Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A Swiss healthcare company entered into a contract with the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to modernize and operate a medical clinic. After the relationship deteriorated, with Equatorial Guinea refusing to allow the company to run the clinic, the company initiated arbitration in Switzerland and was awarded damages. The parties settled the first arbitration, but the company later sought further damages in a second arbitration. Equatorial Guinea challenged the arbitrators’ jurisdiction, arguing that the contract’s dispute-resolution clause required the company to first seek relief in Equatoguinean courts before pursuing international arbitration. The arbitral panel found the clause ambiguous but ultimately concluded that exhaustion of local remedies was not required and awarded the company over $9 million.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the company’s petition to confirm the arbitral award. The court found it had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s arbitration exception. On the merits, the court deferred to the arbitrators’ interpretation of the dispute-resolution clause, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina, and confirmed the award.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed that the district court had jurisdiction but disagreed with its deferential approach to the arbitrators’ interpretation of the dispute-resolution clause. The appellate court held that, in this context, the question of whether exhaustion of local remedies was required is a substantive arbitrability issue for courts, not arbitrators, to decide. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve the proper interpretation of the dispute-resolution clause. View "Marseille-Kliniken AG v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea" on Justia Law

Texas submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2012, asserting that its emissions did not significantly contribute to ozone pollution in downwind states and therefore no additional mitigation was necessary. The SIP included charts of declining ozone levels in certain metropolitan areas, a brief discussion of wind patterns, a map of 2010 ozone levels, and some raw measurement data, but did not analyze or quantify Texas’s impact on other states’ air quality. Texas’s submission focused on areas geographically close to Texas and did not address whether its emissions might interfere with maintenance of air quality standards in other states.After determining the SIP was technically complete, the EPA delayed substantive review pending the Supreme Court’s decision in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., which clarified the agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act’s Good Neighbor Provision. During the delay, EPA provided Texas with updated modeling data showing that Texas emissions contributed to downwind ozone problems, but Texas did not supplement its SIP. In 2016, EPA formally disapproved the SIP, finding it failed to address statutory requirements, particularly by not evaluating impacts on maintenance areas and by relying on outdated control measures. Texas and industry groups petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review, arguing EPA’s process was procedurally and substantively flawed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the petition. The court held that EPA’s review complied with statutory and procedural requirements, and that the agency acted within its authority in disapproving the SIP. The court found EPA’s reasoning was not arbitrary or capricious, and that the SIP’s failure to analyze Texas’s impact on all relevant downwind areas, including maintenance areas, justified disapproval. The court also rejected arguments that EPA was required to approve the SIP due to procedural delays or reliance on updated data. View "State of Texas v. EPA" on Justia Law

On June 23, 2019, a multi-vehicle accident occurred on Interstate 59 in Birmingham, Alabama. John Daniels, Jr. lost control of his car after being struck by another vehicle and crashed into the concrete median, where his car was subsequently hit by other vehicles. Nicholas Raynard Smith, Jr., riding a motorcycle with a companion, approached the accident scene and collided with Daniels’s car, suffering severe injuries. There was conflicting evidence about whether the streetlights near the accident site were operational at the time, but it was undisputed that two specific streetlights were not working when first responders arrived. Smith alleged that the City of Birmingham was responsible for maintaining those streetlights and had been on notice of lighting problems in the area.Smith filed suit in the Jefferson Circuit Court, asserting claims of negligence and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention against the City. The court dismissed Smith’s wantonness and recklessness claims, leaving only the negligence-based claims. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing it was entitled to municipal and substantive immunity. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that factual questions remained regarding the City’s notice of the lighting issue and whether the inoperable streetlights proximately caused Smith’s injuries.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the City’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court held that the City was entitled to substantive immunity on Smith’s negligence claim, concluding that a municipality’s voluntary maintenance of streetlights for public safety does not create a legal duty to individual motorists. The Court also noted Smith’s concession that his negligent hiring, training, supervision, and/or retention claim should be dismissed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Alabama granted the City’s petition and directed the circuit court to enter summary judgment in favor of the City. View "Ex parte City of Birmingham PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS" on Justia Law

Eckard Brandes, Inc. performed sewer pipeline cleaning, closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection, and occasional repairs for public works projects in Hawai‘i. Historically, the company paid employees performing cleaning and inspection at a lower company rate, based on a 2005 letter from the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) stating that such work was not considered “construction” under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 104 and thus not subject to prevailing wage requirements. Employees performing repairs were paid at the higher Laborer I or II rates. Scott Foyt, an employee, operated a Vactor truck for cleaning and occasionally assisted with inspection and repairs. He was paid the lower rate for cleaning and inspection, and the Laborer I or II rate for repairs.After Foyt filed a wage complaint, the DLIR investigated and determined that he should have been paid the higher Truck Driver prevailing wage for all work involving the Vactor truck, issuing a Notification of Violation and assessing back wages and penalties against Eckard Brandes. The company appealed, arguing it reasonably relied on the 2005 DLIR guidance. The Hearings Officer upheld the DLIR’s position, finding Foyt was misclassified and owed back wages.Eckard Brandes appealed to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, which reversed the DLIR’s decision, holding that the company’s reliance on the 2005 letter was reasonable and that the DLIR could not retroactively apply its new interpretation. Foyt appealed, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the circuit court’s decision, agreeing that retroactive application was arbitrary and capricious.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i affirmed the ICA’s judgment, holding that under the circumstances, the DLIR was estopped from penalizing Eckard Brandes for relying on its prior interpretation. The court found that equitable estoppel applied because the company reasonably relied on the agency’s affirmative representations. View "Eckard Brandes, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Industrial Relations" on Justia Law

Two police officers employed by a city were injured in separate incidents while on duty. After their injuries, both received payments from the city under section 1(b) of the Illinois Public Employee Disability Act, which provides that eligible employees unable to work due to a duty-related injury must continue to be paid “on the same basis” as before the injury, without deductions from sick leave, compensatory time, or vacation. The city continued to pay their salaries as before, including withholding federal and state income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare taxes. The officers filed suit, alleging that the city violated the Disability Act by withholding employment taxes and, for one officer, by deducting accrued leave time.The Circuit Court of Tazewell County granted summary judgment for the officers, finding that section 1(b) prohibited the withholding of employment taxes and required payment of “gross pay.” The court also found the city had improperly deducted leave time and held that the ten-year statute of limitations for breach of contract applied, awarding damages and fees to the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, reversed, holding that section 1(b) does not prohibit withholding employment taxes, and that the five-year statute of limitations applied. The appellate court also found a genuine issue of fact regarding whether leave time was improperly deducted and remanded for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court’s judgment. The court held that section 1(b) of the Disability Act does not prohibit a public employer from withholding employment taxes from payments made to an injured employee under that provision. The court reasoned that the statute’s language requires payment “on the same basis” as before the injury, which includes continued tax withholding, and expressly prohibits only certain deductions, not taxes. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the leave time deduction claim. View "Bitner v. City of Pekin" on Justia Law

A licensed clinical therapist and his employer provided substance abuse rehabilitation services to a physician whose medical license had been suspended. When the physician later sought reinstatement of his license, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation requested the therapist’s personal notes from the rehabilitation program as part of the administrative proceedings. The therapist and his employer refused, asserting that the notes were protected under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act. They sought a protective order in the Circuit Court of Cook County to prevent disclosure of the notes.The circuit court conducted an in camera review and agreed that the notes were protected, issuing a protective order barring the Department from obtaining them. The court also awarded the plaintiffs attorney fees and costs under section 15 of the Confidentiality Act. The Department did not challenge the protective order but appealed the award of attorney fees and costs, arguing that such an award was barred by sovereign immunity. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the circuit court’s award, holding that the fees and costs were ancillary to the injunctive relief and thus not barred by sovereign immunity.The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois reviewed the case to determine whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to award attorney fees and costs against the Department. The court held that, absent an explicit statutory waiver of sovereign immunity, Illinois courts lack jurisdiction to enter monetary judgments against the State for attorney fees and costs. The court found that section 15 of the Confidentiality Act does not contain such a waiver. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and the portion of the circuit court’s judgment awarding attorney fees and costs, but did not disturb the protective order itself. View "Lavery v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation" on Justia Law

An electric utility company operating both within and outside Oregon was subject to central assessment for property tax purposes. For the 2020-21 tax year, the company and the Oregon Department of Revenue disagreed on the company’s overall value and the portion attributable to Oregon. The dispute centered on the methods used to determine real market value, specifically whether certain deductions and valuation models used by the company’s appraiser were consistent with the Department’s adopted standards. The Department relied on an administrative rule that incorporated the Western States Association of Tax Administrators (WSATA) Handbook, which prescribes valuation methods for centrally assessed properties.The Oregon Tax Court heard the case and considered expert testimony from both parties. The Department argued that the WSATA Handbook, as adopted by administrative rule, was binding and should control the valuation methods used. The company contended that the Tax Court, conducting a de novo review, was not bound by the Handbook. The Tax Court agreed with the company, holding that it was not required to defer to the Department’s rule and could determine real market value using other methods if it found them more accurate. The court ultimately adopted some of the company’s valuation approaches and set a value lower than the Department’s assessment.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case on appeal. It held that, absent a finding that the Department’s rule is invalid on its face or as applied, the rule has the force of law and must be given legal effect by the Tax Court. The Supreme Court found that the Tax Court erred by not treating the Department’s rule as binding unless its application would conflict with constitutional or statutory definitions of real market value. The Supreme Court reversed the Tax Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct legal standard. View "PacifiCorp v. Dept. of Rev." on Justia Law

A police officer employed by a city in Kentucky worked a rotating schedule of 36 and 44 hours per week, but was paid for 40 hours each week without overtime for hours worked beyond 40 in a given week. After a state audit revealed the city’s payroll practices violated overtime requirements, the city issued back pay to affected employees and revised its procedures. The officer, believing the back pay was insufficient and that certain categories of compensation were miscalculated, rejected the payment and filed suit for unpaid overtime, vacation, and sick leave, as well as liquidated damages and attorney’s fees. The relevant period for the claim was limited by statute to the officer’s last three years of employment.The Bullitt Circuit Court, after a bench trial, found the city liable for unpaid overtime and vacation pay, but denied liquidated damages and retirement hazardous duty pay, and initially awarded sick leave. Upon the city’s motion to amend, the trial court corrected calculation errors, eliminated the sick leave award based on a city ordinance, and reduced the overtime award. The court also awarded only $2,500 in attorney’s fees, far less than the amount requested and supported by detailed billing records. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of liquidated damages, sick leave, and retirement hazardous duty pay, but reversed and remanded for reconsideration of statutory interest and attorney’s fees.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals in full. It held that the trial court properly amended its judgment to correct errors based on evidence presented at trial, that liquidated damages under the wage statute are discretionary when the employer acts in good faith, that statutory interest applies from the date of judgment, and that the trial court abused its discretion by arbitrarily reducing attorney’s fees without explanation. The case was remanded for proper calculation of interest and attorney’s fees. View "WHEELER V. CITY OF PIONEER VILLAGE, KENTUCKY" on Justia Law

A local government enacted an ordinance that completely prohibited its police officers from seeking or executing no-knock warrants within its jurisdiction. This ordinance was adopted after the state legislature passed a statute (SB 4, now codified in KRS 455.180 and related provisions) that did not ban no-knock warrants outright, but instead imposed strict conditions and procedural safeguards for their issuance and execution. The statute allowed no-knock warrants only in limited circumstances, subject to a clear and convincing evidentiary standard, approval by a superior officer, consultation with prosecutors, and time-of-day restrictions.The Fraternal Order of Police challenged the ordinance in Fayette Circuit Court, arguing that it conflicted with state law. The trial court found no express or implied conflict, reasoning that the statute did not require the use of no-knock warrants, but merely set conditions for their issuance, and thus the ordinance’s total ban did not conflict with the statute. On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, but did not definitively resolve the conflict issue, instead remanding for further proceedings, particularly in light of collective bargaining questions.The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted discretionary review and held that the local ordinance directly conflicted with the state statute. The Court reasoned that the statute authorizes law enforcement officers to seek no-knock warrants under certain conditions, while the ordinance prohibits them from ever doing so, making it impossible for officers to comply with both. The Court concluded that when a local ordinance prohibits what a state statute permits, the ordinance is void. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the Court of Appeals and declared the ordinance null, void, and of no effect. View "LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT V. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE" on Justia Law

An unlicensed cannabis establishment, DC Smoke, applied for a medical cannabis retailer license under the District of Columbia’s Medical Cannabis Amendment Act of 2022, which allowed such applications during a designated 90-day period. Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2C, the only entity permitted by statute to protest such applications at that time, submitted a formal protest to the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board. After a protest hearing and review of evidence, the Board approved DC Smoke’s application in a written order issued on May 1, 2024.Following the Board’s decision, ANC 2C filed a petition for review with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on May 31, 2024. The court questioned the ANC’s standing to seek judicial review, referencing its prior decision in Kopff v. D.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which held that ANCs are prohibited by D.C. Code § 1-309.10(g) from initiating legal actions in the District’s courts. In response, ANC 2C Commissioner Thomas Lee filed his own petition for review, but did so after the thirty-day deadline required by D.C. App. R. 15(a)(2).The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that ANC 2C lacked standing to petition for review because the statutory prohibition on ANCs initiating legal actions in court was not implicitly repealed by the Medical Cannabis Amendment Act. The court further determined that the requirement to name a proper petitioner in a petition for review is jurisdictional, preventing the ANC from adding or substituting Commissioner Lee as a petitioner. Additionally, the court held that the thirty-day filing deadline for petitions for review is a mandatory claim-processing rule not subject to equitable tolling. As a result, both the ANC’s and Commissioner Lee’s petitions were dismissed, and the court declined to consider the merits of the Board’s licensing decision. View "ANC 2C v. D.C. Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board" on Justia Law