Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A group of farmers in Marion County, Oregon, formed an irrigation district to secure water for agricultural use by constructing a reservoir on Drift Creek. In 2013, the district applied to the Oregon Water Resources Department for a permit to store water by building a dam, which would inundate land owned by local farmers and impact an existing in-stream water right held in trust for fish habitat. The proposed project faced opposition from affected landowners and an environmental organization, who argued that the reservoir would harm both their property and the ecological purpose of the in-stream water right.The Oregon Water Resources Department initially recommended approval of the application, finding that the project would not injure existing water rights, as the prior appropriation system would ensure senior rights were satisfied first. After a contested case hearing, an administrative law judge also recommended approval. However, the Oregon Water Resources Commission, upon review of exceptions filed by the protestants, reversed the Department’s decision and denied the application. The Commission concluded that the proposed reservoir would frustrate the beneficial purpose of the in-stream water right—namely, supporting fish habitat—even if the required water quantity was maintained at the measurement point. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case. It held that the public interest protected by Oregon water law includes not only the quantity of water guaranteed to a senior right holder but also the beneficial use for which the right was granted. The Commission was correct to consider whether the proposed use would frustrate the beneficial purpose of the in-stream right. However, the Court further held that, after finding the presumption of public interest was overcome, the Commission was required to consider all statutory public interest factors before making its final determination. Because the Commission failed to do so, the Supreme Court reversed its order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "East Valley Water v. Water Resources Commission" on Justia Law

A pharmaceutical company challenged the federal government’s implementation of a new program created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which authorizes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure prescription drugs under Medicare. The company’s drug was selected for the program, and it signed an agreement to participate “under protest” while filing suit. The company alleged that the program violated its constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments, and that CMS failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when issuing the standard agreement for participation.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted summary judgment to the government on all claims. The district court found that participation in the program was voluntary, so there was no unlawful deprivation of rights. It also held that the program did not impose unconstitutional conditions on participation in Medicare and Medicaid, and that the Inflation Reduction Act expressly allowed CMS to implement the program for its first three years without notice-and-comment rulemaking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that, under its precedent in Garelick v. Sullivan, participation in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is voluntary, and thus the program does not effect a taking, deprive the company of property without due process, or compel speech in violation of the First Amendment. The court further held that the program does not impose unconstitutional conditions because it is designed to control Medicare spending and does not regulate the company’s private market conduct. Finally, the court concluded that the Inflation Reduction Act expressly exempted CMS from the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement for the program’s initial years. View "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs." on Justia Law

After experiencing shortness of breath and chest pain, Jorge Armenta lost consciousness and his wife called 911. Emergency medical technicians from Unified Fire Authority (UFA) responded, evaluated Armenta, and told him that everything appeared normal, suggesting he had an anxiety attack and did not need to go to the emergency room. A week later, Armenta was hospitalized for a massive heart attack, which resulted in significant and potentially life-shortening heart damage. Armenta filed a negligence suit against UFA, alleging that their failure to properly diagnose and treat him caused his injuries.The Third District Court, Salt Lake County, reviewed UFA’s motion to dismiss, which argued that the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (UGIA) shielded UFA from liability. The district court applied a three-part test, found that UFA’s actions were a governmental function, that immunity was generally waived for such activities, but that an exception for “providing emergency medical assistance” restored immunity. The court dismissed Armenta’s claims against UFA and entered judgment under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the district court’s statutory interpretation and dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the “providing emergency medical assistance” exception under the UGIA. The Court determined that, when read in context with related statutory provisions, the exception applies only to medical assistance provided in response to certain types of emergencies, such as disasters or catastrophic events, not to routine emergency medical responses like the one at issue. Therefore, the UGIA does not immunize UFA from Armenta’s suit. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "ARMENTA v. UNIFIED FIRE AUTHORITY" on Justia Law

A manufacturer of open-system electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and a retailer sought premarket authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market six vaping devices and related components. The devices allow users to customize their vaping experience by adjusting voltage and selecting e-liquids. The manufacturer submitted extensive scientific data and studies, concluding that its products posed lower health risks than combustible cigarettes and were targeted at adult smokers. After reviewing the applications, the FDA issued a deficiency letter identifying several concerns, including insufficient information about the products’ abuse liability—the potential for addiction and misuse. The manufacturer responded with additional information and proposed warning labels but did not provide consumer comprehension studies for the labels.The FDA ultimately denied the applications, finding that the manufacturer failed to demonstrate that marketing the products would be appropriate for the protection of public health, as required by statute. The denial specifically cited the lack of data on abuse liability under actual-use conditions and the absence of evidence that consumers would understand and comply with the proposed warnings. The manufacturer and retailer then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review, arguing that the FDA’s denial was arbitrary and capricious, failed to conduct a holistic risk-benefit analysis, and unfairly changed its review process by limiting applicants to a single deficiency letter.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the FDA’s denial was not arbitrary or capricious. The court found that the FDA adequately explained the importance of abuse liability data and the need for consumer comprehension studies. The court also determined that the FDA’s change to a single-deficiency-letter policy was properly acknowledged and justified. Because the abuse liability deficiency alone was sufficient to support the denial, the court denied the petition for review. View "Shenzhen IVPS Tech v. FDA" on Justia Law

A Chinese manufacturer of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) sought authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market its refillable e-cigarette device in the United States. The device, sold without e-liquid, allows consumers to use a wide range of nicotine concentrations. The manufacturer submitted a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) in August 2020, asserting that its product was appropriate for the protection of public health. After a preliminary assessment, the FDA identified deficiencies in the application and issued a deficiency letter in March 2023, requesting additional information. The manufacturer responded to some, but not all, of the deficiencies and requested an extension, which the FDA later denied. In January 2024, the FDA issued a final order denying the application, citing insufficient data to evaluate the product’s risks and benefits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case after the manufacturer and a retailer based in Texas, who was also affected by the denial, petitioned for review. The court determined that venue was proper because the retailer had its principal place of business in the circuit. The petitioners argued that the FDA’s denial was arbitrary and capricious, claiming the agency failed to weigh the public health benefits of the product and improperly limited applicants to a single deficiency letter.The Fifth Circuit held that the FDA’s decision was reasonable and reasonably explained. The court found that the FDA had considered the potential benefits and risks of the product, explained the deficiencies in the application, and did not impose new evidentiary requirements without notice. The court also concluded that the FDA’s policy of issuing only one deficiency letter was adequately justified and not arbitrary. The petition for review was denied. View "Shenzhen Youme v. FDA" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress established the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to help eligible small businesses maintain payroll through government-mandated shutdowns. The program, administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), provided for government-guaranteed loans to qualifying businesses, with the possibility of loan forgiveness if certain conditions were met. Bruckner Truck Sales received a $10 million PPP loan, but the SBA later determined that Bruckner was not eligible for the loan. Despite conceding its ineligibility, Bruckner refused to return the funds and instead claimed entitlement to loan forgiveness under the CARES Act.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas reviewed the case after Bruckner challenged the SBA’s denial of forgiveness. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, holding that the CARES Act does not entitle ineligible borrowers to loan forgiveness. The court also denied Bruckner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding that the SBA’s interpretation of the statute was correct and that the agency’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the CARES Act limits loan forgiveness to borrowers who were eligible for the underlying PPP loan. The court rejected Bruckner’s arguments that the SBA’s rule was retroactive, that the agency violated the Chenery doctrine, and that the district court improperly deferred to the agency’s interpretation. The court concluded that neither the text nor the structure of the CARES Act supports forgiveness for ineligible borrowers, and affirmed the denial of loan forgiveness and the requirement to return the funds. View "Bruckner Truck Sales v. Guzman" on Justia Law

Rodney Owen Skurdal, who is not a licensed attorney, attempted to represent Ronald Trow during Trow’s initial appearance in a criminal case in Yellowstone County Justice Court. Judge Jeanne Walker, presiding over the case, ordered Skurdal to vacate the defendant’s table and did not permit him to represent Trow, as Skurdal was not a member of the bar. Trow subsequently entered a plea of not guilty, and a public defender was appointed. Skurdal then filed a lawsuit in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court for Yellowstone County against Judge Walker, later joined by Yellowstone County as a defendant, alleging violations of his and Trow’s rights and advancing various arguments, including those associated with the “Sovereign Citizen” movement.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court dismissed Skurdal’s complaint with prejudice, holding that Judge Walker and Yellowstone County were protected by absolute judicial immunity for actions taken in the course of judicial duties. The court also found that Skurdal, as a non-lawyer, had no statutory or constitutional right to represent another individual in a criminal proceeding in Montana. The court denied leave to amend the complaint, finding that any amendment would be futile due to the immunity defense.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The Supreme Court held that Montana law does not permit non-lawyers to represent others in criminal cases, and that Judge Walker’s actions were judicial acts performed within her jurisdiction, entitling her and Yellowstone County to absolute immunity from suit. The Court also concluded that the District Court did not err in denying leave to amend, as further amendment could not overcome the immunity bar. View "Skurdal v. Walker" on Justia Law

A married couple, both citizens of Mexico, have lived in the United States for over twenty years without legal status. They have two U.S.-born children, one of whom, I.L., has a learning disability, ADHD, and requires ongoing medical and educational support. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against the couple, who conceded inadmissibility but sought cancellation of removal, arguing that deportation would cause their son an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” due to his special needs and the alleged lack of adequate services in Mexico.An immigration judge found both parents credible and agreed they met the first three statutory requirements for cancellation of removal, but concluded they did not satisfy the hardship requirement. The judge acknowledged the difficulties I.L. would face but determined these did not rise to the high threshold set by the statute. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the judge’s decisions in separate, but materially identical, rulings, agreeing that the hardship standard was not met.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the Board’s application of the hardship standard under the substantial-evidence standard, as clarified by recent Supreme Court precedent. The court held that the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, given the record showed that some medical and educational services were available in Mexico and that the Board applied the correct legal standard. The court denied the petitions for review, holding that the Board’s application of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) is reviewable for substantial evidence, and that the Board’s decisions in these cases met that standard. View "Lopez-Martinez v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

A group of individuals and organizations challenged a longstanding policy of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), codified as Rule 202.5(e), which requires defendants in civil enforcement actions to agree not to publicly deny the allegations against them as a condition of settlement. This “no-deny” provision has been in place since 1972 and is incorporated into settlement agreements, with the SEC’s remedy for a breach being the ability to ask the court to reopen the case. The petitioners argued that this rule violates the First Amendment and was improperly adopted under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).Previously, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) petitioned the SEC to amend Rule 202.5(e) to remove the no-deny requirement, citing constitutional concerns. The SEC denied the petition, explaining that defendants can voluntarily waive constitutional rights in settlements and that the rule preserves the agency’s ability to litigate if a defendant later denies the allegations. After the denial, the petitioners sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asserting both First Amendment and APA violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the SEC’s denial. Applying the Supreme Court’s framework from Town of Newton v. Rumery, the court held that voluntary waivers of constitutional rights, including First Amendment rights, are generally permissible if knowing and voluntary. The court concluded that Rule 202.5(e) is not facially invalid under the First Amendment, as it is a limited restriction tied to the settlement context and does not preclude all speech. The court also found that the SEC had statutory authority for the rule, was not required to use notice-and-comment rulemaking, and provided a rational explanation for its decision. The petition for review was denied, but the court left open the possibility of future as-applied challenges. View "POWELL V. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION" on Justia Law

A four-year-old child drowned after wandering unattended from the home where she had been placed under temporary custody by order of the Probate Court. The child’s parents had previously lost guardianship, and the court had vested temporary custody in maternal relatives. To determine whether to grant a full transfer of guardianship, the Probate Court ordered the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to investigate the home and report its findings. DCF submitted its report, recommending the placement, but before the court could hold a hearing on permanent guardianship, the child died. The child’s estate, through her father as administrator, alleged that DCF’s negligence in investigating the placement and in making recommendations to the Probate Court was a proximate cause of the child’s death, and also claimed DCF failed to fulfill independent duties to protect the child from abuse and neglect.After the estate received permission from the Claims Commissioner to sue the state, DCF moved to dismiss the action in the Superior Court, arguing that it was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for actions integral to the judicial process, such as conducting court-ordered investigations and making recommendations. The Superior Court agreed, holding that DCF was protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity when acting as an arm of the Probate Court, and that the Claims Commissioner could not waive this immunity. The court dismissed the action, finding the complaint’s allegations insufficient to overcome DCF’s immunity.On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the Claims Commissioner’s waiver of sovereign immunity under the relevant statute does not preclude the state from asserting absolute quasi-judicial immunity. However, the Court reversed in part, concluding that some of the estate’s allegations may fall outside the scope of quasi-judicial immunity, particularly those involving DCF’s independent statutory duties. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine which claims, if any, are not barred by quasi-judicial immunity. View "Jamie G. v. Dept. of Children & Families" on Justia Law