Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Stefan Green, a South African citizen, applied for an R-1 visa to serve as a worship leader at Calvary Albuquerque, Inc., a non-profit church in New Mexico. His application was denied by a consular officer, leading Calvary to sue, alleging the denial violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The district court dismissed the suit, citing the consular nonreviewability doctrine, which generally prevents judicial review of consular officers' visa decisions.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed the case, ruling that RFRA did not authorize judicial review of the consular officer’s decision. The court also found that the consular officer provided a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the visa denial, and Calvary did not plausibly allege bad faith. The district court denied Calvary’s motion for a preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that RFRA does not expressly authorize judicial review of consular officers' visa decisions, thus upholding the consular nonreviewability doctrine. The court also concluded that even if RFRA claims could be considered under the constitutional claim exception, the consular officer provided a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denying the visa, and Calvary did not plausibly allege bad faith. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Calvary Albuquerque v. Blinken" on Justia Law

An inmate at the Lebanon Correctional Institution filed a mandamus action against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) to compel the production of records in response to his public-records requests. He also sought statutory damages and court costs. The inmate requested a memorandum regarding "Legal Dockets," a ViaPath memorandum, and commissary receipts and price lists.The inmate initially sent his request for the "Legal Dockets" memorandum to the warden’s assistant, who asked for a ten-cent payment. The inmate claimed to have submitted the payment, but the assistant stated she never received it. The inmate later received the requested memorandum after filing the mandamus action. For the ViaPath memorandum, the inmate sent his request to the prison’s mailroom department, which directed him to the warden’s assistant. The inmate did not follow up with the assistant. Similarly, for the commissary receipts and price lists, the inmate sent his request to a commissary supervisor, who also directed him to the warden’s assistant, but the inmate did not follow up.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case. The court denied the writ as moot regarding the "Legal Dockets" memorandum since the inmate received it after filing the action. The court denied the writ for the other requests because the inmate failed to show a violation of the Public Records Act, as he did not direct his requests to the appropriate person responsible for public records. The court also denied the inmate’s requests for statutory damages and court costs, finding that the evidence was evenly balanced on whether the assistant received the payment for the "Legal Dockets" memorandum, and the inmate had filed an affidavit of indigency, meaning there were no costs to award. View "State ex rel. Clark v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr." on Justia Law

The case involves the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the U.S. Department of State. TPPF sought records related to the development of the United States' 2030 emissions reduction target under the Paris Agreement, including the names and email addresses of State Department employees involved. The State Department redacted the names and email addresses, citing FOIA Exemption 6, which protects against unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the State Department, agreeing that the redacted information fell under Exemption 6. The court found that disclosing the names and email addresses of lower-level employees would not advance public understanding of the government's operations and could subject the employees to harassment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the State Department did not meet its burden of proving that the privacy interests of its employees clearly outweighed the public's interest in disclosure. The court found that the public has a right to know who participated in developing the emissions reduction target and that the employees' privacy interests were not significant enough to justify withholding their names and email addresses. The court reversed the district court's decision and rendered judgment in favor of TPPF, requiring the State Department to disclose the requested information. View "Texas Public Policy v. U.S. Dept. of State" on Justia Law

Anthology, Inc. entered into a 10-year contract with Tarrant County College District (TCCD) in June 2022 to provide Enterprise Resource Planning products and services for approximately $42 million, plus annual fees. In October 2023, TCCD terminated the contract without cause, as permitted by the contract, but refused to pay the early termination fee and demanded a refund of about $1.7 million already paid. Anthology sued TCCD in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for breach of contract.TCCD moved to dismiss the case under Federal Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing four grounds: entitlement to immunity from suit under Texas law, state sovereign immunity, lack of diversity jurisdiction, and a statutory bar on recovering damages under Texas law. The district court granted TCCD’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion, dismissing Anthology’s claims without prejudice, based on TCCD’s entitlement to immunity from suit under Texas law, without addressing the other grounds for dismissal. Anthology appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its decision. The appellate court held that state-law immunity cannot limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, which is defined by the Constitution and Congress. Therefore, the district court should not have dismissed the case based on state-law immunity without first addressing the jurisdictional issues of state sovereign immunity and the absence of complete diversity. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Anthology v. Tarrant County College District" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a sixteen-year-old, applied to the Mountaineer Challenge Academy (MCA) as an alternative to public high school. During the acclimation period, he injured his knee after exiting his bunk improperly. He was evaluated by medical personnel, placed on restricted duty, and later cleared for full duty. Subsequently, he was discharged from the program for noncompliance. Petitioner sued MCA and the West Virginia Army National Guard, alleging that their failure to enforce safety policies caused his injury and led to his unjust dismissal.The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents, citing qualified immunity. The court found that the actions of the MCA staff involved discretionary functions and did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the cadre’s supervision fell within discretionary actions and that there was no violation of the petitioner’s right to an education or any statutory duty to supervise.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the cadre’s actions were discretionary and protected by qualified immunity. It found no violation of clearly established rights or laws, as MCA is not part of the public school system and thus not subject to the same constitutional protections. The court also concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondents acted fraudulently, maliciously, or oppressively. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, upholding the grant of summary judgment in favor of the respondents. View "Moorhead v. West Virginia Army National Guard" on Justia Law

A man was injured in an accident outside city limits and sued a city and an emergency-responder employee for negligently providing assistance and aggravating his injuries. The city and employee offered the man $7,500 to settle the lawsuit, which he did not accept. They also moved for summary judgment, arguing that they could not be sued because AS 09.65.070(d)(4) does not allow lawsuits based on the “gratuitous extension of municipal services” beyond city limits. The superior court granted summary judgment in their favor, ruling that their actions were gratuitous because they were under no legal obligation to take them. The court also granted attorney’s fees to the city and employee based on a court rule that requires a party to pay the other side’s legal fees if the party rejected an offer of judgment to settle the case that was more favorable than the judgment the party ultimately received.The man appealed, arguing that the city’s emergency response was not gratuitous because he was billed a mileage fee for the ambulance service. He also argued that the city and employee were not entitled to attorney’s fees because their pretrial offer of judgment was invalid.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court held that AS 09.65.070(d)(4) bars the lawsuit because the city and employee’s actions were gratuitous, meaning they were performed without legal obligation and without charging more than the standard fee. The court also held that the offer of judgment was valid and that the superior court did not err in awarding attorney’s fees to the city and employee. The court affirmed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment and the award of attorney’s fees. View "Rochon v. City of Nome" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization challenged the United States Forest Service's approval of a forest thinning project in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington. The project aimed to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health through various treatments, including tree thinning and prescribed burns. The organization argued that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not reopening the public comment period after significant changes were made to the project following a wildfire, and by failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and the cumulative effects of the project.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service, finding that the agency had complied with NEPA requirements. The court held that the Forest Service was not required to repeat the public comment process and that the Environmental Assessment (EA) considered a reasonable range of alternatives.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the Forest Service was not required to repeat the public comment process because the changes made to the project did not pose new environmental questions or render the public's comments on the Draft EA irrelevant. The court also found that the Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives and that the use of condition-based management did not inherently violate NEPA.However, the court reversed the district court's decision regarding the cumulative effects analysis. The Ninth Circuit held that the EA's discussion of cumulative effects was insufficient because it did not consider the cumulative effects of the Twisp Restoration Project in combination with the Midnight Restoration Project, which was originally part of the same project. The court remanded the case for the district court to order the Forest Service to remedy the deficiencies in the EA and determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary. View "North Cascades Conservation Council v. Forest Service" on Justia Law

Continental Resources, Inc., an oil and gas production company, leases minerals from both the North Dakota Board of University and School Lands (Land Board) and the United States. The dispute centers on the entitlement to royalties from minerals extracted from the bed of Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota, which depends on the location of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). If North Dakota law and the state survey govern the OHWM, the Land Board is entitled to a larger percentage of the royalties; if the federal survey controls, the United States is entitled to a larger percentage.The United States removed the interpleader action to federal court and moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota denied the motion, holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a)(5), the United States waived sovereign immunity because North Dakota law created a lien in favor of the United States upon Continental severing the minerals. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States for lands retained since North Dakota's admission to the Union, applying federal law and the Corps Survey. It granted summary judgment in favor of the Land Board for lands reacquired by the United States, applying North Dakota law and the Wenck survey.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss, agreeing that the United States had a lien on the disputed minerals under North Dakota law. The court also affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Land Board, holding that North Dakota law governs the current location of the OHWM for lands reacquired by the United States. The court denied the United States' motion for judicial notice of additional documents. View "Continental Resources, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2019, the Vermont Agency of Transportation (AOT) increased the rental fees for hangar space at state-owned airports. Five tenants, who own hangar facilities at the Northeast Kingdom International Airport and the Stowe-Morrisville State Airport, appealed the rate increases to the Transportation Board. They argued that the rent increase did not comply with the terms of their leases and was arbitrary. The leases allowed AOT to adjust rent based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), current market value for the land, and maintenance costs for the airport. The tenants contended that AOT improperly considered changes outside the previous lease term.The Transportation Board consolidated the tenants' appeals and reviewed the administrative records and memoranda submitted by both parties. The Board found that AOT had invested significantly in airport improvements and conducted a market-value analysis for leased space. However, the Board noted that details of the analysis were not included in the administrative record. The Board concluded that AOT was permitted to consider changes to market value and maintenance costs outside of the prior lease term but admonished AOT to provide a clearer analysis in the future.The tenants appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing that the rent increases were arbitrary and capricious due to a lack of transparent methodology. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board's conclusion that AOT could consider changes outside the prior lease term but reversed and remanded the decision concerning the fairness of the rent increases. The Court held that the Board should have sought a complete record from AOT to determine whether the rent levels were fair and conducted a new adjudication consistent with this opinion. View "In re State Airport Hangar Lease Disputes" on Justia Law

Sentry Dynamics, Inc. (Sentry) requested a list of all property owners' names and addresses in Ada County from the Ada County Assessor’s Office. Ada County denied the request, suspecting Sentry intended to sell the data for use as a mailing or telephone list, which is prohibited under Idaho Code section 74-120(1). Sentry filed a complaint in district court seeking access to the records. The district court ordered Ada County to release the records in an electronic format of its choosing. Ada County appealed, and Sentry cross-appealed, requesting the records in the shapefile format used by the County.The district court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho ruled that the information Sentry sought was a public record and constituted a "list of persons" under Idaho Code section 74-120(1). The court held that Sentry was entitled to the records because it agreed not to use them as a mailing list. However, the court allowed Ada County to choose the electronic format for providing the records. Ada County appealed, arguing that Sentry did not assure the data would not be used for mailing list purposes by third parties. Sentry cross-appealed, seeking the records in their original shapefile format.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and held that the records requested by Sentry constituted a "list of persons" and that Ada County could require Sentry to assure that the data would not be used for mailing purposes by its clients and customers. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that paragraphs 3, 4, and 6 of Ada County’s "Acknowledgment and Agreement" form went beyond the permissible inquiry under Idaho Code section 74-102(5)(b). However, the court reversed the district court's order requiring Ada County to provide the records in an electronic format, stating that the PRA does not mandate delivery in any specific format. The court concluded that Ada County was not required to produce the records because Sentry refused to certify that neither it nor its clients would use the records as a mailing list. View "Sentry Dynamics, Inc. v. Ada County" on Justia Law