Justia Law

KalshiEX LLC operates a federally licensed designated contract market (DCM) that allows users to trade event contracts, including those based on sports outcomes. In late 2024, after Kalshi began offering sports-related event contracts similar to those offered by a competitor, New Jersey issued a cease-and-desist letter. The state asserted that Kalshi’s activities violated the New Jersey Constitution and state gambling laws, particularly regarding betting on collegiate sports, and threatened legal action with significant penalties if Kalshi continued its operations within New Jersey.In response, Kalshi initiated proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of New Jersey’s gambling laws against its federally regulated contracts. The District Court granted the injunction, finding that Kalshi had a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the public interest favored enjoining enforcement of potentially preempted state law. New Jersey appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo, and the decision to grant the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The appellate court held that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) grants the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exclusive jurisdiction over swaps, including sports-related event contracts traded on CFTC-licensed DCMs. Both field and conflict preemption principles bar New Jersey from enforcing its gambling laws against these contracts. The court concluded that Kalshi demonstrated a likelihood of success on the preemption claim, irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, and that the equities and public interest favored injunctive relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the preliminary injunction. View "Kalshiex LLC v. Flaherty" on Justia Law

A former employee filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against her former employer, alleging that the company falsely certified compliance with federal mortgage program requirements. The Department of Housing and Urban Development would be responsible for defaulted loans under this program. The relator’s attorneys conducted an extensive investigation, including interviewing former employees, after the government declined to intervene and later sought to dismiss the action. Despite these challenges, the relator’s attorneys successfully opposed the motions to dismiss, and the case proceeded. The litigation ultimately resulted in a settlement exceeding $38 million, with the relator and her attorneys receiving a portion of the recovery.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California calculated attorneys’ fees using the lodestar method, finding the hourly rates and hours reasonable, and arrived at a lodestar amount of approximately $4.37 million for the relator’s main counsel. The district court then awarded a 1.75 multiplier, increasing the fee award to over $8.5 million. The court justified the enhancement by citing the “exceptional result” achieved—surviving dismissal against both the government and the employer—and the attorneys’ investigative efforts, but did not provide a detailed rationale for choosing the 1.75 figure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court abused its discretion by awarding a multiplier above the lodestar because the factors cited for the enhancement—exceptional results and investigative work—were already reflected in the lodestar calculation. The Ninth Circuit further found that the district court failed to provide a sufficiently reasoned explanation for selecting a 1.75 multiplier. The court reversed the enhanced fee award and remanded for further proceedings. View "THROWER V. ACADEMY MORTGAGE CORPORATION" on Justia Law

A former mortgage underwriter sued her employer under the False Claims Act, alleging that the company submitted false certifications in a federal mortgage insurance program. The government declined to intervene and unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the case. After years of litigation, the parties reached a settlement: the employer agreed to pay $38.5 million, with a portion going to the plaintiff and the remainder to the United States Treasury. The settlement specifically excluded the plaintiff’s claims for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, leaving them unresolved.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved the settlement in January 2023, dismissing the substantive claims but expressly keeping the attorneys’ fees issue pending. Months of disputes ensued over the amount of attorneys’ fees. In May 2024, the district court awarded the plaintiff over $8.5 million in attorneys’ fees and approximately $89,000 in expenses. The plaintiff argued that postjudgment interest on these amounts should accrue from the date of the settlement approval, since her entitlement to fees was established then. The district court disagreed, holding that interest should only begin to accrue from the date the fees were actually awarded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that postjudgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) accrues only from the entry of a “money judgment,” which requires both identification of the parties and a definite, ascertainable amount owed. Because the district court’s earlier order approving the settlement did not specify the amount of attorneys’ fees, it was not a “money judgment.” Therefore, interest begins accruing only from the order that set the fee amount. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "THROWER V. ACADEMY MORTGAGE CORPORATION" on Justia Law

The case involves two drainage districts in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, which undertook a reclassification process after proposing improvements to levees under their management. The reclassification determined how costs for the improvements would be apportioned among properties benefitting from the work. The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) owns state highway land running through the districts, comprising less than 5% of the land but, under the reclassification, was assigned more than 75% of the costs. The method for assessing IDOT’s benefit relied largely on projected benefits to motorists, such as avoided delays from fewer road closures, rather than on direct benefits to the highway property or its owner.The boards of trustees for the districts approved the reclassification despite IDOT’s objections. IDOT then sought judicial review in the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, arguing that the assessment method violated Iowa Code section 307.45 and that assessments should be based on benefits to the property or its owner, not third-party users. The district court set aside the reclassifications, agreeing that section 307.45 applied and that the assessments were not conducted in a uniform manner as required by that statute. However, the district court did not limit the scope of “benefits” solely to those accruing to the property or its owner.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court’s decision to set aside the reclassification but modified the reasoning. The court held that Iowa Code section 307.45 does not apply to drainage districts, as they are not cities, counties, or subdivisions thereof. The court further held that assessments against IDOT highway property must be based only on benefits to the property and its owner—the State—not on benefits to non-owner users such as motorists. The judgment was affirmed as modified. View "State of Iowa, ex rel. Iowa Department of Transportation v. Honey Creek Drainage District No. 6 Board of Trustees" on Justia Law