Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Houston police officers Manual Salazar and Nestor Garcia, members of the Gang Division Crime Reduction Unit, fatally shot David Anthony Salinas on July 14, 2021, following a pursuit in a sting operation. His widow, Brittany Salinas, filed a lawsuit against Officers Salazar and Garcia and the City of Houston, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Texas Tort Claims Act, and the state-created danger theory of constitutional liability.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full. The court found that Brittany Salinas had standing to bring her claims but concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that the claims against the City of Houston were meritless. Brittany Salinas timely appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Salinas based on the identifying information on his vehicle and his refusal to stop when the officers engaged their lights. The court also found that the officers did not violate Salinas' Fourth Amendment rights, as they reasonably believed he posed an immediate threat when he continuously reached within his vehicle despite their commands to show his hands. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the § 1983 claims against the officers, finding that they were entitled to qualified immunity.Regarding the claims against the City of Houston, the court found no constitutional injury and affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claims. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Texas Tort Claims Act claims, as they were foreclosed by the ruling on qualified immunity and barred by case law. The court concluded that the City of Houston's sovereign immunity had not been waived. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims. View "Salinas v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Dr. Bruce Cairns, a division chief in the Department of Surgery and Medical Director of the Jaycee Burn Center at UNC Hospitals, was sued by Dr. James Hwang, a former surgeon at the UNC Burn Center. Dr. Hwang alleged that Dr. Cairns harassed him and created a hostile work environment, leading to his resignation. The case also involved a complaint filed with the UNC School of Medicine Human Resources Department, accusing Dr. Hwang of inappropriate behavior at a going-away party. Dr. Hwang claimed that Dr. Cairns falsely accused him of misconduct, including touching female coworkers inappropriately.The Superior Court of Durham County denied Dr. Cairns's motion to dismiss, finding that he was not entitled to public official immunity. The court also denied summary judgment, citing conflicting evidence about the origin of the Human Resources complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Dr. Cairns was a public official entitled to immunity and that Dr. Hwang did not provide sufficient evidence of malice.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and determined that Dr. Cairns was not a public official entitled to public official immunity. The court found that his positions as division chief and Medical Director were not created by statute and did not involve the exercise of sovereign power. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further consideration of the parties' outstanding arguments. View "Hwang v. Cairns" on Justia Law

Carter W. Page filed a lawsuit against the United States, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and several current and former FBI officials. Page alleged that the FBI unlawfully obtained four warrants to electronically surveil him under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and leaked information obtained from these warrants to the press, causing him reputational harm and lost business opportunities. The district court dismissed Page's claims, finding them either time-barred or insufficiently pleaded.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Page's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that Page's FISA claims were time-barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations and that his claims were insufficiently pleaded. The court also dismissed Page's Patriot Act claim against the United States, with the majority concluding it was time-barred and the partial dissent finding it legally insufficient. Additionally, the court dismissed Page's Bivens claim and Privacy Act claims for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal of Page's FISA and Patriot Act claims as time-barred. The court held that Page had actual or inquiry notice of his FISA claims by April 2017, more than three years before he filed his complaint in November 2020. The court also found that Page's Patriot Act claim was barred because he failed to file his administrative claim with the FBI within two years of its accrual. The court concluded that Page had sufficient information by April 2017 to discover the basis for his claims, making them time-barred. View "Page v. Comey" on Justia Law

Bryan and Ami Hauxwell, farmers using ground and surface water for irrigation, submitted a request to pool ground water from several registered wells for the 2023-2027 allocation period. The Middle Republican Natural Resources District (NRD) denied their application, citing a rule that allows denial for any reason, including rule violations. The denial was communicated through a letter and a marked application. The Hauxwells challenged this denial, alleging it violated their constitutional rights and was arbitrary and capricious.The Hauxwells filed a petition for review with the district court for Frontier County, Nebraska, under the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act (NGWMPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They argued that the denial was contrary to a court order staying penalties previously imposed by the NRD. The NRD moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the letter was not a final agency action or an order in a contested case, and thus not subject to judicial review under the APA. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that the letter did not arise from a contested case and was not a final order of the decision-making body.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the letter denying the Hauxwells' pooling application was not an "order" as defined under the NGWMPA. The court explained that the term "order" in the NGWMPA includes orders required by the act, a rule or regulation, or a decision adopted by the board of directors of a natural resources district. However, the letter in question did not meet these criteria, as it was not issued as part of any case or proceeding and was not required by any specific authority. Consequently, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD" on Justia Law

Bryan and Ami Hauxwell, farmers using ground and surface water for irrigation, were involved in a dispute with the Middle Republican Natural Resources District (NRD) over alleged violations of the NRD’s rules and regulations. The NRD claimed the Hauxwells used ground water to irrigate uncertified acres, failed to install flowmeters, and used non-compliant flowmeters. The NRD issued a cease-and-desist order and penalties after a 2020 hearing, where the NRD’s general manager and counsel participated in the board’s deliberations.The Hauxwells challenged the 2020 findings in the district court for Frontier County, which ruled in their favor, citing due process violations and remanded the case. In 2021, the NRD issued a new complaint and held another hearing, excluding the general manager and counsel from deliberations. The board again found violations but deferred penalties to a later hearing. The district court dismissed the Hauxwells' challenge to the 2021 findings, stating it was not a final order as penalties were not yet determined.In 2022, the NRD held a hearing to determine penalties, resulting in restrictions on the Hauxwells' water use. The Hauxwells filed another petition for review, arguing that the 2020 due process violations tainted the subsequent hearings. The district court agreed, reversing the NRD’s 2022 findings and vacating the penalties.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in concluding that the 2020 due process violations tainted the 2021 and 2022 hearings. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with directions to address the other claims in the Hauxwells' petition for review. The court emphasized that the NRD’s actions in 2021 and 2022 were separate and not influenced by the 2020 hearing’s procedural issues. View "Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD" on Justia Law

A group of parents sued their local public school district and the State of Michigan, alleging that their children were denied essential special-education services. The parents claimed that the school district failed to provide promised services, such as full-time aides and speech therapy, and that the State failed to supervise the district adequately. The parents sought damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, and injunctive relief under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ADA, and Rehabilitation Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the State's motion to dismiss, holding that the ADA abrogated the State's sovereign immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment. The State then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the parents failed to state a claim against the State under Title II of the ADA. The court explained that Title II allows lawsuits against a public entity for its own actions, not for the actions of another government entity. In this case, the school district, not the State, was responsible for the alleged denial of services. The court also noted that the State had already taken corrective actions against the school district and that the parents' claims of the State's failure to supervise were too conclusory to proceed. Therefore, the State was entitled to sovereign immunity, and the parents' ADA claim against the State was dismissed. View "Y.A. v. Hamtramck Public Schools" on Justia Law

The Attorney General of Arkansas sued the Arkansas Board of Corrections for violating the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The complaint alleged that the Board violated the open-meetings provision of the FOIA and failed to adequately respond to the Attorney General’s open-records request. The Attorney General sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including enjoining the Board’s employment of special counsel. The circuit court ordered the Attorney General to either certify special counsel for the Board or reach an accommodation regarding the Board’s legal representation within thirty days, or the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice. The Attorney General argued that he could not legally comply with the court’s order.The Pulaski County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice after the Attorney General failed to comply with the order. The court found that the Attorney General had not made material and good faith efforts to help the Board obtain special counsel and cited email correspondence showing a lack of communication with the Board’s current special counsel. The Attorney General appealed the dismissal, arguing that he could not legally comply with the court’s order.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and held that the Attorney General could not legally comply with the circuit court’s order. The court found that the Attorney General had no statutory duty to represent the Board until the Board certified its need for representation. Additionally, the Attorney General alone could not authorize or pay for special counsel without approval from the Governor and the Legislative Council. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order dismissing the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court also denied the Attorney General’s motion to disqualify the Board’s special counsel without prejudice, allowing the circuit court to address the issue on remand. View "GRIFFIN v. ARKANSAS BOARD OF CORRECTIONS" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over whether certain information about deceased individuals, retained and indexed by the New York State Department of Health (DOH), should be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The DOH already publishes an online database with limited information for deaths from 1957 to 1972. The petitioner, Reclaim the Records, requested disclosure of the same categories of information and any additional indexed information for deaths from all available years through 2017.The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered DOH to disclose the records, with social security numbers redacted. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the petition, concluding that the additional fields of information for deaths from 1957 to 1972, and all information from 1973 to 2017, were exempt from disclosure under Public Health Law § 4174 (1) (a) and that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that DOH must disclose the same categories of information it already publishes online for deaths from 1957 to 1972 for all years through 2017. The court held that DOH had not shown that any exemption applies to these categories of information. However, the court also held that disclosure of a decedent's medical history, cause of death, location of interment, and whether they were buried, cremated, or made an anatomical gift would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and is therefore exempt from disclosure under FOIL. The court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court to determine whether DOH must disclose additional portions of its death indices containing other fields of information not addressed in the decision. View "Matter of Reclaim the Records v New York State Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

In 2019, New York City enacted Local Law No. 97, requiring significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from large buildings, aiming for a 40% reduction by 2030 and an 80% reduction by 2050, relative to 2005 levels. Shortly after, New York State passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act), targeting a 100% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, with an interim goal of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Act tasked the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) with setting statewide emissions limits and established a Climate Action Council to develop a Scoping Plan for achieving these targets.Plaintiffs, representing residential buildings subject to Local Law No. 97, filed a declaratory judgment action claiming the local law was preempted by the Climate Act. The defendants, including the City of New York and its Department of Buildings, moved to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint entirely. However, the Appellate Division modified this decision, denying the motion regarding the preemption claim and affirming the rest. The Appellate Division held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the Climate Act did not preempt Local Law No. 97.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court held that the Climate Act does not preempt the field of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The Court emphasized that the Climate Act's legislative findings and savings clause indicate an intent to allow complementary local regulations. The Court concluded that the State did not express or imply an intent to preempt local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and thus, Local Law No. 97 is not preempted by the Climate Act. The certified question was answered in the negative, and the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. View "Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc. v City of New York" on Justia Law

Five individuals experienced significant delays in receiving food assistance (SNAP or P-EBT), TANF, or Medicaid benefits. Each requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The ALJs directed the District of Columbia Department of Human Services (DHS) to provide the correct benefits to the claimants, which was eventually done. However, the ALJs also issued orders requiring DHS to correct an "unlawful policy" related to delays caused by internal computer errors or faulty programs.The ALJs' orders were based on the assumption that the delays were due to a systemic issue with DHS's computer systems. DHS representatives mentioned various reasons for the delays, including confusion, human error, and the need for IT tickets to resolve specific issues. In some cases, the delays were attributed to problems with external agencies, such as the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE). Despite these explanations, the ALJs issued broad orders for DHS to correct its policies.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the records did not support the conclusion that the delays were due to a DHS policy or systemic computer errors. The court noted that the ALJs did not hold evidentiary hearings or gather substantial evidence to support their findings. The court also found that the ALJs overstepped their authority by issuing broad injunctive relief without a demonstrated need for such measures.The court vacated the challenged orders, concluding that there was no substantial evidence of a DHS policy causing the delays and that the ALJs had not followed proper procedures in issuing their orders. The court emphasized the need for ALJs to base their decisions on substantial evidence and to consider whether broad injunctive relief is necessary. View "District of Columbia Dep't of Human Services v. Butler" on Justia Law