Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Michael Chapman, an Alabama inmate, sued prison officials and staff for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment. Chapman alleged that an untreated ear infection led to severe injuries, including mastoiditis, a ruptured eardrum, and a brain abscess. He also claimed that the prison's refusal to perform cataract surgery on his right eye constituted deliberate indifference. The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants except the prison’s medical contractor, which had filed for bankruptcy.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found Chapman’s claim against nurse Charlie Waugh time-barred and ruled against Chapman on other claims, including his request for injunctive relief against Commissioner John Hamm, citing sovereign immunity. The court also concluded that Chapman’s claims against other defendants failed on the merits and dismissed his state-law claims without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s determination that Chapman’s claim against Waugh was time-barred, finding that Chapman’s cause of action accrued within the limitations period. The court vacated the district court’s judgment for Waugh and remanded for reconsideration in light of the recent en banc decision in Wade, which clarified the standard for deliberate indifference claims. The court also vacated the judgment for Hamm on Chapman’s cataract-related claim for injunctive relief, as sovereign immunity does not bar such claims. Additionally, the court vacated the summary judgment for all other defendants due to procedural errors, including inadequate notice and time for Chapman to respond, and remanded for further consideration. View "Chapman v. Dunn" on Justia Law

Matthew V. Herron filed a petition for writ of mandate against the San Diego Unified Port District and the Coronado Yacht Club, alleging that the lease of coastal public trust land to the private club violated the public trust doctrine, the San Diego Unified Port Act, the Public Resources Code, and the Port’s Master Plan. Herron claimed that the lease was executed without public notice or competitive bidding and requested the court to compel the Port District to comply with proper procedures and award the lease to a qualified applicant who would operate the property for public benefit.The Superior Court of San Diego County sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the Port District’s discretionary decisions under a writ for traditional mandamus and that the time for filing a writ for administrative mandamus had expired. The court dismissed Herron’s petition with prejudice, leading to Herron’s appeal.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Herron failed to establish a claim for traditional mandamus because the Port District’s decision to lease the land involved discretionary authority, not a ministerial duty. The court also found that Herron’s petition for administrative mandamus was untimely, as it was filed more than four years after the lease became final, exceeding the 90-day statutory limit. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that Herron was not entitled to relief under either theory and affirmed the dismissal of his petition. View "Herron v. San Diego Unified Port District" on Justia Law

Claudia C. Conner, the plaintiff, was employed by the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) as General Counsel and Chief of Staff. She was terminated in November 2021, at the age of over sixty, despite having satisfactory job performance and receiving a raise a month prior. Conner alleges that her termination was due to age and gender discrimination, and retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by a state vendor. She filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, which issued a right to sue letter, leading her to file a lawsuit in the Oklahoma County District Court.The OESC moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Conner failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA). The District Court of Oklahoma County denied the motion, citing material conflicts between the GTCA and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA). The OESC then sought and was granted a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and held that there are no material or irreconcilable conflicts between the GTCA and the OADA regarding the notice provisions. The court found that the GTCA's notice requirements apply to claims under the OADA. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Supreme Court emphasized that compliance with the GTCA notice provisions is a jurisdictional requirement for tort suits against governmental entities. View "CONNER v. STATE" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Richard Paiva, an inmate at the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI), filed a suit against Lynne Corry, the warden of the maximum-security facility, in Providence County Superior Court. Paiva sought a declaratory judgment and either a writ of mandamus or an injunction based on a Department of Corrections (DOC) policy that mandates a daily minimum out-of-cell time of 8.5 hours for general population inmates, barring exigent circumstances. Paiva argued that this policy was a legislative rule with the force of law and sought declarations to that effect, along with enforcement of the policy.The defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that DOC policies do not create a private cause of action and that prison officials have discretion in matters affecting facility security. The defendant also contended that the DOC director, an indispensable party, was not named in the complaint. The Superior Court granted the motion to dismiss, leading to Paiva's appeal.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Court noted procedural issues, including the absence of transcripts from the lower court proceedings, which hindered appellate review. More critically, the Court found that Paiva's failure to join the DOC director as a defendant was fatal to his request for declaratory relief, as the director's interests would be affected by such a declaration. Additionally, the Court held that a writ of mandamus was inappropriate because the DOC policies involved discretionary functions, not ministerial duties. Thus, the judgment in favor of the defendant was affirmed. View "Paiva v. Corry" on Justia Law

Mark L. Sadler, a former employee of the United States Army, was suspended and then removed from his position for insubordination. Sadler claimed that these actions were retaliatory under the Whistleblower Protection Act and sought corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). He also requested sanctions against the government for the destruction of evidence. The Board denied both his motion for sanctions and his request for corrective action.The Merit Systems Protection Board initially dismissed Sadler’s first complaint, finding it did not sufficiently allege protected activity. For his second complaint, the Board acknowledged that Sadler engaged in protected whistleblower activity but concluded that the Army had shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions regardless of the protected activity. The Board also denied Sadler’s motion for sanctions, finding that the destruction of evidence was part of the Army’s ordinary procedures and did not warrant sanctions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Board’s decision. The court agreed that Sadler’s first complaint did not allege protected activity and that the Army had provided clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same actions absent the whistleblowing. The court also upheld the Board’s decision on the sanctions issue, agreeing that the destruction of evidence was part of routine procedures and did not meet the intent standard required for sanctions under Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. View "SADLER v. ARMY " on Justia Law

In 2023, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County approved a new map for electing county commissioners without complying with Colorado's redistricting statutes, arguing that as a home rule county, it was exempt from these requirements. Weld County residents, along with the League of Women Voters of Greeley and the Latino Coalition of Weld County, sued the Board, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the use of the new map.The Weld County District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting summary judgment and enjoining the Board from using the new map. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing, the redistricting statutes applied to Weld County, and the Board had violated these statutes. The Board appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the plaintiffs petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court for certiorari review, which was granted.The Supreme Court of Colorado held that the redistricting statutes provide a private right of action and that the plaintiffs had standing to sue. The court further held that home rule counties must comply with the redistricting statutes, as these statutes impose mandatory functions rather than structural requirements. The court reversed the district court's allowance for the Board to use the 2015 map and ordered the Board to draw and approve a new map in compliance with the redistricting statutes in time for the 2026 county commissioner election. View "League of Women Voters of Greeley v. The Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Weld" on Justia Law

A group of religious organizations employing nonimmigrant workers challenged a regulation by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that precludes special immigrant religious workers from filing their applications for special immigrant worker status and permanent resident status concurrently. The plaintiffs argued that this regulation violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the APA claim as time-barred and granted summary judgment in favor of USCIS on the remaining claims. The court found that the regulation did not violate RFRA because it did not affect religious practice, and it did not violate the First Amendment because it was neutral and generally applicable. The court also ruled that the regulation did not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses because it was based on the risk of fraud in the special immigrant religious worker program.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims and that their APA claim was not time-barred due to the Supreme Court's decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which held that a plaintiff’s challenge to a final agency action does not accrue under the APA until the plaintiff is injured by the action. The court remanded the APA claim for further proceedings.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on the RFRA and First Amendment claims, concluding that the regulation did not substantially burden the plaintiffs' religious exercise and was neutral and generally applicable. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Establishment Clause claim, finding that the regulation did not overly burden the plaintiffs' religious practice. View "Society of the Divine Word v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

Joseph A. Brown requested the disclosure of video footage from the Grafton County House of Corrections under New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law, RSA chapter 91-A. The footage included meal preparation and mealtime activities. The Grafton County Department of Corrections denied the request, citing security concerns and privacy issues for inmates. Brown sought declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the disclosure of the footage.The Superior Court (MacLeod, J.) initially granted the defendant’s motion for expedited declaratory judgment, ruling that the public interest in disclosing the footage was minimal and outweighed by the privacy interests of the inmates and security concerns. The court found that the footage’s disclosure could pose a danger to inmates and staff and would not significantly inform the public about the facility’s operations. Brown’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and his subsequent appeal was dismissed without prejudice. The Superior Court (Bornstein, J.) later granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the remaining count of Brown’s complaint, concluding that the defendant had either provided the requested records, found no responsive records, or properly withheld records under RSA 91-A:5, IV.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire vacated the Superior Court’s decision and remanded the case. The court held that the trial court erred by ruling on the privacy interests without viewing the footage or having sufficient information about its content. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a fact-specific inquiry to determine whether the footage implicated privacy concerns and whether redaction could allow for disclosure without compromising privacy. The case was remanded for further fact-finding and proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Brown v. Grafton Cnty. Dep't of Corr." on Justia Law

The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) sought to mail its publications to inmates at the Baxter County Jail and Detention Center. HRDC's materials, which include books and magazines about prisoners' legal rights and criminal justice news, were rejected due to the jail's policy limiting non-legal mail to postcards. HRDC filed a lawsuit against Baxter County, claiming the policy violated its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas awarded partial summary judgment to HRDC on the due process claim, finding a technical violation of HRDC's right to notice. However, after a bench trial, the court held that the postcard-only policy did not violate HRDC's free speech rights. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the decision, requiring additional fact-finding on whether HRDC had alternative means to exercise its First Amendment rights.Upon remand, the district court found that the jail's policies effectively banned HRDC's publications and that allowing these publications would have a de minimis impact on jail operations. The court concluded that the policy was not reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives and violated HRDC's rights. It awarded HRDC nominal damages, a permanent injunction against the postcard-only policy as applied to publisher mail, and attorney fees and costs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the jail's postcard-only policy was not reasonably related to its penological goals and constituted an exaggerated response, effectively banning HRDC's publications. The court also upheld the award of attorney fees and costs to HRDC, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's decisions. View "Human Rights Defense Center v. Baxter County Arkansas" on Justia Law

Petitioners Jason Fabrizius and Fabrizius Livestock LLC sought review of a USDA Judicial Officer's order that denied their appeal of two USDA ALJ orders. The ALJ found Fabrizius Livestock responsible for ensuring animals transported interstate had required documentation and issued a $210,000 fine against the company. Fabrizius Livestock, a Colorado corporation dealing in horses, often sold horses intended for slaughter and kept them in conditions that made them vulnerable to disease. The company sold horses across state lines without the necessary documentation, including ICVIs and EIA test results.The ALJ found Fabrizius liable for violations of the CTESA and AHPA regulations, including transporting horses without owner/shipper certificates and selling horses without ICVIs. The ALJ imposed a $210,000 fine, which included penalties for each violation. Fabrizius appealed to a USDA Judicial Officer, arguing that the regulation was unconstitutionally vague, they were not among the "persons responsible," they lacked adequate notice, the fine was arbitrary and capricious, and the fine was excessive under the Eighth Amendment. The Judicial Officer rejected these arguments and affirmed the ALJ's orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the regulation was not unconstitutionally vague and provided adequate notice. The court found that the term "persons responsible" reasonably included sellers like Fabrizius. The court also held that the $200,000 fine for the AHPA violations was not arbitrary or capricious, as the Judicial Officer had considered all relevant factors. Finally, the court found that the fine was not excessive under the Eighth Amendment, given the gravity of the violations and the potential harm to the equine industry. The court denied the petition for review. View "Fabrizius v. United States Department of Agriculture" on Justia Law