Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Catherine Baker was employed by San Mateo County as a Social Worker III but went on medical leave in 2009 due to back pain. In 2015, she returned to work in a different position as a screener trainee, which involved different duties but was compensated at the same pay rate as her original position. Her last paycheck was issued in January 2016. In 2017, Baker applied for a service-connected disability retirement, and the San Mateo County Employees Retirement Association (SamCERA) determined that the effective date for her retirement benefits should be January 22, 2016, the day after her last receipt of “regular compensation.”After SamCERA’s Board approved her application and set the effective date, Baker sought administrative review, arguing that her compensation as a screener trainee did not qualify as “regular compensation” under Government Code section 31724 because she had not returned to her original job. An administrative law judge recommended denial of her request to change the effective date, and the Board adopted this recommendation. Baker then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, which denied the petition and confirmed the January 22, 2016 effective date.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One, reviewed whether “regular compensation” under section 31724 included Baker’s pay as a screener trainee. Exercising independent judgment on statutory interpretation, the court held that “regular compensation” refers to regular salary or full wages, regardless of whether the position is the employee’s original job. Because Baker’s screener trainee pay matched her original position’s rate, it qualified as “regular compensation.” The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, upholding the effective date set by SamCERA. View "Baker v. San Mateo County Employees Retirement Assn." on Justia Law

A company had been diverting large amounts of water from streams in East Maui for over twenty years under a series of annually renewed, so-called “temporary” permits issued by the state’s Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR). Each year, the company applied to renew these permits, which allowed it to use state land and divert millions of gallons of water daily. In 2020, before BLNR voted to renew the permits for 2021, an environmental group timely requested a contested case hearing, arguing that new evidence and changed circumstances warranted further scrutiny. BLNR denied this request and proceeded to renew the permits, adding some new conditions.The environmental group appealed to the Environmental Court of the First Circuit, challenging both the denial of a contested case hearing and the permit renewals. The Environmental Court found that the group had a constitutionally protected right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by state law, and that due process required a contested case hearing before the permits were renewed. The court vacated the permits but stayed its order to avoid disruption, temporarily modifying the permits to reduce the allowable water diversion. The court also awarded attorney fees and costs to the group.On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that the group’s protected interest was defined by some, but not all, relevant environmental laws, and that due process did not require a contested case hearing in this instance. The ICA further found that the Environmental Court lacked jurisdiction over the permit renewals and erred in modifying the permits and awarding attorney fees.The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi reversed the ICA in relevant part. It held that the group’s constitutional right was defined by all cited environmental laws, including those governing coastal zone management. The court concluded that due process required a contested case hearing before the permits were renewed, and that the Environmental Court had jurisdiction to review both the denial of the hearing and the permit renewals. The Supreme Court also affirmed the Environmental Court’s authority to temporarily modify the permits and to award attorney fees and costs to the environmental group. View "Sierra Club v. Board of Land and Natural Resources" on Justia Law

A business was investigated by the Consumer Protection Unit (CPU) of the Alaska Attorney General’s Office after the CPU received an anonymous letter alleging that the business, a local car dealership, was charging documentation fees on top of advertised prices, potentially violating Alaska law. The letter included an email exchange confirming the practice. Following approval from the Department of Law, the CPU monitored the business’s website and conducted an undercover visit, during which employees confirmed the additional fees. In December, the CPU issued a subpoena requesting documents related to vehicle sales, including contracts and advertisements, to further its investigation.After the business missed the deadline to produce documents, it petitioned the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, to quash the subpoena. The business argued that the CPU lacked “cause to believe” a violation had occurred, as required by statute, and challenged the reliability of the anonymous complaint and the legitimacy of the undercover investigation. The CPU responded that the subpoena was an administrative subpoena, subject to a low threshold for issuance, and that the letter and email provided a sufficient basis for investigation.The Superior Court denied the petition to quash, finding that the subpoena was authorized under AS 45.50.495(b), was part of a good-faith investigation, and adequately specified the documents to be produced. The court held that the “cause to believe” standard did not apply to the subpoena power in subsection (b), but that even if it did, the evidence met the low bar required. The business appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s order, holding that the CPU had sufficient basis to issue the subpoena under AS 45.50.495(b), regardless of whether the “cause to believe” standard applied. The court found no abuse of discretion in the superior court’s decision. View "Business Doe, LLC v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge to a 2024 rule issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) that revised the method for calculating the “petroleum equivalency factor” (PEF), which is used to determine the fuel economy values of electric vehicles for regulatory purposes. The DOE had previously used a “fuel content factor” of 1/0.15, which significantly inflated the fuel economy ratings of electric vehicles. In its 2023 proposal, DOE suggested eliminating this factor, but in the final rule, it opted to phase it out gradually over several model years. The final rule also introduced a new method for calculating the PEF, using a “cumulative gasoline-equivalent fuel economy of electricity” based on the projected useful life of an electric vehicle fleet—a method not included in the proposed rule.Several states and the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce petitioned for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. They argued that the DOE exceeded its statutory authority by retaining the fuel content factor and violated notice-and-comment requirements by adopting a new calculation method not previously proposed. The petitioners asserted standing based on increased costs to maintain public roads due to heavier electric vehicles and environmental harms from increased greenhouse gas emissions.The Eighth Circuit found that the petitioners had standing and that the case was not moot, even in light of new EPA emissions standards. The court held that DOE exceeded its statutory authority by retaining the fuel content factor, as the relevant statute did not authorize such an approach. Additionally, the court determined that DOE violated notice-and-comment procedures by failing to provide adequate notice of the new cumulative calculation method. The court concluded that these deficiencies were not severable from the rest of the rule.Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit granted the petition for review, vacated the 2024 final rule, and remanded the matter to DOE. View "State of Iowa v. Wright" on Justia Law

A property owner along the shore of Priest Lake in Idaho sought a permit from the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) for a submerged log structure, which he claimed had existed since the early 1960s. The structure, known as a log crib, was intended to prevent erosion and create a sandy beach. After initially applying for a permit to cover modifications made to the structure, including the addition of cobblestones and sandbags, the owner was denied due to lack of public benefit and evidence of modification. He then submitted a second application under Idaho Code section 58-1312, which allows permits for pre-1975 encroachments if the applicant provides documentation of the structure’s age and proof that it has not been modified since 1974.IDL denied the second application, finding insufficient evidence that the structure had not been modified since 1974, particularly since the owner admitted to adding and later removing materials. The owner appealed, and after a public hearing, the IDL Director issued a Final Order denying the permit, agreeing that while the structure predated 1974, it had been modified. The owner then sought judicial review in the District Court of the First Judicial District, Bonner County, arguing that IDL’s procedures violated his due process rights and that the agency erred in its interpretation of the law. The district court affirmed IDL’s decision, finding substantial evidence supported the denial and that due process was not violated.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. The Court held that IDL properly denied the permit because the applicant failed to show the structure had not been modified since 1974, and that the agency was not required to follow procedures for new encroachments. The Court also found no due process violation and awarded attorney fees and costs to IDL. View "Wilson v. Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners" on Justia Law

An 11-year-old child with significant disabilities, including autism and other disorders, attended a public elementary school where staff were aware of his special needs and history of leaving school grounds when unsupervised. Despite this knowledge, the child was left alone multiple times, and on May 17, 2021, he walked out of the school unattended and was never seen again. His mother, acting as his legal guardian, alleged that the school district and staff negligently supervised her son, leading to his disappearance and likely death or serious harm. She also claimed severe emotional distress resulting from the incident.The mother filed suit in the District Court for Sarpy County under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), naming the school district and three staff members as defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by sovereign immunity under the PSTCA’s due care and discretionary function exemptions, and that the complaint failed to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted the motion, finding both exemptions applied and that the emotional distress claim was either barred or insufficiently pled. The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that, based solely on the complaint’s allegations and reasonable inferences, it could not determine whether the PSTCA exemptions applied, as a more developed factual record was needed. The court also found the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state plausible claims for negligent supervision and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Larsen v. Sarpy Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 77-0027" on Justia Law

A Florida minister and licensed clinical Christian psychologist, who had provided court-mandated batterers’ intervention program (BIP) services for decades, sought certification from the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) to continue offering these services to individuals ordered by courts to attend BIPs following domestic violence convictions. The DCF denied his application because his curriculum incorporated a faith-based approach and addressed issues such as substance abuse and anger management, which conflicted with state regulations prohibiting faith-based ideology and requiring a specific psychoeducational model. The provider had previously operated without proper certification and had been denied certification in the past for similar reasons.After the DCF’s 2022 denial, the provider filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging that the regulation violated his rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of DCF, holding that court-ordered BIPs constitute government speech, and thus the state could set their content without implicating the First Amendment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the curriculum and presentation of court-ordered BIPs are government speech. The court found that the state has historically used BIPs to communicate its own message, that participants would reasonably associate the program’s content with the government, and that the state exercises substantial control over the content. Because the programs are government speech, the provider’s Free Speech and Free Exercise claims could not proceed. The court also rejected the facial challenge to the regulation and affirmed the District Court’s judgment. View "Nussbaumer v. Secretary, Florida Dept of Children and Families" on Justia Law

This case involves a challenge to a tariff adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) that significantly reduced the compensation utilities pay to customers who generate electricity through rooftop solar panels and export excess energy to the grid. Petitioners, including environmental organizations, argued that the Commission’s tariff was inconsistent with Public Utilities Code section 2827.1, which requires the Commission to ensure that compensation for customer-generators reflects the costs and benefits of renewable generation and supports sustainable growth, particularly among disadvantaged communities.The First Appellate District, Division Three, of the California Court of Appeal granted a writ of review and affirmed the Commission’s decision. In doing so, the Court of Appeal applied a highly deferential standard of review derived from the California Supreme Court’s decision in Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com., asking only whether the Commission’s interpretation of the statute bore a reasonable relation to statutory purposes and language. The court concluded that the Commission’s approach satisfied this standard and declined to engage in a more searching review of the statutory interpretation.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine whether the deferential Greyhound standard remains appropriate following legislative amendments to the Public Utilities Code. The Supreme Court held that, for Commission decisions not pertaining solely to water corporations, the deferential Greyhound standard no longer applies. Instead, courts must independently review the Commission’s statutory interpretations under the standards set forth in Public Utilities Code sections 1757 and 1757.1, which parallel the review of other administrative agencies. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this less deferential standard. View "Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law

Two pharmaceutical companies challenged a federal program created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which directs the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate prices for certain high-expenditure prescription drugs lacking generic competition. Under this program, manufacturers of selected drugs must either negotiate a price with CMS or face steep excise taxes on all sales of those drugs, unless they withdraw all their products from specific Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both companies had drugs selected for negotiation and, while litigation was pending, agreed to participate and reached negotiated prices.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey resolved the cases on cross-motions for summary judgment, as the parties agreed there were no material factual disputes. The District Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that the program did not violate the Takings Clause, the First Amendment, or the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. The companies appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit consolidated the appeals.The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s orders. It held that participation in Medicare and the negotiation program is voluntary, so there is no physical taking under the Fifth Amendment. The court found that economic incentives to participate do not amount to legal compulsion. It also held that the program’s requirements do not compel speech in violation of the First Amendment, as any speech involved is incidental to the regulation of conduct and participation is voluntary. Finally, the court concluded that the program does not impose unconstitutional conditions, as any compelled speech is limited to the contracts necessary to effectuate the program and does not restrict speech outside those contracts. The court affirmed summary judgment for the government. View "Bristol Myers Squibb Co v. Secretary United States Department of HHS" on Justia Law

A civilian employee of the Defense Logistics Agency in Hawaii, who had served in the National Guard and developed post-traumatic stress disorder, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. After a series of workplace incidents, the agency suspended him indefinitely, citing concerns about his access to sensitive information. The employee claimed that the agency failed to provide reasonable accommodations and improperly deemed him a direct threat.The employee filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint, which eventually led to a final agency decision (FAD) against him. The agency transmitted the FAD and related documents electronically using a secure system, but made several errors in providing the necessary passphrase to decrypt the document. As a result, the employee’s attorney was unable to access the FAD for several weeks, despite repeated requests for assistance and clarification. The attorney finally received an accessible, decrypted copy of the FAD by email on December 5, 2022. The employee filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii 88 days later. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary of Defense, finding the complaint untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the initial electronic transmission, and denied equitable tolling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court held that the 90-day limitations period for filing suit under the Rehabilitation Act did not begin until the attorney received effective notice of the agency’s decision, which occurred when he received the decrypted FAD on December 5. Alternatively, the court held that equitable tolling was warranted because the attorney diligently sought access to the FAD and was prevented by extraordinary circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits. View "ASUNCION V. HEGSETH" on Justia Law