Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a program proposed by Harris County, Texas, known as "Uplift Harris." The program aimed to provide $500 monthly cash payments to 1,928 Harris County residents for 18 months, with recipients chosen by lottery from applicants with income below 200% of the federal poverty line living in certain zip codes. The State of Texas challenged the program, arguing that it violated the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on gratuitous payments to individuals.The State sued the County, seeking an injunction to block the implementation of the program. The district court denied the State's request for a temporary injunction, leading the State to appeal this decision and request a stay of payments under the Uplift Harris program while the appeal was ongoing. The court of appeals denied this request, prompting the State to seek mandamus relief in the Supreme Court of Texas.The Supreme Court of Texas granted the State's motion for temporary relief, prohibiting all payments under the Uplift Harris program pending further order of the court. The court found that the State had raised serious doubt about the constitutionality of the program, and that potential violation of the Texas Constitution could not be remedied if payments were to commence while the underlying appeal proceeded. The court also noted that once the funds were distributed to individuals, they could not feasibly be recouped if it was later determined they were paid in violation of the Texas Constitution. The court concluded that temporarily preventing the expenditure of these funds while the State's appeal proceeded ensured public funds were not irrecoverably spent in violation of the Texas Constitution. The State's appeal of the denial of a temporary injunction remains pending in the court of appeals. View "In re The State of Texas" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and two market participants, RWE Renewables Americas, LLC and TX Hereford Wind, LLC. Following Winter Storm Uri, the Legislature amended the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) to require that protocols adopted by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) must be approved by the PUC before they take effect. ERCOT then adopted a revision to its protocols, which was approved by the PUC, setting the price of electricity at the regulatory maximum under Energy Emergency Alert Level 3 conditions. RWE challenged the PUC's approval order in the Third Court of Appeals, arguing that the order was both substantively and procedurally invalid.The Third Court of Appeals held that the PUC's order was both substantively invalid—because the PUC exceeded its statutory authority by setting the price of electricity—and procedurally invalid—because the PUC failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act’s rulemaking procedures in issuing the order.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that the PUC’s approval order is not a “competition rule[] adopted by the commission” subject to the judicial-review process for PUC rules. The court found that PURA envisions a separate process for ERCOT-adopted protocols, and the statutory requirement that the PUC approve those adopted protocols does not transform PUC approval orders into PUC rules eligible for direct review by a court of appeals. Therefore, the Third Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over this proceeding. The Supreme Court of Texas vacated the court of appeals’ judgment and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Public Utility Commission v. RWE Renewables Americas, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the actions of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Commission) during Winter Storm Uri, when the Texas electric grid was on the brink of collapse. The Commission issued two orders that effectively raised the market price of electricity to the regulatory ceiling of $9,000/MWh to incentivize generators to add supply and large industrial users to reduce their demand. This led to some market participants going bankrupt and subsequent litigation.The court of appeals held that the Commission’s orders exceeded its authority under Chapter 39 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) because the statute prohibits price-setting. The court of appeals did not address whether the Commission complied with the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) procedural rulemaking requirements.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals' decision. It held that the Commission’s orders did not exceed its authority under PURA. The court also found that the Commission substantially complied with the APA’s procedural rulemaking requirements, an issue the court of appeals did not address. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment affirming the orders. View "Public Utility Commission v. Luminant Energy Co. LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Pureza “Didit” Martinez, who was terminated from her position at the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at the age of 72. She filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination against the Health Sciences Center, the Texas Tech University System, and the Texas Tech University System’s Board of Regents. The Texas Tech University System and the Board of Regents argued that they were not Martinez's employer and thus retained sovereign immunity.Previously, the trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Tech University System and the Board of Regents, and the court of appeals affirmed this decision. The defendants argued that Martinez failed to plead allegations that could make them liable for age discrimination under the Labor Code, essentially denying being Martinez’s employer.The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court found that Martinez's petition did not allege facts demonstrating that the Texas Tech University System or the Board of Regents employed Martinez directly or that either one controlled access to and interfered with her employment. Therefore, the court concluded that Martinez failed to allege a waiver of sovereign immunity, and the plea to the jurisdiction of the Texas Tech University System and the Board of Regents should have been granted. However, the court remanded the case to the trial court to give Martinez an opportunity to replead, as her petition did not foreclose a valid claim against those defendants. View "Texas Tech University System v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Sally Splittgerber suffered a fall while walking on a city sidewalk, leading to a personal injury lawsuit against the owner of the adjacent property, the lessee of that property (Bankers Trust), and the City of Des Moines. The plaintiffs alleged that these parties were negligent in maintaining the uneven sidewalk. After settling the claims, Bankers Trust sought contribution from the City for the settlement payment, arguing that the City, not the property owner or lessee, was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk.The district court, relying on the precedent set in Madden v. City of Iowa City, granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The court held that the City could impose liability on abutting landowners for damages resulting from other types of failures to maintain sidewalks, beyond just snow and ice removal. Bankers Trust appealed this decision, asking the Supreme Court of Iowa to overrule the Madden decision.The Supreme Court of Iowa agreed with Bankers Trust, stating that the Madden decision was wrongly decided. The court found that the City's attempt to shift costs and liability to abutting landowners for sidewalk maintenance and accidents beyond what the state statute allows was in direct conflict with the legislature's express determination about where such burdens reside. The court noted that the statute only permits cities to require abutting landowners to repair sidewalks if the city first notifies the landowners by certified mail that a repair is necessary, and only permits cities to hold abutting landowners liable for damages if they fail to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk.The court overruled the Madden decision, reversed the district court's summary judgment ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Bankers Trust Company v. City Of Des Moines" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Ron Myers, suffered a leg injury after slipping on a diving board at a city pool in Cedar Falls, Iowa. He sued the City of Cedar Falls, alleging that the diving board lacked a slip-resistant surface required by state regulations. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(l), which grants immunity to operators of municipal swimming pools unless there is a "knowing" violation of regulations. The district court granted the City's motion, concluding that Myers failed to establish a "knowing" violation of the regulations.Myers appealed the decision, and the case was transferred to the court of appeals. The court of appeals reversed the district court's decision, finding that there were factual questions about the condition of the diving board that precluded summary judgment. The City then sought further review from the Supreme Court of Iowa.The Supreme Court of Iowa accepted the City's invitation to overrule a previous decision, Sanon v. City of Pella, which had interpreted the "criminal offense" exception to immunity for operators of municipal swimming pools under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(l) to include violations of agency regulations. The court found that Sanon was "egregiously wrong" and had caused ongoing problems. The court held that the legislature did not make violating swimming pool regulations a criminal offense, and therefore, the City was immune from liability under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(l). The court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court's summary judgment. View "Myers v. City of Cedar Falls" on Justia Law

The appellant, A.G., was arraigned on four juvenile delinquency petitions for attempted robbery, attempted first degree assault, reckless conduct, and falsifying physical evidence when he was 17 years old. The Circuit Court found probable cause and determined that A.G. met the standard for secure detention, placing him at the Youth Detention Services Unit (YDSU). The State later filed a petition to certify A.G. as an adult and transfer the case to superior court, which remains pending. As A.G. was about to turn 18, a hearing was held to address his placement. The court ruled that A.G. would be transferred to the Hillsborough County House of Corrections (HOC) upon his eighteenth birthday.A.G. appealed this decision, arguing that the circuit court lacks authority to order his detention at the HOC. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire agreed, stating that the circuit court is a court of limited jurisdiction with powers conferred upon it by statute. The court found no statutory authority for the circuit court to detain A.G. at the HOC, as he has neither been adjudicated delinquent nor certified as an adult.The State argued that the circuit court could continue A.G.’s detention at YDSU, even after his eighteenth birthday, while awaiting action on the petition to certify him as an adult. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the term "minor" in the relevant statute continues to apply to A.G. after his eighteenth birthday. The court reversed the trial court’s order transferring A.G. to the HOC and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "In re A.G." on Justia Law

Felissa Jones, the mother of an elementary school student, reported to the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (MDCPS) that her son had suffered abuse and neglect by staff at his school. MDCPS responded that it does not investigate reports of abuse at school. Jones then sued MDCPS, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief related to MDCPS’s policy that the agency does not investigate allegations of abuse in out-of-home settings such as schools.The Hinds County Chancery Court denied Jones's motion for a judgment in her favor on the pleadings and granted MDCPS's motion for a judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Jones's complaint. The court ruled that Jones's request for declaratory relief related to MDCPS’s former intake policy was moot because the policy was no longer in effect. It also ruled that the current intake policy does not violate the relevant statutes, but instead conforms to the statutory mandate to refer allegations of child abuse in out-of-home settings to local law enforcement.In the Supreme Court of Mississippi, Jones appealed the lower court's decisions. The court affirmed the lower court's rulings, stating that MDCPS does not have a duty to investigate reports of abuse in out-of-home settings, such as schools, because children who are mistreated by school staff do not fall under the youth court’s limited jurisdiction. The court also found that Jones's claim for declaratory relief from the amended policy had no merit because the policy tracks the relevant statutes. View "Jones v. Department of Child Protection Services" on Justia Law

The case involves Bacardi & Company Limited and Bacardi USA, Inc. (collectively, Bacardi) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Bacardi claimed that the PTO violated Section 9 of the Lanham Act and its own regulations by renewing a trademark registration ten years after it expired. The trademark in question is the "HAVANA CLUB," originally registered by a Cuban corporation, José Arechabala, S.A. In 1960, the Cuban government seized the corporation's assets, and by 1974, the U.S. trademark registrations for HAVANA CLUB rum had expired. Later, a company owned by the Cuban government registered the HAVANA CLUB trademark in the U.S. for itself. Bacardi, which had bought the interest in the mark from Arechabala, filed its own application to register the HAVANA CLUB mark and petitioned the PTO to cancel the Cuban government-owned company's registration.The PTO denied Bacardi's application due to the Cuban government-owned company's preexisting registration, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) denied Bacardi's cancellation petition. Bacardi then filed a civil action challenging the TTAB's denial of cancellation. Meanwhile, the Cuban government-owned company's registration was set to expire in 2006, unless it renewed its trademark. However, due to a trade embargo, the company was not permitted to pay the required renewal fee without first obtaining an exception from the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC denied the company's request for an exception, and the PTO notified the company that its registration would expire due to the failure to submit the renewal fee on time.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment that dismissed Bacardi's lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the Lanham Act does not foreclose an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) action for judicial review of the PTO’s compliance with statutes and regulations governing trademark registration renewal. The court found that the Lanham Act does not expressly preclude judicial review of PTO registration renewal decisions or fairly implies congressional intent to do so. Therefore, the APA’s mechanism for judicial review remains available. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Bacardi and Company Limited v. United States Patent & Trademark Office" on Justia Law

In 2020, the Town of Hideout, Utah, took advantage of a brief window in state law that allowed municipalities to annex unincorporated areas without a petition or county consent. Hideout annexed an area in Summit County, and after receiving a certificate of annexation from the Lieutenant Governor, Summit County challenged the annexation and the related municipal ordinance in district court. The district court ruled in favor of Summit County, finding that it had standing to challenge the annexation and declaring the annexation ordinance invalid.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reversed the district court's decisions. The court found that the relevant statutory scheme, the annexation code, did not provide Summit County with a legally protectible interest that would allow it to obtain the relief it sought. The court also found that the statutory provisions outside the annexation code that Summit County relied on did not provide it with a legally protectible interest in the controversy. The court further held that the doctrine of public interest standing, on which the district court alternatively relied, was inapplicable in this case.Because the court concluded that Summit County lacked standing to pursue its claims, it also reversed the district court’s award of summary judgment in Summit County’s favor without addressing the merits of Summit County’s claims. The case was remanded to the district court for dismissal. View "Hideout v. Summit County" on Justia Law