Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Ferdinand E. Marcos, former President of the Philippines, deposited approximately $2 million in a New York Merrill Lynch account in 1972, which grew to over $40 million. These funds, known as the Arelma Assets, were proceeds of Marcos’s criminal activities. After Marcos’s ouster, multiple parties—including the Republic of the Philippines, a class of nearly 10,000 human rights victims, and the estate of Roger Roxas (from whom Marcos had stolen treasure)—asserted competing claims to these assets. The Republic obtained a forfeiture judgment from a Philippine court and requested the U.S. Attorney General to enforce it under 28 U.S.C. § 2467.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the enforcement application. The court rejected the class’s affirmative defenses, which included arguments based on statute of limitations, subject matter jurisdiction, lack of notice, and fraud. The court also found that Roxas lacked Article III standing because she failed to show a sufficient interest in the Arelma Assets, and denied her leave to amend her answer. The court entered judgment for the Government, allowing the assets to be returned to the Republic of the Philippines.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the class failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of its affirmative defenses and that Roxas lacked standing to participate as a respondent. The court also upheld the denial of intervention by Golden Budha Corporation, finding its interests adequately represented and lacking standing. The main holding is that the Government’s application to enforce the Philippine forfeiture judgment was timely and proper, and that neither the class nor Roxas could block enforcement or claim the assets. View "In re: Enforcement of Philippine Forfeiture Judgment" on Justia Law

The case concerns a series of actions taken by the leadership of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in early 2025, following a change in presidential administration. The new Acting Directors, first Scott Bessent and then Russell Vought, implemented measures to significantly downsize the agency. These included pausing most agency activities, terminating employees (including the Student Loan Ombudsman), canceling contracts, declining additional funding, moving to smaller headquarters, and requiring advance approval for agency work. Some statutorily required services were neglected during this period, though agency leadership later clarified that legally mandated work should continue.Several plaintiffs, including organizations representing CFPB employees and groups that use CFPB services, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They alleged that the agency’s actions amounted to an unlawful attempt to “shut down” the CFPB, violating both statutory mandates and the separation of powers. The district court found that agency leadership had indeed decided to shut down the Bureau and issued a preliminary injunction. This injunction required the government to reinstate terminated employees, refrain from further firings except for cause, maintain certain services, and rescind contract terminations, among other measures.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over claims related to loss of employment, as such claims must proceed through the Civil Service Reform Act’s specialized review scheme. For the remaining plaintiffs, the court found that their claims did not challenge a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), nor did they present a constitutional claim reviewable in equity. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ attempt to challenge an inferred, overarching decision to shut down the CFPB was not viable under the APA or in equity. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case. View "National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought" on Justia Law

A pharmaceutical company sought approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market tasimelteon, a drug previously approved for a rare sleep disorder, as a treatment for jet lag. The company submitted results from several clinical trials, focusing on both objective sleep measures and subjective assessments of alertness and next-day functioning. The FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research issued a complete response letter indicating that the application did not provide substantial evidence of efficacy, particularly criticizing the measurement of next-day impairment and the tools used for subjective endpoints. The company engaged in further discussions and dispute resolution with the FDA, including proposing a narrower indication for approval, but these efforts were unsuccessful.After the FDA issued a formal notice of opportunity for a hearing (NOOH), the company requested a hearing and submitted expert declarations supporting the adequacy of its clinical evidence. The FDA ultimately denied both the application and the hearing request, finding no genuine and substantial issue of fact warranting a hearing. The company then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review, arguing that the FDA was required to hold a hearing, that material factual disputes existed, that the FDA’s decision-making was arbitrary and capricious, and that the final decision violated the Appointments Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not require the FDA to hold a hearing before denying every new drug application, but the agency must grant a hearing if there are material factual disputes. The court found that, in this case, the FDA’s refusal to hold a hearing was arbitrary and capricious because the company’s expert evidence created genuine disputes over the adequacy of the clinical trials. The court remanded the case to the FDA for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA" on Justia Law

A state port authority and a group of related companies entered into a series of letters of intent (LOIs) regarding the possible expansion and operation of a port facility. The final LOI, signed in December 2019, included provisions for confidentiality, exclusivity, and certain legally binding terms, but also stated that it was not a binding agreement to consummate the potential transaction. The port authority’s board approved the LOI and several subsequent extensions, but the board minutes did not include the terms or conditions of the LOI. After negotiations failed, the port authority terminated the LOI. The companies claimed significant losses and alleged the port authority had breached the LOI and misused confidential information.The Harrison County Circuit Court found that the LOI was unenforceable under Mississippi’s “minutes rule,” which requires that public board contracts be sufficiently detailed in the board’s official minutes. The court dismissed all claims based on the LOI, including breach of contract and quantum meruit, but allowed claims for unjust enrichment and misappropriation of trade secrets to proceed. Both parties sought interlocutory appeal, and the appeals were consolidated.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the LOI was unenforceable because the board minutes did not contain enough terms to determine the parties’ obligations, and held that the minutes rule was not superseded by the Open Meetings Act. The court also held that unjust enrichment, as an implied contract claim, was barred by the minutes rule and reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on that claim. However, the court affirmed that the companies’ notice of claim regarding misappropriation of trade secrets was sufficient under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the remaining claim. View "The Mississippi State Port Authority at Gulfport v. Yilport Holding A.S." on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who, after responding to an online advertisement posted by an undercover police officer posing as two twenty-year-old women, learned that the supposed women were actually fifteen years old. Despite this, he continued to arrange a meeting for sexual services in exchange for money, drove from Massachusetts to Rhode Island, and was arrested upon arrival. He was found in possession of cocaine and ultimately pleaded nolo contendere in Rhode Island to indecent solicitation of a child, receiving a suspended sentence and probation. The individual also had a prior history of criminal justice involvement, including violations of abuse prevention orders and drug-related charges.Following his conviction, the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) issued a preliminary determination classifying him as a level two sex offender. After a de novo hearing, a SORB hearing examiner confirmed this classification, applying several risk-elevating factors, including targeting children, stranger victims, substance abuse, criminal justice contact, hostility towards women, and number of victims. The individual challenged the classification in the Massachusetts Superior Court, arguing that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence, particularly contesting the application of certain risk factors. The Superior Court denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings and affirmed the SORB decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case after transferring it from the Appeals Court. The court held that the hearing examiner did not abuse discretion in applying or weighing the challenged risk factors. However, the court found that the hearing examiner’s written decision was ambiguous regarding whether the individual’s information should be disseminated to the public, which is essential for determining the proper classification level. As a result, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded the matter to SORB for a clear, written conclusion on both the need for dissemination and the classification level. View "Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 528042 v. Sex Offender Registry Board" on Justia Law

Louise Trauma Center LLC submitted four Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) between January and June 2021, seeking records about the training and performance of asylum officers. After receiving only boilerplate acknowledgment letters and no substantive response for over two years, Louise Trauma Center filed suit, alleging that USCIS had unlawfully failed to produce the requested records. Following the lawsuit, USCIS produced 2,756 pages of documents, many of which were heavily redacted, and informed Louise Trauma Center of its right to file an administrative appeal regarding the redactions.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted USCIS’s motion to dismiss, holding that the case was moot because the agency had produced the requested records. The district court also found that Louise Trauma Center had not constructively exhausted its administrative remedies and was required to pursue an administrative appeal regarding the redactions before seeking judicial review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Louise Trauma Center had constructively exhausted its administrative remedies because USCIS failed to provide a timely determination on the FOIA requests, as required by statute. The court further held that the case was not moot, since USCIS had not produced all unredacted records and Louise Trauma Center continued to challenge the adequacy of the production. Finally, the court concluded that Louise Trauma Center was not required to exhaust new administrative remedies regarding the redactions after filing suit, as the constructive exhaustion provision applied. The district court’s dismissal was therefore reversed. View "Louise Trauma Center LLC v. Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

A United States citizen, formerly known as Paul Anderson and now Saadiq Long, was placed on the federal government’s Terrorist Screening Dataset (commonly called the Terrorist Watchlist) and, at one point, on its No Fly List subset. After experiencing travel restrictions, employment issues, and other alleged harms, Long challenged his placement on these lists, asserting constitutional and statutory violations. He claimed that his inclusion was based on impermissible factors such as race, religion, and protected activities, and that the government’s information-sharing practices and redress procedures were unlawful. While the litigation was ongoing, Long was removed from the No Fly List, but remained on the broader Watchlist. He also alleged that his Watchlist status led to the denial of credentials necessary for his work as a truck driver.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially transferred some of Long’s claims to the Fourth Circuit and stayed others. After Long’s removal from the No Fly List, a prior Fourth Circuit panel found his No Fly List claims moot and remanded for the district court to determine which claims remained justiciable. On remand, the district court dismissed all of Long’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that his removal from the No Fly List mooted those claims and that he lacked standing for his Watchlist-related claims, as his alleged injuries were either resolved or not sufficiently imminent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in FBI v. Fikre, Long’s removal from the No Fly List did not necessarily moot his claims, as the government had not shown it could not repeat the challenged conduct. The court also found that Long had standing to challenge his Watchlist status based on the denial of transportation credentials, and remanded for the district court to consider the merits of his claims. View "Long v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A childcare provider operating two centers in Vermont participated in the federal Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which reimburses centers for meals provided to children if certain regulatory requirements are met. The provider had previously been cited for noncompliance in 2019, but the matter was resolved after corrective action. In 2022, the Vermont Agency of Education (AOE) again found serious deficiencies, including inadequate recordkeeping, improper meal claims, and failure to monitor facilities. The provider submitted a corrective-action plan, and AOE initially determined the deficiencies were fully and permanently corrected. However, a subsequent unannounced review in 2023 revealed recurring deficiencies, such as missing enrollment forms, incorrect eligibility determinations, and incomplete documentation.Following these findings, AOE issued a notice proposing to terminate the provider’s participation in CACFP and to disqualify the provider and two employees from future participation. The provider requested an administrative review. At the hearing, the provider acknowledged some paperwork was not in compliance but argued the errors were minor and unintentional. Due to time constraints, the hearing officer allowed both parties to submit post-hearing written arguments and documentation, to which the provider did not initially object but later challenged as a violation of due process and agency procedures.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case after the hearing officer affirmed AOE’s decision to terminate and disqualify the provider. The Court held that the hearing officer applied the correct legal standard and that the record supported the findings of persistent serious deficiencies. The Court also determined that the provider had not properly preserved its objection to post-hearing submissions and, regardless, was not prejudiced by the procedure. The Court affirmed the termination and disqualification from the CACFP. View "In re Butterfly Kisses Child Care Center, Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns a petitioner who was substantiated by the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) for placing a child, L.M., at risk of sexual harm. The petitioner had a prior substantiation in 2006 for sexually abusing a minor and a 2019 conviction for open and gross lewdness involving an adult. In 2020, the petitioner and his husband, who had previously been substantiated as a minor, began babysitting L.M., an eight-year-old transgender boy. L.M. would sometimes stay overnight at their apartment, where another adult friend was also present. The petitioner did not inform his probation officer about this arrangement, despite probation conditions restricting his contact with minors. DCF received a report and, after investigation, substantiated the petitioner for risk of sexual harm to L.M.After the substantiation, the petitioner requested review. The Commissioner’s Registry Review Unit upheld the substantiation, and the petitioner appealed to the Human Services Board. A hearing officer recommended reversing the substantiation, but the Board adopted the hearing officer’s factual findings and nonetheless affirmed the substantiation, reasoning that the petitioner’s access to L.M., his prior record, lack of sex-offender treatment, and dishonesty during the investigation supported a finding of risk. The Board found that the petitioner had regular and ongoing access to L.M., including overnight stays, and that the presence of other adults did not amount to constant supervision.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the Board’s decision for abuse of discretion. The Court held that the Board reasonably inferred risk of harm based on the petitioner’s access to L.M., prior substantiation, and other factors. The Court rejected arguments that DCF was required to relitigate the 2006 substantiation or that DCF’s policies were inconsistent with statutory requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed the Board’s decision upholding the substantiation. View "In re Appeal of S.C.-M." on Justia Law

A hospital submitted its proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year, requesting a 6.1% increase in net patient revenue (NPR) and a 2.8% increase in commercial negotiated rates. The hospital justified its request by citing increased patient volume and efforts to reduce wait times. The Green Mountain Care Board, which regulates hospital budgets in Vermont, had previously issued guidance setting a 3.5% benchmark for NPR growth and a 3.4% benchmark for commercial rate increases, requiring hospitals to justify any requests above these benchmarks.After reviewing the hospital’s proposal, the Green Mountain Care Board approved a 5.0% NPR increase—higher than the benchmark but lower than requested—citing the hospital’s strong financial health and the need to balance access to care with cost containment. The Board also approved the requested 2.8% commercial rate increase but included a footnote reducing this increase to 1.2% due to a prior budget overage, referencing a separate budget-enforcement order. The hospital appealed the Board’s decision to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing that the Board’s NPR decision was arbitrary and that the reduction in the commercial rate increase violated procedural requirements under the Vermont Administrative Procedure Act (VAPA).The Vermont Supreme Court held that the Board had adequately explained its decision to approve a 5.0% NPR increase and acted within its discretion, given the statutory mandate to balance cost control and access to care. However, the Court struck the footnote reducing the commercial rate increase to 1.2%, because the underlying budget-enforcement order had been reversed by the Vermont Superior Court for failure to follow VAPA procedures and was no longer valid. The Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the Board’s decision. View "In re Rutland Regional Medical Center Fiscal Year 2025" on Justia Law