Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Several commercial air tour operators challenged federal regulations that banned all commercial air tours over Mount Rushmore National Memorial and Badlands National Park. The dispute arose after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service, in response to statutory requirements and litigation, issued air tour management plans (ATMPs) in 2023 that prohibited such tours, citing negative impacts on visitor experience, wildlife, and tribal cultural resources. The operators argued that the agencies’ actions were arbitrary and capricious, violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and failed to consider reasonable alternatives or aviation safety.Previously, the agencies had attempted to negotiate voluntary agreements with the tour operators, as permitted by the Air Tour Management Act. However, after one operator declined to participate, the agencies shifted to developing ATMPs. This change was influenced by a writ of mandamus issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in In re Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which compelled the agencies to bring certain parks into compliance with the Act. The agencies then considered several alternatives before ultimately banning all commercial air tours in the final plans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the petitions for review filed by the tour operators. The court held that the agencies’ decision to end voluntary agreement negotiations and proceed with ATMPs was not arbitrary or capricious. It further found that the agencies complied with NEPA’s procedural requirements, used reasonable data, considered an adequate range of alternatives, and sufficiently addressed aviation safety concerns. The court concluded that the agencies’ decisions were reasonable and reasonably explained, and therefore denied the petitions to vacate the air tour management plans. View "Badger Helicopters Inc. v. FAA" on Justia Law

A small business that imports and sells shea butter hired an individual in 2017 to provide communication, marketing, and sales support, particularly focusing on social media. The individual worked under a contract that labeled her as an independent contractor, but after the contract expired, she continued to perform a mix of social media, event, and administrative tasks. She stopped working regularly for the business in September 2018. A dispute arose over unpaid wages, with the individual claiming she was owed for work performed, and the business asserting that she was paid for all work under the terms of the contract.The Office of Wage-Hour (OWH) initially determined that the business owed the individual back wages, liquidated damages, and a statutory penalty. The business appealed to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), arguing that the individual was an independent contractor. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the individual was an employee, not an independent contractor, and awarded damages. On the first petition for review, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the individual worked in both capacities—sometimes as an employee and sometimes as an independent contractor—and remanded for OAH to determine the hours worked in each capacity and adjust the damages accordingly. On remand, the ALJ used a percentage-based approach to allocate hours and payments between employee and independent contractor work, ultimately awarding the individual approximately $26,550 in unpaid wages and damages, plus a statutory penalty.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, reviewing the case again, affirmed the OAH’s amended final order. The court held that under the current D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law, employees may pursue claims for disputed wages even if the employer paid conceded wages. The court also held that, due to inadequate recordkeeping by the employer, the burden of proof shifted to the employer to disprove the employee’s evidence regarding hours worked and payments received. View "Shea Yeleen Health & Beauty, LLC v. Office of Wage-Hour" on Justia Law

A physician licensed in Florida worked at a weight management clinic, where he was responsible for maintaining a federal registration to dispense controlled substances. After a report of missing controlled substances at the clinic, local police and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) began investigating. The investigation revealed that the physician had issued numerous prescriptions for controlled substances without proper documentation of a doctor-patient relationship, failed to maintain required records, did not properly report or store controlled substances, and dispensed medication in violation of labeling requirements. The physician claimed that another clinic employee had forged his signature on some prescriptions and denied personal wrongdoing.The DEA issued an Order to Show Cause, notifying the physician of its intent to revoke his registration and deny pending applications, citing violations of federal and state law. The physician submitted a Corrective Action Plan but did not request a hearing. The DEA Administrator reviewed the evidence, including expert testimony and the physician’s admissions, and found that the physician’s continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. The Administrator revoked the registration and denied all pending applications, emphasizing the physician’s failure to accept responsibility and the inadequacy of his proposed corrective measures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the DEA’s final order under an abuse of discretion standard, deferring to the agency’s factual findings if supported by substantial evidence. The court held that the physician received adequate procedural due process, as he was given notice and an opportunity for a hearing, which he declined. The court also rejected the argument that the DEA was required to find knowing or intentional misconduct under Ruan v. United States, holding that such a mens rea requirement does not apply to administrative revocation proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 824. The petition for review was denied. View "Ashraf v. Drug Enforcement Administration" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the owners and operators of a tourist attraction, Bear World, and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) over the closure of an intersection on Highway 20 in Madison County, Idaho. Bear Crest Limited LLC owns parcels of land leased to Yellowstone Bear World Inc., and Michael Ferguson is associated with both entities. In 1973, the original landowners (the Gideons) conveyed land to ITD’s predecessor for highway expansion, reserving “Access to the County Road Connection.” In 2016, as part of a highway upgrade to controlled-access status, ITD closed the intersection nearest Bear World, requiring visitors to use a more circuitous route, increasing travel distance by about five miles.After the intersection closure, the plaintiffs sued ITD for breach of contract and inverse condemnation, arguing that the closure violated the reserved access right in the Gideon deed and constituted a taking of property without just compensation. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Madison County, granted summary judgment to ITD, finding that the deed did not guarantee access to Highway 20, only to a county road, and that the closure did not amount to a compensable taking since alternative access remained.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reversed in part, vacated the district court’s judgment, and remanded. The Court held that Bear Crest Limited had standing and that the Gideon deed unambiguously reserved access to the specific Highway 20 connection, not merely to a county road. The Court found that ITD’s closure of the intersection breached the deed and substantially impaired Bear Crest’s access rights, constituting a taking under Idaho law. The Court directed entry of partial summary judgment for Bear Crest on both claims, reserving damages and other issues for further proceedings. View "Bear Crest Limited LLC v. State of idaho" on Justia Law

A group of business associations challenged a Minnesota law that prohibits employers from taking adverse action against employees who decline to attend meetings or receive communications about religious or political matters. The law also requires employers to post a notice of employee rights and directs the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry to develop an educational poster about these rights. The plaintiffs sued the Minnesota Attorney General, the Commissioner, and the Governor, seeking to prevent enforcement of the law. The Attorney General and Commissioner both declared that they had not enforced, nor intended to enforce, the law. The Governor, who was added as a defendant after making public statements about the law, also had no direct enforcement role.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which was based on state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The court found that the Governor’s public statements and removal power over the Commissioner, as well as the Commissioner’s duties under the law, were sufficient to allow the suit to proceed under the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. The court also found that the Attorney General’s statutory enforcement authority was enough to keep him in the case, despite his declaration of no present intent to enforce the law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. It held that the Governor’s administrative powers, such as appointing or removing the Commissioner, were too attenuated from enforcement to make him a proper defendant under Ex parte Young. The Commissioner’s role in developing an educational poster was deemed ministerial, not enforcement-related. As for the Attorney General, the court found that his sworn declaration of no present intent to enforce the law deprived the plaintiffs of standing. The court ordered dismissal with prejudice as to the Governor and Commissioner, and without prejudice as to the Attorney General. View "MN Chapter of Assoc. Builders v. Ellison" on Justia Law

Reginald Brown, who was serving as interim police chief in Monroe, Louisiana, was dismissed from the Monroe Police Department following his handling of an excessive force complaint against officers. The incident involved a body camera recording showing an officer kicking a suspect, Timothy Williams, during an arrest. Brown was informed of the complaint and took immediate steps, including placing officers on administrative leave and notifying city officials. However, questions arose regarding the timing of Brown’s decision to request the Louisiana State Police to conduct the criminal investigation, particularly whether the delay was influenced by an upcoming mayoral election. Subsequent internal reviews included an interrogation and a polygraph examination, which Brown was found to have failed, leading to allegations of dishonesty and improper delay for personal benefit.Brown appealed his termination to the Monroe Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board, which, after hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, found cause for discipline but determined that termination was excessive. The board reduced the penalty to a ninety-day suspension without pay. The City of Monroe appealed to the Fourth Judicial District Court, which reinstated Brown’s termination, finding his conduct egregious and the board’s reduction arbitrary. Brown then appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, which reversed the district court and reinstated the board’s ninety-day suspension, holding that the district court lacked authority to modify the board’s disciplinary decision once it found the board acted in good faith for cause.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and affirmed the court of appeal’s decision. The court clarified that judicial review of the board’s disciplinary decisions is limited to determining whether the board acted in good faith for cause, and courts may not modify the board’s chosen discipline if that standard is met. The Supreme Court held that the board’s decision to reduce Brown’s discipline was reasonably supported by the evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. View "MONROE MUNICIPAL FIRE AND POLICE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD VS. BROWN" on Justia Law

In 2018, the plaintiff was placed on an involuntary 72-hour psychiatric hold, resulting in the creation of a confidential record by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. In 2021, during a legal dispute over their father’s estate, the plaintiff discovered that his sister’s attorney had obtained this confidential record and used it to threaten him in an attempt to force dismissal of his elder abuse lawsuit against his sister. The record had been released by an office specialist at the Sheriff’s Department, who admitted knowing the sister was not entitled to the record but disclosed it anyway, believing she was concerned for the plaintiff’s well-being.A jury in the Superior Court of Orange County found that the office specialist willfully and knowingly disclosed the confidential record, awarding the plaintiff $29,000 in economic damages and $40,000 in noneconomic damages. The jury also found the plaintiff’s sister and her attorney responsible for 25 percent of the damages. However, the trial court granted a motion for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict, concluding there was insufficient evidence of willfulness, declined to treble the damages, and apportioned both economic and noneconomic damages, entering judgment for 75 percent of the total damages against the office specialist and the County.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reversed the trial court’s order. The appellate court held that “willfully and knowingly” under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5330 means intentionally releasing confidential records to someone known to be unauthorized, regardless of intent to harm. The court found substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of willfulness, requiring trebling of damages. The court also held that while noneconomic damages could be apportioned to other tortfeasors, economic damages could not. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for $177,000 against the County and the office specialist, jointly and severally. View "Doe v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

After the death of the previous sheriff, the County Commissioners of Big Horn County appointed Jeramie Middlestead as interim sheriff in November 2023. Middlestead subsequently ran for election to retain the position. Lee A. Bartel filed a complaint in June 2024, alleging that Middlestead was ineligible to serve as sheriff because he was not a resident of, nor registered to vote in, Big Horn County, as required by Montana law. Bartel sought to prevent Middlestead from being sworn in, arguing that his appointment and potential election violated statutory requirements. Despite these allegations, Middlestead won the November 2024 election and was sworn in as sheriff in December 2024.The Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Big Horn County, presided over by Judge Olivia Rieger after Judge Matthew J. Wald recused himself, considered Bartel’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Middlestead from assuming office. The District Court denied the motion in February 2025, finding that while there were unresolved questions about Middlestead’s qualifications, Bartel had not demonstrated irreparable harm, the equities weighed against granting the injunction since Middlestead had already been sworn in, and that removing the sheriff would not serve the public interest. The court also determined that the statutory standards for granting a preliminary injunction had not been met.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the matter was not moot because the District Court retained the authority to provide effective relief, including potentially ordering Middlestead’s removal if he was found ineligible. The Supreme Court further held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction, affirming the lower court’s order and remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Bartel v. Middlestead" on Justia Law

Angel A. Perales-Muñoz was hired as a recruiter assistant by Document and Packaging Brokers, Inc. (Docupak), a contractor for the National Guard Bureau, to help recruit individuals for the Army National Guard. The Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) began investigating possible fraud in the recruiting program, which led to Perales being indicted on multiple federal charges related to conspiracy and fraud. After two years, the government moved to dismiss the charges against Perales, and the indictments were dismissed with prejudice. Perales and his wife subsequently filed administrative claims and then a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that the CID’s investigation was negligent and caused them emotional distress.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico reviewed the case. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA barred the claims, as the investigation involved policy discretion. The district court ordered limited jurisdictional discovery and referred the matter to a magistrate judge, who found that the CID’s investigation did not violate the Posse Comitatus Act or Army Regulation 195-2. The district court adopted the magistrate’s report and recommendation, dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the discretionary function exception applied because Perales failed to show that the CID’s investigation violated any binding federal law or regulation. The court found no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act or Army Regulation 195-2 and concluded that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the claims. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Perales-Munoz v. United States" on Justia Law

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded $16 billion in grants to five nonprofit organizations to support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as part of a larger $27 billion congressional appropriation under the Inflation Reduction Act. The grants were structured through agreements between the nonprofits and EPA, with Citibank acting as a financial agent to hold and disburse the funds. After concerns arose regarding conflicts of interest, lack of oversight, and last-minute amendments to the grant agreements, EPA terminated the grants in early 2025. Citibank, following an FBI recommendation, froze the accounts associated with the grants. The nonprofits sued, seeking to prevent the termination and to restore access to the funds.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction, ordering EPA and Citibank to continue funding the grants. The district court found it had jurisdiction, concluding the plaintiffs’ claims were not essentially contractual and thus did not need to be brought in the Court of Federal Claims. The court determined the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional, regulatory, and arbitrary and capricious claims, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs’ regulatory and arbitrary and capricious claims were essentially contractual, meaning jurisdiction lay exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims, not the district court. The court also held that the constitutional claim was meritless. The equities and public interest, the appellate court concluded, favored the government’s need for oversight and management of public funds. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law