Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A registered nurse who worked for the Indian Health Service during the COVID-19 pandemic claimed that she and similarly situated nurses were required by supervisors to work overtime without compensation. After resigning, she filed a class action lawsuit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging, among other things, that the government violated the federal overtime statute by failing to pay for overtime that was allegedly induced by supervisors. Specifically, she argued that the statutory requirement for overtime to be “officially ordered or approved” should cover such induced overtime, even in the absence of written authorization.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed all counts of her complaint for failure to state a claim. With respect to the overtime claim (Count II), the court found that she did not allege that she or any potential class members had written authorization for their overtime, as required by the relevant Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed the validity of the OPM’s regulation that requires overtime orders or approvals to be in writing, in light of the statutory language and recent Supreme Court precedent on agency rulemaking authority. The court held that the statute delegates to OPM the authority to prescribe necessary regulations for administering the overtime pay statute, and that this includes the discretion to require written authorization as part of the “officially ordered or approved” process. The court concluded that the writing requirement is a valid exercise of OPM’s rulemaking authority and does not contradict the statute. The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of the overtime claim and remanded the remaining claims to the original panel for further consideration. View "Lesko v. United States" on Justia Law

Pedro Castaneda died in a traffic accident at an intersection on State Highway 249 that was under construction. At the time, the intersection’s traffic lights were installed but not yet operational, and there was a dispute about whether they were properly covered to indicate their status. Castaneda’s family sued the contractors involved in the project, SpawGlass Civil Construction, Inc. and Third Coast Services, LLC, alleging that negligence in the construction and installation of the traffic signals contributed to the fatal accident. The construction project was governed by an agreement between the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Montgomery County, with the County responsible for the project’s design and construction, but with TxDOT retaining authority over the adjacent frontage roads and final approval of plans.The trial court denied the contractors’ motions for summary judgment that sought dismissal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 97.002, which grants immunity to contractors under certain conditions. The contractors appealed. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Section 97.002 applies only to contractors who are in direct contractual privity with TxDOT, and since neither contractor had a direct contract with TxDOT, they could not invoke the statute’s protection.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals. It held that Section 97.002 does not require direct contractual privity with TxDOT for a contractor to qualify for statutory immunity. The court determined that, based on the summary judgment record, SpawGlass and Third Coast performed work "for" TxDOT within the meaning of the statute, as their activities directly related to frontage roads that TxDOT would own and maintain. The court remanded the case to the court of appeals to determine whether the contractors met the remaining requirements of Section 97.002. View "THIRD COAST SERVICES, LLC v. CASTANEDA" on Justia Law

A proposed constitutional initiative in Montana sought to require that Supreme Court and district court elections remain nonpartisan, reflecting a legal tradition in Montana since 1935. The proponent organization submitted both the initiative and a draft explanatory ballot statement to the Secretary of State, which was then reviewed by the Legislative Services Division. The organization’s draft statement explained the initiative would constitutionalize the existing statutory requirement, making future changes possible only by constitutional amendment.After the statutory review process, the Attorney General concluded the initiative met legal sufficiency but chose to substitute his own revised ballot statement, claiming the revision would improve clarity and better inform voters of the initiative’s effects. He did not detail any statutory deficiencies in the proponent's original statement. The proponent organization, joined by another organization interested in nonpartisan judicial elections, challenged the Attorney General’s authority to revise the statement without a written determination that the original was not clear or impartial. The Attorney General responded that only the proponent of the specific initiative could bring such a challenge.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana first found that only the proponent organization had statutory standing to pursue this challenge, dismissing the second organization from the proceeding. The Court then held that the Attorney General lacked authority to revise the proponent’s ballot statement because he had not made the required written determination that the original was statutorily noncompliant. The Court concluded that the proponent’s original statement was clear, impartial, and met statutory requirements. Accordingly, the Court certified the proponent’s original statement to the Secretary of State and ordered its use in the ballot process. View "MFIJ v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

A non-profit publisher mailed its legal resource book, The Habeas Citebook, to prisoners at a Washington state correctional facility. In 2018, the state's Department of Corrections implemented two policies: one prohibited inmates from possessing case law documents unless approved, and another barred possession of legal materials containing information about other Washington state inmates. Relying on these policies, prison officials at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center rejected and delayed delivery of the book. Although the Department’s Publication Review Committee later found the book permissible, the publisher was not notified of this reversal, and delivery to prisoners was significantly delayed—sometimes by over a year.The Human Rights Defense Center sued the prison superintendent and mailroom sergeant in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The district court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, holding that the claims were either moot, failed on the merits, or did not establish personal liability. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding genuine disputes of material fact and instructing the district court to reconsider standing and liability issues. On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment for the defendants and denied requests for injunctive relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity against damages on the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding the mail policies and lack of notice, as there was no clearly established precedent finding such policies unconstitutional. However, it reversed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief related to both the mail policy and notice procedures, finding that the appropriate legal standards had not been applied. The court also reversed the grant of qualified immunity on the delayed delivery claim, finding the right at issue clearly established, and remanded for further proceedings. View "HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, INC. V. UTTECHT" on Justia Law

A city employee was driving a city-owned trash truck as part of his regular route, which required operating a specialized vehicle and collecting trash from hundreds of homes. On the day in question, while the employee was driving in a “normal” fashion and not actively conducting trash collection maneuvers, he failed to stop at a stop sign, resulting in a collision with another vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle, Taylor B. Jolley, sustained injuries and filed a lawsuit against both the city and the employee, alleging negligence.The case was first heard by the Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake. That court sustained the city’s plea in bar, finding that both the city and its employee were protected by sovereign immunity and dismissing the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the circuit court’s decision. The appellate court concluded that neither the city nor the employee was entitled to sovereign immunity, reasoning that the employee was engaged in ordinary driving rather than discretionary or judgment-driven actions tied to the governmental function of trash collection.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case. It determined that the city itself was protected by sovereign immunity because trash collection is a governmental function, not a proprietary one. However, the court held that the employee was not entitled to sovereign immunity for his actions at the time of the collision, since he was engaged in ordinary driving, not exercising special discretion or judgment beyond typical driving tasks. The court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling as to the employee’s lack of immunity, reversed as to the city’s immunity, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision. View "Ellis v. Jolley" on Justia Law

An 18-year-old named Elijah Henry was driving with friends in Pleasanton, California, when a police officer, Officer Harvey, entered a parking lot to check for vehicle break-ins. Seeing the officer, Henry and his friends got into their car and left. Officer Harvey, suspecting a burglary, began to follow Henry’s car without activating lights or siren, intending to perform a traffic stop but not initiating a formal pursuit as defined by Pleasanton’s police policy. Henry, fearful of police attention, accelerated and ran a red light, colliding with Melanie Gilliland’s car and causing her serious injuries. Henry was later convicted of felony DUI, but no evidence connected him or his friends to the suspected burglary.Gilliland sued both Henry and the City of Pleasanton for negligence. In Alameda County Superior Court, the City moved for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from liability under California Vehicle Code section 17004.7, which protects public entities from damages caused by suspects fleeing police if the entity has a compliant vehicular pursuit policy and provides regular training. The first judge denied summary judgment, finding neither an actual nor perceived pursuit occurred under the City’s policy. At a later bench trial before a different judge, the court found the City immune, reasoning Henry believed he was being “pursued” in the ordinary sense, even though no formal pursuit was initiated.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and held the trial court applied the wrong legal standard for immunity under section 17004.7. The appellate court determined that “pursued” must be defined according to the public entity’s vehicular pursuit policy, not by its ordinary meaning. Because the lower court failed to consider evidence that Henry did not believe he was pursued within the meaning of the policy, the judgment in favor of the City was reversed and remanded for application of the correct standard. View "Gilliland v. City of Pleasanton" on Justia Law

On November 14, 2020, Officer David Collier and his partner arrived at a residence in Escambia County, Florida, to serve arrest warrants on Jacob Settle and his wife. Settle was in his truck parked closely alongside the house in a dark, debris-filled backyard. When the officers approached and identified themselves, Settle refused to exit the vehicle. After Collier threatened to break the truck’s windows, Settle started the engine and shifted the transmission into gear. Collier, believing he and his partner were in imminent danger due to his proximity to the truck, fired his gun into the vehicle, fatally wounding Settle. Settle’s estate sued Collier for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and for battery under Florida law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida considered Collier's motion for summary judgment, in which he asserted qualified immunity and state law immunity. The district court denied the motion, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude Collier violated Settle’s constitutional rights by using deadly force on a non-moving vehicle that did not pose a risk to the officers. The district court also denied state immunity for the battery claim, reasoning that a jury could find Collier acted with wanton disregard for Settle’s safety.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that Collier was entitled to qualified immunity, concluding that his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable because Settle’s actions—starting the engine and shifting the truck into gear while resisting arrest—could reasonably be perceived as an immediate threat. The court further held that Collier was entitled to state statutory immunity from the battery claim, as his conduct met the standards for justified use of force under Florida law. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Collier. View "Settle v. Collier" on Justia Law

An individual developed a disabling respiratory condition after working for over fifteen years in coal transportation for two companies. His employment included time as a railroad engineer, during which he transported coal to and from an underground mine and, after that mine's closure, worked at an aboveground preparation plant connected to another underground mine by a long conveyor belt. For much of this period, he was regularly exposed to coal dust. Later, he suffered significant respiratory impairment, leading him to apply for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. After his death, his widow continued the claim for survivor’s benefits.An administrative law judge (ALJ) initially denied the claim, finding that the individual had not worked for the required fifteen years “in an underground coal mine” due to absences and because his work at the preparation plant was not “in an underground mine.” The ALJ concluded that the plant, being over five miles from the underground mine and separated by undeveloped land, was not “appurtenant” to the mine and that conditions at the plant were not substantially similar to an underground mine. The Benefits Review Board reversed, holding that the preparation plant was “appurtenant” to the mine due to functional connection, ownership, and the conveyor system, thus qualifying the employment for the statutory presumption. The Board then awarded benefits based on this presumption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that aboveground work at an underground coal mine can qualify for the presumption under the Act, but the statutory definition of “coal mine” imposes geographical limits. The court found the Board erred by disregarding the distance between the plant and the mine and by not deferring to the ALJ’s factual determination. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fairfield Southern Company v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between the California FAIR Plan Association (CFPA), a statutorily created insurer of last resort, and the state’s Insurance Commissioner. The Commissioner issued an order in 2021 directing CFPA to submit a plan to offer and sell a comprehensive “Homeowners’ Policy” that included, among other coverages, premises liability and incidental workers’ compensation. CFPA challenged this order, contending that the Basic Property Insurance Law only required it to provide first-party property insurance—coverage for direct loss to property—not liability coverage or similar third-party protections.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied CFPA’s petition for a writ of mandate. The court found ambiguity in the statutory definition of “basic property insurance,” specifically in the phrase allowing for “other insurance coverages as may be added.” Deeming the term ambiguous, the court deferred to the Department of Insurance’s interpretation that allowed the Commissioner to require CFPA to offer additional coverages, including liability insurance, so long as such coverages had a connection to the insured property. The court relied in part on the longstanding approval of liability coverage in certain businessowner policies since the early 1990s.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the lower court’s decision de novo. It concluded that, while the statutory language was ambiguous, extrinsic evidence such as legislative history and statutory context demonstrated that the Legislature intended for CFPA to be limited to providing first-party property insurance. The court found no sufficient basis to defer to the Department of Insurance’s later-adopted interpretation that expanded coverage to liability. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and directed the trial court to grant CFPA’s petition for writ of mandate, holding that the Commissioner lacked authority under the Basic Property Insurance Law to require CFPA to offer liability coverage. View "California FAIR Plan Assn. v. Lara" on Justia Law

Florida challenged a federal agency document known as the “Informational Bulletin” that interpreted Medicaid’s hold-harmless rule and threatened to claw back billions in Medicaid funds if certain state practices continued. Florida’s Medicaid funding system relies on a Directed Payment Program, under which local governments assess special fees on private hospitals, pool these fees, and transfer the funds to the state agency, which then uses them to secure additional federal matching funds. The state feared the new federal interpretation could jeopardize its program and moved to preliminarily enjoin the Bulletin’s implementation.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, following a magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied Florida’s motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court held that the Bulletin was not a “final agency action” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and therefore not subject to judicial review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, the Bulletin was indeed a final agency action subject to judicial review under the APA. However, the Eleventh Circuit held that Florida was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge, concluding that the Bulletin’s interpretation of the Medicaid hold-harmless rule was consistent with the statutory text, was not arbitrary or capricious, and did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking. The court thus reversed the dismissal of the complaint, affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Florida Agency for Health Care Administration v. Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services" on Justia Law