Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Several agency heads in Oklahoma were appointed by the Governor to serve concurrently as Cabinet Secretaries. After these appointments, a state senator requested an opinion from the Attorney General regarding whether individuals could simultaneously hold multiple state offices. The Attorney General issued an opinion concluding that Cabinet Secretaries are not exempt from Oklahoma’s prohibition against holding dual office and, therefore, agency heads could not also serve as Cabinet Secretaries without violating state law.Governor Stitt then sought declaratory relief in the Oklahoma County District Court. After a hearing, the district court ruled in favor of the Attorney General, finding that Cabinet Secretaries are subject to the prohibition against holding dual office under Title 51, Section 6. The court reasoned that the expanded authority granted to Cabinet Secretaries, including the power to veto administrative rules, made them officers under Oklahoma law. As a result, the court concluded that agency heads serving as Cabinet Secretaries were unlawfully holding two offices. The district court also determined that Title 74, Section 10.3 did not create an express exception to the dual office prohibition. Governor Stitt appealed, and the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma retained the case.The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma held that Title 74, Section 10.3 expressly authorizes agency heads to serve concurrently as Cabinet Secretaries, notwithstanding the general prohibition against holding dual office in Title 51, Section 6. The Court found that the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and that both statutes can be read together without conflict. The district court’s order was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to enter a declaratory judgment consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. View "STITT V. DRUMMOND" on Justia Law

The case concerns the authority of the South Carolina Attorney General to enter into and execute a contingent fee agreement with private law firms in connection with litigation against the United States Department of Energy (DOE). The Attorney General retained two law firms to represent the State in disputes over the DOE’s obligations regarding plutonium storage and removal at the Savannah River Site. After extensive litigation and negotiation, the State and the DOE reached a settlement in which the DOE agreed to pay South Carolina $600 million. The Attorney General subsequently paid $75 million in attorney’s fees to the law firms, pursuant to the contingent fee agreement.Previously, the Richland County Circuit Court dismissed a challenge to the fee payment, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. However, the Supreme Court of South Carolina later determined that the plaintiffs had public importance standing and remanded the case for consideration of the merits. On remand, the circuit court granted summary judgment to the Attorney General and the law firms, holding that the Attorney General had the authority to enter into the fee agreements. The circuit court did not address all of the plaintiffs’ claims, but the Supreme Court found the record sufficient to resolve the remaining legal questions.The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the Attorney General’s payment of attorney’s fees directly to the law firms, without first depositing the gross settlement into the State’s general fund or a legislatively created Litigation Recovery Account, was permissible under South Carolina Code subsection 1-7-150(B). The Court found that the settlement agreement and related documents “awarded” attorney’s fees as part of the settlement, and that the Attorney General’s contractual obligation to pay the fees constituted a “disposition required by law.” The Court also held that judicial review of the reasonableness of the fee would violate the separation of powers, as no statute authorized such review in this context. The judgment was affirmed in result. View "SC Public Interest Foundation v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Elisabeth Koletas, who was four months pregnant, requested a pat-down instead of passing through a body scanner at Southwest Florida International Airport due to concerns about radiation. During the pat-down, Transportation Security Officer (TSO) Sarno conducted a prolonged probe of Koletas’s vaginal area, focusing on material in her underwear. Koletas explained it was toilet paper used to stem pregnancy-related bleeding. Sarno, skeptical, moved Koletas to a private room and brought in Supervising TSO Shane, who further probed Koletas’s underwear and vaginal area. Shane directed Koletas to lift her dress and ultimately removed the toilet paper, finding no prohibited items. Koletas experienced psychological and physical distress from the encounter.After exhausting administrative remedies, Koletas filed suit against the United States in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing that the FTCA’s intentional tort exception preserved sovereign immunity for the alleged battery and false imprisonment. The district court agreed, relying solely on an unpublished Eleventh Circuit decision, and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that TSOs are “officers of the United States” empowered by law to execute searches under the FTCA’s law enforcement proviso, which waives sovereign immunity for certain intentional torts committed by such officers. The court found the statutory language unambiguous and joined five other circuits in this interpretation. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits. View "Koletas v. USA" on Justia Law

A Saudi military officer, Mohammed Saeed Al-Shamrani, who was a member of the Royal Saudi Air Force, carried out a mass shooting at the Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida in December 2019, resulting in the deaths of three U.S. servicemembers and injuries to several others. The officer had a documented history of expressing extremist and anti-American views on social media prior to his arrival in the United States for flight training, which was part of a broader U.S.-Saudi military training program. The victims and their families brought suit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, alleging various tort and contract claims, including gross negligence in vetting and sending Al-Shamrani to the U.S., failure to supervise, vicarious liability for his actions, support for terrorism, and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed all claims, finding that the plaintiffs’ allegations were facially insufficient to overcome Saudi Arabia’s sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). The district court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery, concluding that the complaint did not plausibly allege facts that would support an exception to sovereign immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court held that most claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as they either involved discretionary functions, acts of omission, or failed to establish proximate cause or a waiver of immunity. However, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims based on grossly negligent acts of commission by Saudi Arabia in vetting, hiring, and sending Al-Shamrani to the United States were facially sufficient under JASTA to survive a jurisdictional challenge. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these claims. View "Watson v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" on Justia Law

During a government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it would not provide November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, affecting millions of Americans who rely on these funds for food. Despite having approximately $6 billion in contingency funds appropriated by Congress for emergencies, USDA stated it would not use these funds, arguing they were unavailable once regular appropriations lapsed. Plaintiffs, including nonprofits, local governments, a union, and a food retailer, filed suit, alleging that USDA’s suspension of benefits was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring USDA to provide either full or partial November SNAP payments by specified dates. The government chose to provide partial payments but failed to do so in a timely manner, as many recipients would not receive benefits by the court’s deadline. The district court found the government had not complied with its order, both by failing to resolve administrative burdens and by not ensuring timely disbursement. As a result, the court ordered USDA to make full November SNAP payments, including by using funds from the Section 32 fund in combination with contingency funds. The government appealed and sought a stay of the district court’s order.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the government’s request for a stay pending appeal. The court held that the government had not met its burden to justify a stay, finding it had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or that irreparable harm would result from compliance. The court emphasized the immediate and substantial harm to SNAP recipients if benefits were withheld and denied the government’s motion for a stay. View "Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins" on Justia Law

A corporation owned by a federally recognized Indian tribe, along with several tribal officials, was alleged by the State of California to have violated state cigarette tax laws and regulations. The corporation manufactured and distributed cigarettes in California, including to non-tribal consumers, without collecting or remitting required state excise taxes or payments under the Master Settlement Agreement. California claimed that the corporation and its officials distributed contraband cigarettes not listed on the state’s approved directory and failed to comply with shipping, recordkeeping, and tax collection requirements under the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act). Despite warnings and being placed on a federal non-compliance list, the corporation continued its operations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considered the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found that the corporation, as an arm of the tribe, was shielded by tribal sovereign immunity and dismissed claims against it. However, the court allowed claims for injunctive relief against the individual tribal officials in their official capacities to proceed, holding that the Ex parte Young doctrine permitted such relief under the PACT Act. The court also denied the officials’ claims of qualified immunity for personal capacity claims, reasoning that qualified immunity did not apply to enforcement actions brought by a state under a federal statute.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Ninth Circuit held that the PACT Act does not preclude Ex parte Young actions for prospective injunctive relief against tribal officials, as the Act does not limit who may be sued or the types of relief available, nor does it contain a sufficiently detailed remedial scheme to displace Ex parte Young. The court also held that qualified immunity does not shield tribal officials from California’s claims for civil penalties and money damages under the PACT Act. View "STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. DEL ROSA" on Justia Law

Three organizations—Lake Bomoseen Preservation Trust, Lake Bomoseen Association, and SOLitude Lake Management—jointly applied for a permit from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to use pesticides in Lake Bomoseen to control an invasive species. Lindsey Waterhouse, who does not own property on the lake but lives nearby and is a board member of one of the applicant organizations, supported the application during public comment. ANR denied the permit, finding the proposed pesticide use posed unacceptable risks to the environment.After the denial, Mr. Waterhouse filed an appeal to the Vermont Superior Court, Environmental Division, on his own behalf as a “person aggrieved.” None of the permit applicants appealed the denial. The Environmental Division questioned whether Mr. Waterhouse, who was not an applicant, could maintain the appeal in the absence of the actual applicants. The court also addressed motions from the Lake Bomoseen Preservation Trust to intervene and to be represented by Mr. Waterhouse, a nonattorney, but denied both, finding he was not authorized or qualified to represent the organization.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the Environmental Division’s dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Waterhouse lacked standing to appeal because he did not demonstrate a particularized injury distinct from the general public and could not show that the court could redress his alleged injury, especially since the permit applicants were not pursuing the application. The Court also concluded that Mr. Waterhouse lacked standing to challenge the denial of the motions on behalf of the Lake Bomoseen Preservation Trust, as he was not authorized to represent the organization’s interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Division’s decision. View "In re Lake Bomoseen Association and Lake Bomoseen Preservation Trust Denial" on Justia Law

In May 2023, a partial collapse of the Davenport Hotel apartment building resulted in three deaths and multiple injuries to individuals and property. Numerous lawsuits were filed against various parties, including the building’s owners, engineers, and the City of Davenport, as well as two city employees. These cases were consolidated in the Iowa District Court for Scott County. The City defendants sought dismissal of the claims against them, arguing that the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act’s qualified immunity provisions shielded them from liability and that the plaintiffs’ petition did not meet the Act’s heightened pleading requirements. They also asserted that the public-duty doctrine barred the claims, as any duty owed was to the public at large rather than to the individual plaintiffs.The Iowa District Court for Scott County denied the City defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court determined that the qualified immunity provisions of Iowa Code § 670.4A applied to common law tort claims but found that the plaintiffs’ petition satisfied the heightened pleading requirements. The court also rejected the City defendants’ argument that the public-duty doctrine barred the suit. The City defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity under the immediate appeal provision in § 670.4A and separately sought interlocutory review of the public-duty doctrine issue, which was denied.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed only the qualified immunity issue, concluding that the protections of Iowa Code § 670.4A do not apply to common law tort claims such as negligence and nuisance. The court held that the statute’s language, borrowed from federal law, was intended to apply only to constitutional or statutory claims, not to common law torts. As a result, the appeal was dismissed because the qualified immunity provisions did not apply to the claims asserted. View "In re Davenport Hotel Building Collapse" on Justia Law

A petitioner sought to file a referendum challenging a specific section of a recently enacted state law concerning student and parental rights in public education. The law included provisions aimed at promoting student safety, preventing discrimination, and ensuring parental notification in certain circumstances. The legislature included an emergency clause in the bill, declaring it necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety, which made the law effective immediately. When the petitioner submitted the referendum to the Secretary of State, the Secretary refused to process it, citing the emergency clause as rendering the legislation exempt from the referendum process under the state constitution.After the Secretary’s refusal, the petitioner filed an original action in the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary to process the referendum and to challenge the validity of the emergency clause. The court granted expedited review due to the time-sensitive nature of referendum signature collection. The petitioner argued that the Secretary had a mandatory duty to process all properly filed referenda, regardless of the presence of an emergency clause, and that the validity of such a clause was a judicial question.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that the Secretary of State does not have a mandatory duty to process a referendum on legislation that is, on its face, constitutionally exempt from referendum due to a valid emergency clause. The court further found that the legislature’s declaration of emergency in this case was valid, as the record and legislative history supported the need for immediate action. As a result, the petition for a writ of mandamus was denied. View "Eyman v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

A shift supervisor at a coffee shop in Ann Arbor, Michigan, led efforts to organize a union at her workplace. She was a prominent organizer, engaging in various activities such as wearing union buttons, speaking to customers about unionization, and attending a labor board hearing. Several months into the campaign, she was terminated by her employer, who cited her violation of a company policy requiring at least two employees to be present in the café. The supervisor had left a barista alone at the store at the end of her shift without notifying management, which the company claimed was the reason for her discharge.After her termination, Workers United filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging that the discharge was motivated by anti-union animus. An Administrative Law Judge found in favor of the union, concluding that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual and that the discharge was unlawfully motivated. The NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision and expanded the remedy, ordering the employer to compensate the supervisor not only for lost earnings and benefits but also for any “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” resulting from the discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case on the NLRB’s application for enforcement of its order. The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that the supervisor’s discharge was motivated by anti-union animus and thus constituted an unfair labor practice. However, the court determined that the NLRB exceeded its statutory authority under the National Labor Relations Act by awarding compensation for “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” beyond lost earnings and benefits. The court granted enforcement of the unfair labor practice finding but vacated the expanded remedy and remanded for further proceedings. View "National Labor Relations Board v. Starbucks Corp." on Justia Law