Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Adrianne Cotton filed a charge of discrimination against the Montana Department of Corrections (DOC), alleging retaliation for protected activity when her position was eliminated. Cotton had been employed by DOC since 2011 and held the position of government relations director. She reported concerns about the conduct of DOC Director Reginald Michael in 2017, which led to an investigation. Subsequently, an organizational assessment recommended eliminating Cotton's position, among others, due to budgetary and structural issues.The case was first reviewed by Hearing Officer Holien, who held a contested case hearing and found that DOC had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for eliminating Cotton's position and did not retaliate against her. Cotton appealed to the Human Rights Commission, which rejected Holien's conclusions of law, citing the temporal proximity between Cotton's protected activity and the adverse employment action as sufficient evidence of retaliation. The Commission did not find that Holien's findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence.The case was then reviewed by the District Court of the First Judicial District, which found that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority by reweighing the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the hearing officer. The District Court reversed the Commission's order and reinstated Holien's decision as the final agency decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court held that the Commission had abused its discretion by not adhering to the proper standard of review and by reweighing evidence that supported Holien's findings. The Supreme Court concluded that the District Court did not err in reinstating Holien's findings as the final agency decision, as they were supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Cotton v. Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research (Appellant) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) seeking documents related to the removal of COVID-19 sequencing data from the NIH Sequence Read Archive. The Appellant alleged that NIH failed to meet FOIA statutory deadlines, conducted inadequate searches, and improperly withheld documents.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of NIH. The court found that NIH's searches were adequate and that the documents were properly withheld under FOIA exemptions five and six. The Appellant appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that there is no standalone cause of action for a violation of FOIA deadlines, and the remedy for such a violation is constructive administrative exhaustion, which allows the requester to proceed directly to court. The court also found that NIH's searches were reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents, as detailed in the declarations submitted by NIH's FOIA officer. The court further held that the redactions made by NIH under FOIA exemptions five and six were proper. Exemption five protects pre-decisional and deliberative documents, and exemption six protects personal privacy interests, which outweighed the public interest in this case.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to NIH, concluding that NIH complied with its FOIA obligations. View "Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research v. National Institutes of Health" on Justia Law

Capstone Logistics, LLC, a company providing labor to other businesses, began supplying auditors to Associated Wholesale Grocers in 2019. The auditors, including Joyce Henson, were responsible for checking groceries and ensuring order accuracy. Henson, hired as lead auditor, raised concerns about safety, training, and pay on behalf of the auditors. She also contacted Donny Rouse, a major customer, about her pay. After a meeting with Capstone officials, Henson sent a LinkedIn message to Rouse about the auditors' pay issues. Following a brief interaction with Associated Wholesale Grocers' Director Chris Griffin, Henson was terminated by Capstone's Vice President Tim Casey.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against Capstone, alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) for discharging Henson due to her protected concerted activities. An administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the allegations, finding no sufficient causal connection between Henson's protected activities and her termination. The ALJ concluded that Henson's termination was more likely due to her efforts to secure better compensation for herself.The NLRB reversed the ALJ's decision, finding that Henson was discharged for engaging in protected concerted activity by sending the LinkedIn message to Rouse and because Capstone believed she had engaged in such activity during her conversation with Griffin. Capstone petitioned for review, and the NLRB cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found insufficient evidence to support the NLRB's finding that Capstone discharged Henson for sending the LinkedIn message. However, the court affirmed the NLRB's alternative determination that Capstone violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by discharging Henson because it believed she had engaged in protected concerted activity. The court denied Capstone's petition for review and granted the NLRB's cross-application to enforce its order. View "Capstone Logistics v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

In June 2019, the petitioner's 13-year-old daughter, T., disclosed to a friend, a teacher, a police officer, and a caseworker from the New York City Administration for Children's Services (ACS) that the petitioner had struck her with an extension cord. The caseworker took photographs of T.'s injuries, and a physician confirmed that the injuries were consistent with being struck by an extension cord. ACS initiated a Family Court article 10 neglect proceeding against the petitioner and her husband. The Family Court authorized an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD), and the case was dismissed in February 2020 after the petitioner complied with the court's conditions.The police officer reported the incident to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR). In July 2019, ACS determined the report against the petitioner was indicated. The petitioner challenged this determination, but the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) upheld it after an internal review. A fair hearing was held in August 2020, and OCFS concluded that the allegations were substantiated by a fair preponderance of the evidence.The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge OCFS's determination. The Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division, which confirmed OCFS's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding. The Appellate Division held that the petitioner had no constitutional right to assigned counsel during the SCR hearing and that the statutory changes to Social Services Law § 422 did not apply retroactively.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court held that the petitioner had no constitutional right to assigned counsel during the SCR administrative hearing. It also concluded that the statutory amendments to Social Services Law § 422 (8) (b) (ii) did not apply retroactively to OCFS determinations rendered before the effective date of the amendments. The Court further held that OCFS's determination was supported by substantial evidence. View "Matter of Jeter v. Poole" on Justia Law

On February 9, 2017, a bus owned and operated by New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) allegedly struck and injured Jeffrey Colt in Manhattan. Colt and his wife, Betsy Tsai, filed a lawsuit on September 18, 2017, claiming negligence, negligent hiring, and loss of consortium. NJT and its employee, Ana Hernandez, who was driving the bus, denied many of the allegations and asserted various defenses, including a lack of jurisdiction and immunity from suit. In 2020, NJT moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity as an arm of the State of New Jersey.The Supreme Court of New York County denied NJT's motion, ruling that NJT had waived its right to assert sovereign immunity by waiting three years to raise the defense. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision but on different grounds, concluding that NJT was an arm of the State of New Jersey and entitled to sovereign immunity. However, it held that dismissing the case would be unjust since the plaintiffs could not sue in New Jersey due to venue rules.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division's order but on different grounds. The Court of Appeals held that NJT is not entitled to invoke sovereign immunity in New York courts. The court considered factors such as how New Jersey defines NJT and its functions, the state's power to direct NJT's conduct, and the effect of a judgment against NJT on the state's dignity. The court concluded that allowing the suit to proceed would not offend New Jersey's sovereign dignity because NJT operates with significant independence and New Jersey would not be liable for a judgment against NJT. Therefore, NJT and the other defendants could not claim sovereign immunity. View "Colt v. New Jersey Tr. Corp." on Justia Law

Alpine Securities Corporation, a securities broker-dealer and member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), faced sanctions from FINRA in 2022 for violating its rules. FINRA imposed a cease-and-desist order and sought to expel Alpine from membership. Alpine challenged the constitutionality of FINRA in federal court, arguing that FINRA's expedited expulsion process violated the private nondelegation doctrine and the Appointments Clause.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Alpine's request for a preliminary injunction to halt FINRA's expedited proceeding. The court held that FINRA is a private entity, not subject to the Appointments Clause, and that the SEC's ability to review FINRA's decisions satisfied the private nondelegation doctrine.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Alpine demonstrated a likelihood of success on its private nondelegation claim, as FINRA's expulsion orders take effect immediately without prior SEC review, effectively barring Alpine from the securities industry. The court held that this lack of governmental oversight likely violates the private nondelegation doctrine. The court also found that Alpine faced irreparable harm if expelled before SEC review, as it would be forced out of business.The court reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, instructing it to enjoin FINRA from expelling Alpine until the SEC reviews any expulsion order or the time for Alpine to seek SEC review lapses. However, the court did not grant a preliminary injunction on Alpine's Appointments Clause claims, as Alpine did not demonstrate irreparable harm from participating in FINRA's expedited proceeding itself. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's findings. View "Alpine Securities Corporation v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc." on Justia Law

The City of Obetz initiated a mandamus and prohibition action against Franklin County Auditor Michael Stinziano and Franklin County Treasurer Cheryl Brooks Sullivan. The dispute arose from a tax-increment-financing (TIF) arrangement established by Obetz in 1997. Obetz erroneously received TIF proceeds in 2015, 2016, and 2017. To correct this, Obetz returned some funds to the county, but the county also withheld Obetz's real-property-tax distribution for the first half of 2022 and reallocated it to other taxing jurisdictions.The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas initially reviewed the case, where Obetz sought to compel the county to return the funds it had tendered and to pay future settlement distributions without setoff. The lower court's decision led to the current appeal.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. The court held that Obetz was not entitled to the return of the $212,963.01 it had voluntarily paid to the county. Additionally, the court denied Obetz's request for the county to pay $194,944.32, which had been withheld and reallocated to other jurisdictions. However, the court granted a limited writ of mandamus, compelling the county to pay future settlement distributions to Obetz without setoff. The court found that the county did not have the authority under R.C. 319.44, R.C. 323.133(B), R.C. 5713.08, or R.C. 5715.22 to withhold future settlement funds from Obetz. The court also denied Obetz's request for a writ of prohibition, as the county's actions did not constitute the exercise of judicial power. View "State ex rel. Obetz v. Stinziano" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of a statutory provision requiring the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC) to provide immediate temporary emergency shelter to families who appear to be eligible based on their statements and information already in the agency's possession. The plaintiffs, representing a class of individuals, argued that HLC's requirement for third-party verification of identity, familial relationship, and Massachusetts residency at the time of initial application for emergency assistance shelter was contrary to the statutory language.The Superior Court judge ruled that HLC could not require third-party verification of Massachusetts residency but could require verification of family status and identity, except for pregnant women. Both parties appealed this decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and concluded that the plain language of the statutory provision did not permit HLC to require third-party verification at the time of initial application. The court emphasized that the statute mandates immediate provision of shelter based on the family's statements and information in HLC's possession, without delay. The court found that the requirement for third-party verification at the initial application stage would contradict the statute's intent to provide immediate temporary shelter to those in need.The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Superior Court's judgment to the extent it allowed HLC to require third-party verifications before providing shelter under the immediate placement proviso. The judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "Garcia v. Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities" on Justia Law

Mark Johnson sued the Clarksdale Public Utilities Authority (CPU) and its members in federal district court, alleging he was fired for reporting inefficiency and incompetence to the state auditor. His initial complaint asserted retaliation under the Mississippi Whistleblower Protection Act (MWPA), later amended to include First Amendment retaliation and breach of contract. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the district court granted, holding that Johnson failed to comply with the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) notice requirements and that the MWPA claim was barred by the MTCA’s one-year statute of limitations. The court also found Johnson’s First Amendment and breach-of-contract claims time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether the MTCA’s procedural requirements apply to MWPA claims. The defendants argued that the MTCA’s broad application and limited immunity waiver necessitate compliance with its procedural requirements for MWPA claims. Johnson countered that the MWPA provides a separate right to monetary relief and should not be subject to the MTCA’s requirements.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the certified question from the Fifth Circuit. The court concluded that the MWPA is a remedial statute separate from the MTCA. The MWPA does not prescribe a statute of limitations or notice requirement, and the reference to the MTCA’s damages cap does not incorporate its procedural requirements. Therefore, the court held that MWPA claims are not subject to the MTCA’s statute of limitations and notice requirements. The certified question was answered accordingly. View "Johnson v. Miller" on Justia Law

A Puerto Rico agency, the Milk Industry Regulatory Office (ORIL), revoked a dairy farmer's license and ordered him to sell his milk production quota rights. When the farmer, Luis Manuel Ruiz Ruiz, failed to comply, ORIL planned to auction the quota rights. Ruiz, who had filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy in 2015, argued that the auction violated the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code.The bankruptcy court enjoined ORIL from auctioning the quota without court permission, finding that the planned auction violated the automatic stay. The court granted partial summary judgment to Ruiz, determining that ORIL's actions were not protected by the police power exception. ORIL appealed to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, which affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, agreeing that the police power exception did not apply.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that ORIL's plan to auction Ruiz's milk quota fell within the police power exception to the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). The court reasoned that the auction was part of enforcing a judgment obtained in an action to enforce ORIL's regulatory power, which is not a money judgment. The court emphasized that ORIL's actions were aimed at protecting public health and welfare by regulating milk production and distribution, rather than advancing a pecuniary interest.The First Circuit reversed the judgments of the bankruptcy and district courts, directing judgment in favor of ORIL. The court concluded that ORIL's planned auction did not violate the automatic stay and was protected by the police power exception. View "Milk Industry Regulatory Office v. Ruiz Ruiz" on Justia Law