Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Employees of Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc. filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts state court, claiming they were entitled to prevailing wages under the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Act (PWA) for work performed. They argued that their work fell within the scope of the PWA. Veolia removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of Veolia. The court concluded that the Special Act of 1997, which pertains to the Springfield Water and Sewer Commission, exempted Veolia from the obligation to pay prevailing wages under the PWA. The employees appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The central issue was whether the Special Act required Veolia to pay prevailing wages. The court noted that the outcome depended on unresolved questions of Massachusetts law and significant policy concerns. Consequently, the First Circuit decided to certify the dispositive state law questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for clarification.The First Circuit certified two questions: the meaning of "construction and design of improvements" in the Special Act and whether the Special Act is incompatible with the PWA under the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Metcalf v. BSC Group, Inc. The First Circuit retained jurisdiction over the appeal pending the resolution of these certified questions. View "Nicholls v. Veolia Water Contract Operations USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC, operates a dispensary in Florissant, an incorporated city in St. Louis County. After Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment legalizing non-medical marijuana and allowing local governments to impose a 3 percent sales tax, both Florissant and St. Louis County enacted such a tax. Robust collected and remitted the tax to Florissant but not to St. Louis County. The Missouri Department of Revenue notified Robust that it must also remit the tax to St. Louis County. Robust sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the constitutional amendment only allows a village, town, or city in an incorporated area to impose the tax, not a county.The Circuit Court of St. Louis County granted summary judgment in favor of St. Louis and St. Charles Counties, finding that the definition of "local government" includes a county in an incorporated area. The court reasoned that excluding counties from the definition would frustrate the amendment's purpose of protecting public health. Robust appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the case de novo and found that the plain language of the constitutional amendment distinguishes between incorporated and unincorporated areas. The court held that in an incorporated area, only a village, town, or city can impose the 3 percent sales tax, while in an unincorporated area, only a county can impose the tax. The court vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case to enter judgment in favor of Robust, ruling that St. Louis County cannot impose the tax on sales within Florissant. View "Robust Missouri Dispensary 3, LLC v. St. Louis County" on Justia Law

Katrina Robertson, an independent contractor working as a polygraph examiner for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was involved in an automobile accident while exiting the DIA campus. She sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that a DIA employee's negligence caused the accident. The government moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that it had not waived its sovereign immunity under the FTCA because a private employer in similar circumstances would be immune from suit under Virginia law.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted the government's motion to dismiss. The court found that the DIA was a "statutory employer" under the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act (VWCA) and that Robertson's injury occurred during the course of her work. Therefore, the VWCA provided the exclusive remedy, and the government was immune from the suit. The district court also denied Robertson's motion to certify a question to the Supreme Court of Virginia as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that under the FTCA, the United States is liable only to the extent that a private party would be liable in similar circumstances. Since a private employer in Virginia would be immune from a negligence suit under the VWCA if it were a statutory employer, the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Robertson v. United States" on Justia Law

CPI Security Systems, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Vivint Smart Home, Inc., alleging that Vivint engaged in deceptive practices to lure away CPI’s customers. Vivint sales representatives falsely claimed that Vivint had acquired CPI, that CPI was going out of business, or that Vivint needed to upgrade CPI’s equipment. These tactics led many CPI customers to switch to Vivint, causing significant losses for CPI. A jury found Vivint liable for violating the Lanham Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), and for committing the common-law torts of unfair competition and tortious interference with contracts. The jury awarded CPI $49.7 million in compensatory damages and $140 million in punitive damages.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina upheld the jury’s verdict. Vivint appealed, raising several issues, including the requirement of CPI’s reliance on false statements for the UDTPA claim, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the damages award, the application of North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages, and the admission of prejudicial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found no reversible error. The court held that CPI was not required to prove its own reliance on Vivint’s false statements to establish a UDTPA claim, as the claim was based on unfair competition rather than fraud. The court also found that the evidence presented by CPI was sufficient to support the jury’s damages award. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court correctly applied North Carolina’s cap on punitive damages by considering the total compensatory damages awarded. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vivint’s motion to bifurcate the trial or in its evidentiary rulings. The reassignment of the trial judge post-trial did not warrant a new trial. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc." on Justia Law

CoreCivic, Inc. has contracted with the federal government since 1996 to operate a private immigration detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey. In 2023, CoreCivic planned to renew its contract, but New Jersey passed a law (AB 5207) prohibiting new, expanded, or renewed contracts for civil immigration detention. CoreCivic sued, arguing that the law violates the Supremacy Clause by infringing on intergovernmental immunity and being preempted by federal law. The United States supported CoreCivic, emphasizing the detention center's critical role in federal immigration enforcement.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of CoreCivic. The court found that AB 5207 interferes with the federal government's discretion in detaining aliens, violating intergovernmental immunity and being preempted by federal law. New Jersey appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that AB 5207 directly regulates the federal government by effectively banning contracts for immigration detention, a core federal function. The court emphasized that the law's impact on federal operations is substantial, as it would cripple ICE's ability to detain and remove aliens efficiently. The court concluded that New Jersey's law violates intergovernmental immunity and is unconstitutional as applied to CoreCivic. View "CoreCivic, Inc. v. Governor of New Jersey" on Justia Law

Keith Huck, an elected member of the Perry County Common Council, was covered under the county's group health insurance plan. In 2023, the Perry County Board of Commissioners voted to exclude part-time employees from health insurance coverage, classifying elected officials, including Huck, as part-time employees. As a result, Huck and his spouse lost their health insurance coverage on January 1, 2024. Huck sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that as an elected official, he should be considered a full-time employee and thus eligible for health insurance coverage.The Perry Circuit Court granted Huck's request for a preliminary injunction, ordering the county to reinstate his insurance coverage. The County appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals determined that the county had the authority to classify elected officials as part-time employees and exclude them from health insurance coverage. Huck then sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which vacated the appellate opinion and reviewed the case.The Indiana Supreme Court held that the county was within its rights to classify Huck as a part-time employee and exclude him from group health insurance coverage. The court found that Indiana law allows local governmental units to exclude part-time employees from group health insurance and that the county's classification of Huck as a part-time employee was permissible. The court reversed the trial court's ruling, vacated the preliminary injunction, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Perry County v. Huck" on Justia Law

A healthcare provider, Neurological Surgery Practice of Long Island, PLLC, provides out-of-network medical services governed by the No Surprises Act. This Act requires out-of-network providers to seek compensation from the patient’s healthcare plan rather than billing patients directly. If a provider and a healthcare plan cannot agree on a compensation amount, an independent dispute resolution (IDR) process is used. Neurological Surgery alleges that a backlog of disputes has resulted in unpaid or delayed reimbursements due to the Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor failing to implement the Act properly, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed Neurological Surgery’s claims. The court concluded that the claims were moot due to the reopening of the IDR portal, Neurological Surgery lacked standing to compel the Departments to enforce the Act’s deadlines on third parties, and the claims regarding the Departments’ failure to certify a sufficient number of arbitrators and provide guidance on New York’s surprise billing law were foreclosed by the APA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, agreeing that the challenge to the pause of the IDR portal was moot since the portal was operational. The court also held that Neurological Surgery lacked standing to compel the Departments to enforce deadlines on healthcare plans and IDR entities, as the injury was caused by third parties, not the Departments. Additionally, the court found that the challenge to the Departments’ failure to certify a sufficient number of IDR entities was foreclosed by the APA, as the Act did not specify discrete actions required by the Departments. Lastly, the court held that the challenge to the Departments’ failure to issue guidance on New York’s surprise billing law failed to state a claim under the APA. View "Neurological Surgery v. Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

In June 2021, a deputy of the Maricopa County Sheriff rear-ended the plaintiffs while driving a vehicle owned by Maricopa County. The plaintiffs filed a notice of claim with the clerk of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and subsequently sued the County, arguing it was vicariously liable for the deputy’s negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The County moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting it lacked the requisite control over the deputy to be held vicariously liable. The Superior Court in Maricopa County agreed and granted the County’s motion to dismiss.The plaintiffs appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, arguing that the deputy is an employee of the County and thus the County should be liable for his negligence. The Court of Appeals held that the County was not vicariously liable because it lacked the necessary control over deputy county sheriffs. The court also noted that county sheriffs qualify as public entities for notice of claim purposes under Arizona law.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether a county can be held vicariously liable for a deputy county sheriff’s negligence and whether the county is the proper public entity for notice of claim purposes. The Court held that a county does not control a deputy county sheriff when carrying out law enforcement duties and therefore cannot be vicariously liable for a deputy’s negligence. The Court further held that a sheriff in his official capacity is vicariously liable for any negligence or misconduct committed by a deputy engaged in law enforcement duties. Additionally, the Court clarified that a claimant may satisfy the notice of claim requirements by filing with the county sheriff’s office, which is responsible for the sheriff’s administrative functions. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the case and vacated the opinion of the Court of Appeals. View "Sanchez v. Maricopa County" on Justia Law

The case involves the Trump administration's "Remain in Mexico" policy, also known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which required asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. southern border to stay in Mexico while their claims were processed. The policy was first implemented in 2019, causing significant hardships for asylum seekers, including unsafe living conditions and limited access to legal representation. The Biden administration terminated the policy in 2021, but the second Trump administration sought to reimplement it in January 2025.The Central District of California reviewed the case and granted an emergency stay of the policy's reimplementation, citing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutional rights. The district court found that the policy severely impeded asylum seekers' access to legal representation and created dangerous conditions for them in Mexico. The government appealed the stay, arguing that it interfered with its discretionary authority to manage immigration and foreign policy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal and partially granted the government's motion for a stay pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit limited the district court's stay to apply only to the current and future clients of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef), allowing the government to reimplement the policy for other asylum seekers. The court found that ImmDef had standing to challenge the policy and that the reimplementation likely violated the APA by infringing on asylum seekers' statutory rights to apply for asylum with the assistance of counsel. View "Immigrant Defenders Law Center v. Noem" on Justia Law

In early 2025, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) implemented a new policy prohibiting NIH from funding certain categories of scientific research grants. Two groups of plaintiffs, including private research organizations, individual researchers, and several states, sued, alleging that the new policy and the resulting grant terminations violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the U.S. Constitution. They argued that the policy was arbitrary and capricious, as the prohibited research categories were undefined and the rationale for discontinuing the research was circular.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a trial on the merits and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the agencies' actions to be "breathtakingly arbitrary and capricious." The court set aside the new policy and related grant terminations as illegal under the APA. The court found that the decisions were based on circular reasoning, lacked a rational connection to the facts, and ignored significant reliance interests. The government then moved for a stay of the district court's order pending appeal, which the district court denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to review the agency action under the APA and to grant declaratory relief. The court found that the district court's orders did not enforce a contractual obligation to pay money but rather provided declaratory relief that set aside agency actions as arbitrary and capricious. The court also determined that the grant terminations were reviewable under the APA and that the Department had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court denied the Department's motion for a stay, concluding that the balance of equities and the public interest favored the plaintiffs. View "American Public Health Assn v. National Institutes of Health" on Justia Law