Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A former federal employee retired before age sixty-two and began receiving an annuity supplement under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act (FERS). Years earlier, a Colorado state court had issued a divorce decree awarding his ex-wife a pro rata share of his “gross monthly annuity” and any benefit earned from his special service, but the decree did not specifically mention the annuity supplement. For nearly thirty years, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) only divided the annuity supplement between former spouses if a court order expressly required it. In 2016, OPM changed its policy, deciding that if a court order divided the basic annuity, the annuity supplement would also be divided in the same way, even if the order was silent on the supplement. OPM applied this new interpretation retroactively, resulting in a demand that the retiree pay his ex-wife nearly $25,000.The retiree challenged OPM’s decision before the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board’s administrative judge found that OPM could only divide the annuity supplement if a court order expressly provided for such division. The Board affirmed this decision, rejecting OPM’s new interpretation. OPM then sought review from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, under 5 U.S.C. §§ 8421(c) and 8467(a), OPM may apportion a federal retiree’s annuity supplement to a former spouse only when a court order expressly provides for such division. The court reasoned that the statutory text, structure, and history require the annuity supplement to be treated in the same way as the basic annuity, which is only divided if expressly ordered by a court. The court affirmed the Board’s decision. View "OPM v. MOULTON " on Justia Law

An advanced practice registered nurse in Texas, who maintained an active nursing license and a Prescriptive Authority Number, did not have a current prescriptive-authority agreement with a physician, as required by Texas law to prescribe drugs. She was not accused of any misconduct but was attending an educational program to transition careers. Because she lacked a prescriptive-authority agreement, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) initiated proceedings to revoke her federal Certificate of Registration, which allows her to handle controlled substances.An administrative law judge within the DEA recommended revocation, finding that she was “without state authority to handle controlled substances.” The Administrator of the DEA adopted this recommendation and revoked her registration. The nurse then petitioned for review directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as permitted by statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the DEA’s action and concluded that the agency exceeded its statutory authority under 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(3). The court held that the statute requires both the loss of a state license or registration and the lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances before the DEA may revoke a registration. Because the nurse still held all relevant state licenses and registrations, the court determined that the DEA lacked authority to revoke her registration solely due to the absence of a prescriptive-authority agreement. The court granted the petition for review, vacated the DEA’s revocation order, and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "DeWitt v. Drug Enforcement Administration" on Justia Law

The case involved two related companies and three individuals who operated a business targeting immigrants detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and eligible for release on immigration bonds. The companies marketed their services as an affordable way to secure release, but in reality, they charged high fees for services that were often misrepresented or not provided. The agreements were complex, mostly in English, and required significant upfront and recurring payments. Most consumers did not understand the terms and relied on the companies’ oral representations, which were deceptive. The business was not licensed as a bail bond agent or surety, and the defendants’ practices violated federal and state consumer protection laws.After the plaintiffs—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia—filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, the defendants repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations and court orders. They did not produce required documents, ignored deadlines, and failed to appear at hearings. The district court, after multiple warnings and opportunities to comply, imposed default judgment as a sanction for this misconduct. The court also excluded the defendants’ late-disclosed witnesses and exhibits from the remedies hearing, finding the nondisclosures unjustified and prejudicial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Fourth Circuit held that the default judgment was an appropriate sanction for the defendants’ repeated and willful noncompliance. The exclusion of evidence and witnesses was also upheld, as was the issuance of a permanent injunction and the calculation of monetary relief, including restitution and civil penalties totaling approximately $366.5 million. The court found no abuse of discretion or legal error in the district court’s rulings and affirmed the final judgment in all respects. View "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Nexus Services, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of Black farmers and their association, along with several individual members, sought to file claims with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for financial assistance under a program created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. They wished to submit applications on behalf of deceased relatives who had allegedly experienced discrimination in USDA farm lending programs. The USDA, however, had a policy that excluded applications reporting only discrimination against individuals who were deceased at the time of application, making such claims ineligible for the program.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking an injunction to require the USDA to accept these “legacy claims.” The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the government’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the relevant statute only authorized financial assistance to living farmers. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and also sought an emergency injunction pending appeal, which was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the statutory language of § 22007(e) of the Inflation Reduction Act required the USDA to provide “assistance” to farmers who experienced discrimination, and that “assistance” was forward-looking and could not be provided to deceased individuals. The court found that the statute did not authorize compensation for past harm to deceased farmers, distinguishing “assistance” from “compensation.” The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied the motion for an injunction pending appeal as moot, holding that the USDA was required to reject applications filed on behalf of deceased farmers. View "Black Farmers & Agriculturalists Ass'n v. Rollins" on Justia Law

A federal inmate serving a 210-month sentence challenged the method used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to calculate his good conduct time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018. The inmate argued that, following the amendments, he should receive a full 54 days of good conduct time credit for the last six months of his sentence, rather than a prorated amount. The BOP, however, interpreted the amended statute to require prorating the credit for any partial year, resulting in the inmate receiving 26 days of credit for the final six months instead of 54.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the inmate’s habeas petition. The court found that the plain language of the amended statute allowed for proration of good conduct time credits for partial years. As an alternative basis, the District Court also relied on Chevron deference to uphold the BOP’s interpretation. The court rejected the inmate’s additional claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause, finding them either precluded by statute or inapplicable to the rulemaking context.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, holding that the First Step Act’s amendments, while deleting the word “prorated,” introduced language (“for each year”) that sets a rate of 54 days per year, thereby requiring proration for any partial year. The court concluded that the statute’s natural reading supports the BOP’s method of prorating credits for the last portion of a sentence. The Third Circuit also rejected the inmate’s constitutional and APA-based arguments, and found no basis for applying the rule of lenity. View "Thieme v. Warden Fort Dix FCI" on Justia Law

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., an Indian manufacturer, was subject to a countervailing duty investigation initiated by the U.S. Department of Commerce after Daikin America, Inc., a U.S. producer, filed petitions regarding imports of granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from India and Russia. During the period of investigation, Gujarat purchased wind energy from Inox Wind Limited, a cross-owned Indian company that had received a subsidized land lease from the Indian government. Inox sold all its wind energy to Gujarat, which was used at Gujarat’s production facility to manufacture PTFE resin and other products. The wind energy from Inox represented a small fraction of the total energy consumed at the facility.Commerce determined that the subsidy received by Inox should be attributed to Gujarat under the cross-ownership regulation at 19 C.F.R. § 351.525(b)(6)(iv), resulting in a significant portion of the countervailing duty rate assessed against Gujarat. Commerce reasoned that because all of Inox’s wind energy was supplied to Gujarat, the input was “primarily dedicated” to Gujarat’s downstream production. Gujarat challenged this determination before the United States Court of International Trade, arguing that Commerce misapplied the “primarily dedicated” standard. The Trade Court agreed, finding that the regulation required more than mere consumption of the input by the downstream producer and that the facts did not support attributing the subsidy under the cross-ownership provision. The Trade Court ordered Commerce to remove the portion of the duty rate based on this attribution, and Commerce complied under protest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court’s judgment. The Federal Circuit held that the cross-ownership regulation does not apply solely because the downstream producer is the sole consumer of the input. Instead, the regulation requires a fact-specific inquiry into whether the input’s production is primarily dedicated to the downstream product, as reflected in the regulatory history and examples. The court affirmed the removal of the subsidy attribution and the adjusted duty rate. View "GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. v. US " on Justia Law

Petitioners, resident taxpayers and registered voters in Oklahoma County, challenged the constitutionality of Senate Bill 632, which sought to create business court divisions within the district courts of Oklahoma County and Tulsa County. The Act provided for the appointment of business court judges by the Governor, with confirmation by the Senate and candidate lists supplied by the Speaker of the House. It also set forth qualifications, terms, salaries, and operational details for these judges and courts. Petitioners argued that the Act violated their constitutional rights, particularly the right to elect district judges, and would result in the unlawful expenditure of public funds.Prior to review by the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, the Honorable Lonnie Paxton and Kyle Hilbert, legislative leaders named as respondents, moved for dismissal based on legislative immunity, which the court granted. The Governor, the remaining respondent, moved to dismiss the case, arguing he was not a proper party. The court denied this motion, finding the Governor’s role in appointing business court judges central to the dispute. The Oklahoma Association for Justice filed an amicus brief supporting Petitioners. The court assumed original jurisdiction, issued a temporary stay of the Act’s effectiveness, and heard oral arguments.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that Petitioners had standing as both taxpayers and voters. The court found Senate Bill 632 unconstitutional because it violated Article VII, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution by circumventing the requirement that district judges be elected by voters. The court further determined that the unconstitutional provisions were not severable from the rest of the Act, rendering the entire Act void and unenforceable. The petition for declaratory relief was granted, and the temporary stay remained in effect pending any rehearing. View "White v. Stitt" on Justia Law

A proposed residential development in downtown Livermore, California, was the subject of a dispute between a community group and the city. The city had entered into agreements with a developer, Eden Housing, to build affordable workforce housing and, as part of a 2022 resolution, authorized the construction and improvement of a new public park, Veterans Park. Move Eden Housing, a local group, sought to challenge this resolution through a referendum, arguing that the city’s approval of the park was a legislative act subject to voter review.The Alameda County Superior Court initially denied Move Eden’s petition for a writ of mandate, finding the city’s resolution to be administrative and not subject to referendum. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reversed, holding that the park approval was a legislative act and ordered the city to process the referendum petition. In response, the city repealed the 2022 resolution and enacted a new 2024 resolution that reaffirmed the development agreement but omitted the Veterans Park provisions.Move Eden then argued that the city’s adoption of the 2024 resolution violated California Elections Code section 9241, which prohibits reenactment of a repealed ordinance for one year. The trial court agreed and granted Move Eden’s motion to compel compliance with the writ of mandate.On further appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that section 9241 did not prohibit the city from adopting the 2024 resolution because it involved only administrative acts implementing prior legislative determinations not challengeable by referendum. The court clarified that the referendum power and section 9241’s restrictions apply only to legislative acts, not administrative actions. The matter was remanded with instructions to deny Move Eden’s motion. View "Move Eden Housing v. City of Livermore" on Justia Law

Novo Nordisk, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, challenged the implementation of the Drug Price Negotiation Program established by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The Program requires the Department of Health and Human Services, through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure drugs covered by Medicare. In the first round of selections, CMS grouped six of Novo Nordisk’s insulin aspart products as a single “negotiation-eligible drug” and selected them for price negotiation. Novo Nordisk signed the required agreements to participate but subsequently filed suit, arguing that CMS’s grouping of its products and the procedures used to implement the Program violated statutory and constitutional provisions.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of the government. The court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review CMS’s decision to treat the six products as one drug due to a statutory bar on judicial review. It also held that Novo Nordisk lacked standing to challenge the identification of more than ten drugs for the initial pricing period. The court rejected Novo Nordisk’s claims under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the Due Process Clause, the nondelegation doctrine, and the First Amendment, concluding that the Program did not deprive the company of a protected property interest, that Congress provided an intelligible principle to guide CMS, and that the Program primarily regulated conduct rather than speech.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Third Circuit held that the statutory bar on judicial review precluded consideration of Novo Nordisk’s challenge to the grouping of its products. The court also held that CMS was authorized to implement the Program through guidance for the initial years without notice and comment rulemaking, that the Act did not violate the nondelegation doctrine or the Due Process Clause, and that Novo Nordisk’s First Amendment claim was foreclosed by precedent. View "Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Secretary US Dept & Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

Christopher Toland was sentenced in 1993 to a lengthy prison term for rape, kidnapping, and related offenses, making him eligible for parole in 2004. Between 2004 and 2020, the Pennsylvania Parole Board denied him parole fourteen times, often contrary to recommendations from the Department of Corrections. Toland filed a petition for review in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, seeking mandamus relief and alleging constitutional violations in the Board’s parole denials from 2017, 2018, and 2019. He claimed the Board relied on false information, acted arbitrarily, and applied parole standards retroactively in violation of ex post facto prohibitions.The Commonwealth Court overruled the Parole Board’s preliminary objections to Toland’s claims, allowing discovery to proceed. When Toland requested documents related to his parole eligibility, the Parole Board objected, citing its own regulation (37 Pa. Code § 61.2) that designates its records as “private, confidential and privileged.” The Commonwealth Court rejected the Board’s objections, finding that Toland, as the beneficiary of the privilege, could waive it. The Board then filed an interlocutory appeal.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order, but on a different basis. The Supreme Court held that the Parole Board does not have the authority to create an evidentiary privilege through its own regulation. Therefore, Section 61.2 does not establish a privilege that can be invoked to prevent disclosure of documents in discovery. The Court clarified that only privileges created by the legislature, the constitution, or the common law are recognized in Pennsylvania courts, and no such privilege exists under Section 61.2. The Supreme Court’s disposition was to affirm the lower court’s order. View "Toland v. PBPP" on Justia Law