Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In 2023, the Maine Legislature enacted the Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, requiring employers to remit quarterly premiums into a state fund beginning January 1, 2025. The program allows covered individuals to take up to twelve weeks of leave for qualifying reasons, with benefits paid from the fund. Employers may apply to substitute an approved private plan that provides substantially equivalent benefits, which exempts them from further premium payments. The Maine Department of Labor adopted rules implementing the PFML program, including a provision that all employers must pay nonrefundable premiums for the first quarter of 2025, even if they later obtain approval for a private plan. Employers could begin applying for private plan approval after April 1, 2025, due to the time needed for insurers to develop compliant policies.The Maine State Chamber of Commerce and Bath Iron Works challenged the Department’s rule requiring nonrefundable premiums, arguing it conflicted with the PFML Act and constituted an unconstitutional taking under both the Maine and U.S. Constitutions. The Kennebec County Superior Court accepted a consented-to motion to report three legal questions to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court: whether the rule conflicted with the Act or was arbitrary and capricious, and whether it constituted a taking under state or federal law.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court accepted the report and held that the Department’s rules do not conflict with the PFML Act and are not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful. The Court found that the statute unambiguously requires employers to remit premiums until a private plan is approved, and the rules reasonably implement the legislative intent. Additionally, the Court determined that the obligation to pay premiums does not constitute a cognizable taking of private property under either the Maine or U.S. Constitution. The Court answered all three reported questions in the negative and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Maine State Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Several groups of plaintiffs sought to access approximately $3.5 billion in assets held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the name of Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB), the central bank of Afghanistan. The first group, the Pre-Judgment Plaintiffs, sought to confirm a pre-judgment attachment order on these funds to secure potential future judgments against the Taliban for its alleged role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa. The second group, the Judgment Plaintiffs, who already held judgments against the Taliban for its role in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, sought turnover of the same funds to satisfy their judgments. The assets in question were blocked by the U.S. government after the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in August 2021, but the United States has not recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Valerie E. Caproni denied the Pre-Judgment Plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the attachment, finding that DAB’s funds were immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Judge George B. Daniels denied the Judgment Plaintiffs’ turnover motions, concluding that the FSIA and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) did not permit turnover of the funds, and that DAB was not an agency or instrumentality of the Taliban for TRIA purposes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed both district court orders. The court held that DAB, as the central bank of Afghanistan, is an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state recognized by the Executive Branch, and thus its assets are immune from attachment and execution under the FSIA. The court further held that while the TRIA abrogates FSIA immunity and provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction, DAB was not an agency or instrumentality of the Taliban at the time the assets were blocked. Therefore, the TRIA did not apply, and the plaintiffs could not access the funds. View "Havlish v. Taliban" on Justia Law

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted two rules intended to increase transparency in the securities lending and short sale markets. Securities lending involves temporarily transferring securities from a lender to a borrower for a fee, and is closely tied to short selling, where investors sell securities they do not own, hoping to profit from a price decline. The SEC found both markets to be opaque, making regulatory oversight difficult. To address this, the SEC, under authority from the Dodd-Frank Act, promulgated the Securities Lending Rule (requiring prompt reporting of securities loans) and the Short Sale Rule (mandating monthly aggregate reporting of short sale positions by institutional investment managers).The petitioners, associations representing institutional investment managers, challenged both rules before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. They argued that the rules were arbitrary and capricious, exceeded the SEC’s statutory authority, conflicted with each other, and that the SEC failed to consider their cumulative economic impact. They also raised procedural objections, including inadequate opportunity for public comment and concerns about the extraterritorial application of the Short Sale Rule. The SEC defended its process and statutory authority, maintaining that the rules addressed distinct regulatory gaps and that its economic analysis was sufficient.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC acted within its statutory authority in adopting both rules and provided adequate opportunity for public comment. The court also found that the SEC reasonably explained its choices regarding reporting systems and that the Short Sale Rule did not have impermissible extraterritorial reach. However, the court concluded that the SEC failed to consider and quantify the cumulative economic impact of the two interrelated rules, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act and the Exchange Act. The court granted the petition for review in part and remanded both rules to the SEC for further proceedings on this issue, while denying the remainder of the petition. View "Natl Assoc Priv Fund Mgr v. SEC" on Justia Law

The case concerns a former CEO of a Texas credit union who was removed from his position after the credit union was placed into conservatorship by state authorities, with the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) appointed as conservator. The NCUA terminated the CEO, seized property, and allegedly withheld post-termination benefits. The CEO initially sued in Texas state court for those benefits. Before the credit union responded to that suit, the NCUA initiated an administrative enforcement action against him. In response, the CEO filed a federal lawsuit challenging the NCUA’s authority and the constitutionality of the administrative proceedings, raising claims about the removal protections for the administrative law judge, the lack of a jury trial, due process, and the non-delegation doctrine.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the federal suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that 12 U.S.C. § 1786(k)(1) explicitly precludes district court jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin or otherwise affect NCUA enforcement proceedings. The district court reasoned that the statutory language was clear and that any challenge to the administrative process must proceed through the statutory review scheme, which provides for review in the courts of appeals after the agency action is final.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that § 1786(k)(1) explicitly precludes district court jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin or otherwise affect NCUA enforcement actions, relying on its recent decision in Burgess v. Whang and Supreme Court precedent interpreting similar statutory language. The court rejected the argument that Congress must specifically reference 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to preclude federal question jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Moats v. Natl Crdt Un Admin Bd" on Justia Law

Cornelius Burgess, the former CEO of Herring Bank, was the subject of a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) enforcement action that began with an investigation in 2010 and formal proceedings in 2014. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended in 2017 that Burgess be removed from his position, barred from the banking industry, and fined $200,000. The FDIC Board adopted this recommendation, but the enforcement order was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. SEC, which addressed the constitutionality of ALJ appointments. After Lucia, the case was remanded for a new hearing before a properly appointed ALJ, who again recommended the same sanctions in 2022. Before the FDIC Board could issue its final order, Burgess filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking to enjoin the Board from issuing its decision on constitutional grounds.The district court found it had jurisdiction to hear Burgess’s claims despite 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(1), which generally precludes such jurisdiction. The court denied injunctive relief on Burgess’s claims regarding unconstitutional removal protections for the Board and ALJs, finding he had not shown harm from those provisions. However, it granted an injunction based on his Seventh Amendment claim, concluding he was likely to succeed on the merits and that the other factors for injunctive relief were met. The FDIC appealed the injunction, and Burgess cross-appealed the denial of relief on his removal claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(1) explicitly strips district courts of subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin or otherwise affect the issuance or enforcement of FDIC orders, including on constitutional grounds. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of injunctive relief and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, declining to reach the merits of Burgess’s constitutional claims. View "Burgess v. Whang" on Justia Law

Two individuals alleged that the Arizona Department of Revenue, through its Unclaimed Property Act (UPA), unlawfully took possession of checks owed to them by various businesses. Under the UPA, property presumed abandoned is transferred from the holder to the state, which then lists it on a public website but does not provide direct notice to the apparent owners. The plaintiffs claimed that this process constituted an unlawful taking without just compensation and a deprivation of property without due process, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case. It found that the defendants were protected by sovereign immunity and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief, both for retrospective and prospective relief. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing because they alleged a concrete injury: the state’s possession of their property without consent. The court also determined that sovereign immunity did not bar the claims, as the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and alleged unconstitutional conduct. On the merits, the Ninth Circuit held that the takings claim failed as a matter of law because property held in trust by the state is not considered “taken.” However, the court found that the plaintiffs stated a viable due process claim, as they plausibly alleged a property interest and that Arizona’s notice procedures were constitutionally inadequate under circuit precedent. The court affirmed the dismissal of the takings claim, reversed the dismissal of the due process claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "GARZA V. WOODS" on Justia Law

A group of bar owners and employees in North Carolina challenged a series of executive orders issued by the Governor during the COVID-19 pandemic. These orders required bars to remain closed for over 400 days, while allowing other businesses, including restaurants, breweries, and wineries, to reopen under certain restrictions. The plaintiffs argued that this differential treatment lacked a meaningful public health justification and violated their constitutional and statutory rights. They also sought records supporting the Governor’s decisions and claimed entitlement to compensation under the Emergency Management Act.In the Superior Court, Wake County, the trial judge denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and granted the Governor’s motion to dismiss, finding that the executive orders were reasonable and based on scientific data. The trial court also dismissed the statutory claims, concluding that the Emergency Management Act did not provide compensation for mere restrictions on business operations and that the Public Records Act claim was moot because the requested records had been produced. The North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that the trial court had effectively granted summary judgment and vacated that order on the constitutional claims, remanding for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals applied rational basis review to the Fruits of Labor claim and strict scrutiny to the Equal Protection claim, finding the Governor’s actions unjustified under both standards. It affirmed dismissal of the statutory claims.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. It held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the Fruits of Labor claim and that the proper legal standard, as clarified in Ace Speedway, is not rational basis but a fact-intensive inquiry into whether the government’s action was reasonably necessary to promote a public good. The Court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ remand for further proceedings on this claim, allowing additional discovery. However, it reversed the Court of Appeals’ application of strict scrutiny to the Equal Protection claim, holding that rational basis review applies to economic regulations not involving a suspect class or fundamental right. The Court affirmed dismissal of the statutory claims, finding no entitlement to compensation under the Emergency Management Act and no jurisdiction for the Public Records Act claim due to failure to complete required mediation. View "Bar and Tavern Ass'n v. Stein" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, after consuming a significant amount of alcohol and becoming heavily intoxicated, joined a group of friends at a municipal golf course and later proceeded to the driving range. While at the driving range, the plaintiff sat in a golf cart, distracted by his phone and unaware of his surroundings. The cart’s exact position was disputed, but evidence showed it was in or near the range of play. Defendant Hendricks, one of the group, hit a golf ball from the tee-off area, which struck the plaintiff in the eye, causing serious injury. The plaintiff did not see the ball coming and was unaware of the risk due to his lack of attention and intoxication.The plaintiff filed a negligence suit in the Superior Court, Wilson County, against both Hendricks and the City of Wilson, alleging negligent conduct and inadequate safety measures. Both defendants raised contributory negligence as a defense, and the City also asserted governmental immunity. The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants, finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The plaintiff appealed, and a divided panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiff’s lack of situational awareness, due in part to intoxication and distraction, barred recovery. The majority also found no genuine issue of material fact regarding the cart’s location or movement and declined to address governmental immunity.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because the risk of injury was open and obvious, and a reasonably prudent person would have recognized and avoided the danger. The Court did not address the issue of governmental immunity, as contributory negligence was dispositive. View "Moseley v. Hendricks" on Justia Law

A group of bar owners and operators in North Carolina challenged a series of executive orders issued by the Governor in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These orders initially required bars to close statewide, then imposed restrictions that effectively prevented them from operating, such as prohibiting onsite consumption of alcohol and limiting service to outdoor areas only. Some bars could not reopen at all due to lack of outdoor space, while others found the restrictions made operation unprofitable. The restrictions lasted for approximately nine months, during which time the plaintiffs allege they were forced to remain closed or operate at a loss.After the Governor allowed bars to fully reopen, the plaintiffs filed suit in Superior Court, Carteret County, alleging that the executive orders violated their fundamental rights to earn a living under the North Carolina Constitution. They sought damages and other relief. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that sovereign immunity barred the claims. The trial court denied the motion in part, allowing the constitutional claims to proceed. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs had stated colorable constitutional claims and that sovereign immunity did not bar their action.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. It held that, under established precedent, plaintiffs may bring direct constitutional claims against the state when they allege a violation of their rights and lack an adequate alternative remedy. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently alleged facts that, if proven, could support violations of their rights to earn a living under the Fruits of Their Own Labor Clause and the Law of the Land Clause. The Court also clarified that plaintiffs are not required to plead that they seek the least intrusive remedy at this stage. The decision of the Court of Appeals was modified and affirmed. View "Howell v. Cooper" on Justia Law

An employee of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, responsible for training and certifying school bus drivers, was terminated after admitting to recertifying five bus drivers without conducting the required ride-along observations. The Department asserted that this conduct violated a criminal statute, N.C.G.S. § 20-34.1, which makes it a felony for an employee to knowingly enter false information concerning a driver’s license or special identification card into department records, and mandates dismissal for such violations. The Department argued that the false information about school bus driver certificates fell within the statute’s scope.The employee challenged his termination before the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the statute did not apply because the information at issue concerned school bus driver certificates, not driver’s licenses, and concluded that the Department failed to prove just cause for termination. The Department appealed, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the ALJ’s decision. The Court of Appeals reasoned that, since a school bus driver must have both a commercial driver’s license and a school bus driver’s certificate, false information about the certificate was “concerning a driver’s license,” especially since the information was entered into the same database as driver’s license records. The Court of Appeals did not address the just cause issue, finding the statutory violation dispositive.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case and clarified that courts must apply de novo review to questions of statutory interpretation, expressly rejecting any rule requiring deference to agency interpretations of state statutes. The Court held that N.C.G.S. § 20-34.1 does not apply to false information concerning school bus driver certificates, as the statute is limited to driver’s licenses and special identification cards. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded for consideration of the remaining issues. View "Savage v. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law