Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A nonprofit organization that publishes content critical of United States immigration policy was issued a subpoena by the New York Attorney General’s office seeking documents related to its governance, finances, and relationships with vendors and contractors. The organization alleged that the subpoena was motivated by a desire to suppress its viewpoints and thus violated its rights under the First Amendment and the New York State Constitution. The Attorney General, however, maintained that the investigation was prompted by concerns about possible self-dealing and regulatory noncompliance.After the subpoena was issued, the nonprofit partially responded but maintained objections. It then filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages and an injunction against enforcement of the subpoena, claiming the subpoena was retaliatory and unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter, the Attorney General initiated a special proceeding in New York State Supreme Court to compel compliance. The organization moved to dismiss or stay the state proceeding, raising constitutional arguments. The state court ruled against the nonprofit, ordering compliance with the subpoena (with some redactions allowed), and the New York Appellate Division, First Department affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed a further appeal.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the nonprofit’s request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the federal claims, holding that they were precluded by the earlier state court judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the state court’s decision was final and on the merits, involved the same parties and subject matter, and therefore barred the federal claims. The court also dismissed as moot the appeal of the denial of preliminary injunctive relief. View "VDARE Foundation, Inc. v. James" on Justia Law

David S. Brimer, a disabled veteran with preference eligibility, was employed as a GS-13 Supervisory Human Resources Specialist for the Naval Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. He applied for a merit promotion to a GS-14 Assistant Human Resources Officer position with the Naval Education and Training Command. Although the position was open to current permanent employees, VEOA eligibles, and DoD Military Spouse Preference eligibles, his application was not initially referred to the hiring official due to an erroneous belief by the agency that he had not met the time-in-grade requirement. After Brimer filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, the agency acknowledged the error but determined, upon review, that Brimer was not among the most highly qualified candidates for the position.Brimer subsequently appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that the agency obstructed his right to compete for employment and violated his veterans’ preference rights under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1). The administrative judge denied his request for corrective action, stating that the initial error had been remedied through a proper merit review. The Board affirmed, relying on Kerner v. Department of the Interior, 778 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and concluded that § 3304(f) does not apply to veterans already employed by the federal government, thus denying Brimer corrective action as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. Applying the standard set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), the court held that the Board correctly interpreted precedent and the statute, affirming that 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1) does not entitle currently employed federal veterans to corrective action under VEOA for merit promotion vacancies. The Board’s decision denying Brimer's claims was affirmed. View "BRIMER v. NAVY " on Justia Law

The case concerns a property owner in Sonoma County who, after a fire, conducted timber operations under an emergency waiver of waste discharge requirements. Following observations of waste discharge violations and failure to comply with cleanup orders, the regional water quality control board issued notices of violation and ultimately imposed administrative civil liability, assessing a penalty of $276,000. The property owner did not file a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board within the statutory 30-day period to seek review of the regional board’s order.Subsequently, the property owner filed a writ petition in Sonoma County Superior Court to challenge the civil liability order, and later requested the State Board to review the order on its own motion under Water Code section 13320. The State Board declined to exercise its discretionary review. The property owner amended his writ petition to add the State Board as a party, alleging abuse of discretion in its refusal to review. The State Board and the regional board demurred, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that the State Board’s discretionary decision was not subject to judicial review. The Superior Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment for the respondents.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the State Board’s decision not to exercise its discretionary authority to review a regional board order under Water Code section 13320 is not subject to judicial review. The court rejected arguments that this interpretation violated the separation of powers doctrine, concluding that the State Board’s action was not quasi-judicial and did not adjudicate the parties’ rights. The court confirmed that only regional board orders, not the State Board’s discretionary refusals, are eligible for judicial review under the statutory scheme. View "Bareilles v. State Water Resource Control Board" on Justia Law

A group of Oklahoma taxpayers, parents of public school children, teachers, and clergy challenged the adoption of the 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies. They argued that the new standards promoted Christianity over other religions, required teaching religious stories as historical fact, and included instructions to question the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential Election and the origins of COVID-19. The petitioners claimed these standards violated state statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution, and their rights as parents and citizens. They further alleged that the procedure used to adopt the standards violated the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, as the public and several Board members received the final version less than twenty-four hours before the Board meeting where the standards were approved.No lower court reviewed this case prior to the current proceeding. The petitioners brought their claims directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma by seeking original jurisdiction, requesting declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief, and a stay of enforcement. The Supreme Court previously issued a temporary stay to prevent the implementation of the 2025 Standards while considering the matter.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma assumed original jurisdiction due to the statewide importance and urgency of the controversy. The Court held that the 2025 Oklahoma Academic Standards for Social Studies were adopted in violation of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, specifically because the public and Board members did not receive proper notice of the content to be considered and acted upon. The Court determined that legislative “deemed approval” did not cure this procedural violation. As a result, the Court declared the 2025 Standards unenforceable, dissolved the earlier stay, and reinstated the 2019 standards until new standards are properly adopted and reviewed. The request for mandamus relief was withheld without prejudice. View "RANDALL v. FIELDS" on Justia Law

In this case, an individual attended the 2022 Kentucky Derby in Louisville, Kentucky, with a group to engage in expressive activities such as preaching, distributing literature, and displaying signs near the event. The area surrounding Churchill Downs was subject to a special event permit issued by the city government, which allowed Churchill Downs to restrict access to certain public streets and sidewalks to ticket holders and credentialed individuals. The plaintiff and his group entered a fenced-off, restricted area beyond posted “No Trespassing” signs, despite lacking event tickets or credentials. After repeated warnings from private security and law enforcement, the plaintiff was arrested by a Kentucky State Police trooper for criminal trespass.The plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his free speech, free exercise, and due process rights, as well as a Monell municipal liability claim against the city government and claims against the arresting officer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. It found the free speech restriction content-neutral and justified under intermediate scrutiny, concluded the free exercise claim was not properly developed, determined the permitting scheme was not unconstitutionally vague, dismissed the Monell claim for lack of an underlying constitutional violation, and granted qualified immunity to the arresting officer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the restricted area was a limited public forum and the ticketing and access restrictions were content-neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny. The court found no evidence of viewpoint discrimination, held that ample alternative channels for communication existed, and determined that the plaintiff failed to preserve his free exercise claim and did not establish a due process violation. The Monell claim failed for lack of a constitutional violation, and qualified immunity was properly granted to the officer. View "Blankenship v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't" on Justia Law

TwinSpires, an Oregon-based electronic wagering platform, facilitates interstate betting on horseraces. Under the federal Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA), such betting is lawful if the operator obtains consent from both the state where the bet is accepted and the state where the race occurs, as well as the relevant racetrack. Michigan, however, enacted a law requiring additional state-specific licensing for platforms like TwinSpires to accept bets from Michigan residents. After TwinSpires partnered with Michigan’s only racetrack and obtained the requisite license, its license was suspended when the racetrack temporarily lost its own license. Even after the racetrack’s license was restored, Michigan maintained the suspension of TwinSpires’ license, prompting the company to sue, arguing that Michigan’s requirements conflicted with the IHA.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted a preliminary injunction, preventing Michigan from enforcing its licensing requirements against TwinSpires. The district court found that the IHA preempted Michigan’s additional licensing regime, concluding that TwinSpires was likely to succeed on the merits of its preemption claim and that other injunction factors favored TwinSpires.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, applying de novo review to legal conclusions and clear error review to factual findings. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, holding that the IHA conflict-preempts Michigan’s licensing requirement for interstate wagering platforms. The court concluded that Michigan’s law imposed an additional regulatory hurdle beyond what the IHA requires, interfering with the federal scheme and frustrating Congress’s intended objectives. The court also found that the remaining factors for a preliminary injunction—irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest—favored TwinSpires. View "Churchill Downs Tech. Initiatives Co. v. Mich. Gaming Control Bd." on Justia Law

A railroad company headquartered in Nebraska provides track safety services known as “flagging,” often using its own employees. A third-party company, RailPros, also supplies flagging workers for outside projects that require access to the railroad’s property. A labor union, which represents some employees of the railroad but not RailPros workers, requested that a federal agency determine whether RailPros flagging workers should be considered covered employees under federal railroad retirement and unemployment statutes. The union argued that the railroad’s use of RailPros workers displaced union members and undermined the benefits system. The agency began an investigation, requested information from the railroad, and ultimately scheduled a hearing to decide the employment status of the RailPros workers. The agency also designated the union as a party to the hearing, which would give it access to confidential business information.The railroad objected to the union’s party status, arguing that it would result in disclosure of sensitive information to an adversarial party. After the agency declined to remove the union as a party or to sufficiently protect the railroad’s confidential information, the railroad filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The railroad sought judicial review of the agency’s order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging the order was unlawful and would cause irreparable harm. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that exclusive judicial review lay in the courts of appeals under the statutory schemes governing railroad retirement and unemployment benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the agency’s order granting the union party status was a final agency action under the APA and not subject to exclusive review in the courts of appeals under the relevant statutes. The court ruled that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to review the agency’s order immediately under the APA and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. RRRB" on Justia Law

In this case, a motorist was stopped by state troopers for traffic infractions. The troopers observed signs of intoxication, and after the motorist failed a field sobriety test, he refused to take a chemical breath test, even after being warned multiple times about the consequences. Following his refusal, the troopers completed and signed sworn reports documenting the events, and his driver's license was automatically suspended pending a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing to determine if it should be revoked for refusing the chemical test.At the DMV hearing, which was postponed once when the troopers failed to appear, the motorist again properly subpoenaed both troopers for the rescheduled hearing. When the troopers did not attend the second hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) acknowledged the validity of the subpoenas but proceeded with the hearing without further adjournment. The ALJ admitted the troopers’ sworn written reports and supporting depositions as evidence and, over the motorist’s objections, found that the elements required for license revocation were met. On administrative appeal, the DMV Appeals Board affirmed, and upon transfer, the Appellate Division confirmed the DMV’s decision, reasoning that the motorist had made a tactical choice not to seek judicial enforcement of the subpoenas or request another adjournment.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the matter. The court held that when a motorist properly subpoenas officers in a DMV license revocation hearing and the officers fail to appear, due process does not require dismissal of the charge or exclusion of their written reports unless the motorist first seeks judicial enforcement of the subpoenas pursuant to CPLR 2308(b). As the motorist in this case did not pursue enforcement or request an adjournment to do so, his due process rights were not violated. The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. View "Monaghan v. Schroeder" on Justia Law

A private utility company entered into an agreement to purchase a township’s wastewater system, which served nearly 3,900 residents. The parties used a statutory procedure to determine the fair market value of the system’s assets, arriving at a purchase price of approximately $54.9 million. The utility, already certified to provide water and wastewater services in other areas, applied to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to acquire and operate the system. As part of the process, the utility agreed to maintain current rates for three years.An administrative law judge at the PUC recommended denying the utility’s application, finding that the township was already providing safe, reliable, and financially viable service, and that the acquisition would result in substantial rate increases for customers, outweighing any potential benefits. The PUC, however, rejected the judge’s recommendation and granted the CPC, finding that the utility’s expertise, financial resources, and the policy goal of consolidating systems provided substantial affirmative public benefits. The PUC also found that potential rate increases were not certain harms, as increases might occur regardless of the transaction and could be mitigated over a larger customer base.On appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed the PUC’s decision, holding that benefits arising from the acquiring utility’s size and fitness were not sufficient to satisfy the statutory standard for public benefit, particularly when the existing service was adequate and the transaction would likely cause rate increases. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court’s decision, holding that the PUC could consider benefits derived from the utility’s size and expertise in its affirmative public benefits analysis and that the lower court erred by reweighing the evidence and categorizing potential rate increases as “known harms.” The case was remanded for further proceedings on whether the PUC’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. View "Consum Adv v. PUC" on Justia Law

A firefighter employed by a county for over two decades reported safety violations concerning the maintenance of fire extinguishers on county fire engines. After raising these concerns with his superiors, he was barred from working in fire prevention, which he believed was retaliation for his whistleblowing activities. Although he filed internal complaints with the county’s Office of Human Resources and the Civil Service Commission, he withdrew his appeal after assurances that his concerns would be addressed. Later, he was investigated for alleged misconduct and ultimately terminated for violations of county rules. He then filed a claim under the Government Claims Act, which the county rejected.The Superior Court of Kern County granted the county’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the internal administrative remedies—specifically, by not appealing his dismissal to the Civil Service Commission—barred his whistleblower retaliation lawsuit. The court denied the plaintiff’s request for leave to amend his complaint, holding that he could not allege exhaustion of remedies.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the plaintiff was not required to exhaust the county’s internal administrative remedies before bringing his whistleblower retaliation claims because the county’s ordinances and rules did not provide a clearly defined process for submitting, evaluating, and resolving such claims. The court distinguished between general disciplinary appeals and procedures for discrimination or harassment claims, noting that there was no specific administrative remedy for whistleblower retaliation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter with instructions to deny the county’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The holding clarifies that, where an internal administrative process does not address a particular type of claim, exhaustion of that process is not required before filing suit. View "Romero v. County of Kern" on Justia Law