Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Florida PACE Funding Agency initiated a proceeding in the Second Judicial Circuit to validate the issuance of $5 billion in bonds for financing certain property improvements under the PACE Act. The agency complied with statutory notice requirements, and a hearing was held where State Attorneys from the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits were represented. No party objected to the entry of final judgment validating the bonds, and the judgment became final without any appeal. Over a year later, various governmental entities—including state attorneys, counties, and tax collectors (most of whom did not participate in the original proceedings)—filed motions under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, seeking relief from the judgment, raising arguments such as lack of jurisdiction, due process violations, and alleged surprise.The circuit court allowed discovery and held an evidentiary hearing, after which it denied all motions for relief from judgment. For the parties who had not appeared previously, the court found that rule 1.540 did not apply to bond validation judgments due to the strict finality requirements of chapter 75, Florida Statutes, and that the motions were untimely and insufficient. For the state attorneys who had participated, the court concluded they were procedurally barred from seeking relief under rule 1.540 because it could not substitute for appellate review.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida reviewed whether rule 1.540 applies to final judgments in bond validation proceedings under chapter 75. The court held that chapter 75’s finality language—specifically section 75.09—precludes the use of rule 1.540 to collaterally attack such judgments after the time for appeal has expired. The court concluded that the statutory scheme is exclusive, and the rules of civil procedure do not override the statute. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the motions for relief from judgment. View "State Attorneys for the Second, Seventh and Ninth Judicial Circuits v. Florida Pace Funding Agency" on Justia Law

Fairville Township decided to remove two culvert crossings, known as Crossings 2 and 3, from a township roadway. These culverts had existed prior to construction of the Oak Creek Drain, a flood control project built by the Wells County Water Resource District in the late 1980s, which had incorporated the culverts into its design. After the Township removed the crossings and reconstructed the roadway, the Water District determined that this constituted an obstruction to the drain and would adversely affect local agricultural land and infrastructure. The Water District ordered the Township to reconstruct the crossings, and when the Township did not comply, the District reinstalled the culverts itself.The Water District issued orders to assess the costs of reinstalling the culverts against Fairville Township, citing its statutory authority under N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-51. The District concluded that the Township was responsible for the obstruction and directed Wells County to levy the assessment against the Township. Fairville Township appealed these assessment orders to the District Court of Wells County. After briefing, the district court reversed the Water District’s assessment orders, finding that the statute applied only to private landowners or tenants, not to governing bodies such as townships, and that the Water District’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s decision under a limited standard, independently considering whether the Water District acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably. The Supreme Court held that N.D.C.C. § 61-16.1-51 only authorizes water resource boards to assess costs against the property of a responsible landowner, and the Water District failed to establish that the Township was a landowner or that costs were assessed against its property. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s reversal of the Water District’s assessment orders. View "Fairville Township v. Wells Cty. Water Resource District" on Justia Law

A firefighter employed by a city filed a legal action seeking a declaration that a city ordinance requiring firefighters to live within a certain distance of a fire station was invalid. He argued that state law, specifically KRS 311A.027(1), prohibits publicly funded emergency medical service first response providers from imposing residency requirements on employees or volunteers, and that the city's firefighters, who are certified to provide emergency medical services, fall within this category.The McCracken Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the city, holding that the statute in question was not intended to apply to firefighters, but rather to those whose primary duties are as emergency medical service first response providers. The trial court reasoned that firefighters are primarily governed by a different chapter of Kentucky law, which does not prohibit residency requirements. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing with the trial court’s interpretation and analysis.On discretionary review, the Supreme Court of Kentucky examined whether the statute applies to the city’s fire department and its personnel. The Court held that KRS 311A.027(1) applies to institutions, not individuals, and that the term “emergency medical service first response provider” as used in the statute refers to entities that provide ambulance services and are regulated as such under Kentucky law. Because the city’s fire department does not operate ambulances or provide ambulance services, it is not an emergency medical service first response provider within the meaning of the statute. Therefore, the residency ordinance is not preempted by KRS 311A.027(1). The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "TORIAN V. CITY OF PADUCAH, KENTUCKY" on Justia Law

The case arises from a procurement process initiated by Idaho’s Division of Purchasing to select a contractor to provide behavioral health and substance abuse services for the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Carelon Behavioral Health, Inc. was initially selected as the winning bidder. However, the other two bidders, Magellan Healthcare and United Behavioral Health (Optum), challenged Carelon’s eligibility, arguing that Carelon had previously been paid by the State for services used to prepare the specifications of the contract, which would bar it from bidding under Idaho Code section 67-9230(8). A determinations officer reviewed the matter and found that Carelon's prior work did influence the contract specifications, rendering it ineligible. The Director of Administration adopted this recommendation, rescinded the intent to award the contract to Carelon, and ultimately awarded it to Magellan.Following this, Carelon filed a complaint in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District seeking declaratory relief and a writ of mandate to overturn the Director’s decision and reinstate its bid. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that Carelon’s claims were, in substance, a request for judicial review of the Director’s procurement decision, which is expressly precluded by the State Procurement Act unless the case arises from a contested case hearing. The court also rejected Carelon’s claims for a writ of mandate and its constitutional challenges to the statute.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Court held that the State Procurement Act prohibits judicial review of procurement decisions made outside of contested case hearings and that Carelon’s claims could not be recast as an original declaratory judgment action to circumvent this limitation. The Court also found that the statutory bar on judicial review does not violate the separation of powers under the Idaho Constitution and that section 67-9230(8) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Carelon. View "Carelon Behavioral Health, Inc. v. State" on Justia Law

Disney Platform Distribution, BAMTech, and Hulu, subsidiaries of the Walt Disney Company, provide video streaming services to subscribers in the City of Santa Barbara. In 2022, the City’s Tax Administrator notified these companies that they had failed to collect and remit video users’ taxes under Ordinance 5471 for the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2020, resulting in substantial assessments. The companies appealed to the City Administrator, and a retired Associate Justice served as hearing officer, ultimately upholding the Tax Administrator’s decision.Following the administrative appeal, the companies sought judicial review by filing a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County. The trial court denied their petition, finding that the Ordinance does apply to video streaming services and rejecting arguments that the Ordinance violated the Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, and Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The trial court also found there was no violation of Public Utilities Code section 799’s notice requirements, as the City’s actions did not constitute a change in the tax base or adoption of a new tax.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the Ordinance applies to video streaming services, interpreting the term “channel” in its ordinary, non-technical sense and finding that the voters intended technological neutrality. The court further held that the Ordinance does not violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act because video streaming subscriptions and DVD sales/rentals are not “similar” under the Act. Additionally, the court concluded the tax is not a content-based regulation of speech under the First Amendment, and that delayed enforcement did not constitute a tax increase requiring additional voter approval or notice under the California Constitution or Public Utilities Code section 799. View "Disney Platform Distribution v. City of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

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