Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A small convenience store in downtown Los Angeles, owned by an individual, participated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and served many customers who used electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards. In early 2022, the Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture detected suspicious patterns in the store’s SNAP transactions. Over six months, the store processed hundreds of unusually large transactions, nearly 200 transactions that depleted a household’s monthly benefits in one day, numerous rapid consecutive transactions by the same household, and many transactions for the same dollar amount. Following a physical inspection and review of these patterns, the Agency charged the store with trafficking in SNAP benefits, meaning exchanging benefits for cash or non-eligible goods.After receiving a charge letter and providing a response that generally denied wrongdoing and offered explanations for customer behavior, the store was permanently disqualified from SNAP by the Agency. The owner and the store sought administrative review and submitted additional documents, including affidavits and receipts, but the Agency upheld its decision. The plaintiffs then filed for judicial review in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The government moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs relied on much of the same evidence previously submitted. The district court granted summary judgment for the government, finding that the plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether trafficking had occurred.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that the government’s evidence established suspicious transaction patterns supporting an inference of SNAP trafficking and that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute as to the legitimacy of the flagged transactions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the government. View "BROTHERS MARKET LLC NO. 2 V. USA" on Justia Law

William Johnson drowned while swimming at a recreation center pool owned and operated by the City of Cleveland. At the time, the lifeguard on duty, Nieemah Hameed, was seated in a folding chair on the pool deck rather than in an available elevated lifeguard chair, citing discomfort as her reason for not using the elevated chair. After Johnson failed to resurface while swimming, Hameed and another lifeguard attempted resuscitation, but Johnson died. The cause of death was determined to be drowning due to a seizure.The executor of Johnson’s estate filed a wrongful death and survivorship action against the city and the lifeguard. The city asserted political subdivision immunity under Ohio law and argued Johnson had signed a waiver of liability. The plaintiff countered that an exception to immunity applied under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4), claiming the use of a folding chair instead of the elevated lifeguard chair constituted a “physical defect” on the pool grounds. The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas denied Cleveland’s motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on its own precedent that the use of a low chair could create a material factual dispute as to whether a physical defect existed.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and held that the choice to use a folding chair rather than an elevated lifeguard chair does not amount to a “physical defect” under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4). The court found no evidence of a tangible imperfection in the lifeguard chair or pool area that would remove the city’s immunity. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals and ordered the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the City of Cleveland. View "Hoskins v. Cleveland" on Justia Law

A driver was stopped by California Highway Patrol officers after being observed swerving and speeding at over 100 miles per hour. During the stop, officers noted signs of alcohol impairment and, after field sobriety tests, arrested the driver for driving under the influence. The driver refused to take a chemical test after being properly advised that refusal would result in a one-year suspension of his license. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) subsequently suspended his license for refusal. At the requested administrative hearing, the DMV hearing officer introduced evidence, ruled on objections, and asked one clarifying question. The hearing officer, following the DMV’s updated policy, stated she was acting as a neutral fact-finder and not as an advocate for the DMV.The driver petitioned the Superior Court of Alameda County for a writ of mandate, arguing that the hearing officer’s combination of functions—introducing evidence and adjudicating—violated his due process rights by creating an appearance of bias. The superior court denied the petition, finding no due process violation.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court held that the DMV’s current policy, which instructs hearing officers to act solely as neutral decision-makers and not as advocates, does not violate due process. The court reaffirmed that due process requires proof of an actual, unacceptable risk of bias, not merely the appearance of bias. The combination of evidence development and adjudication by a neutral officer is permissible unless there are extraordinary circumstances demonstrating a disqualifying interest. The judgment of the superior court was affirmed. The holding is that, under the DMV’s present structure and policy, there is no due process violation where a neutral hearing officer performs both evidentiary and adjudicative functions in administrative license suspension hearings. View "Chi v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

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