Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

On December 19, 2023, Lee Meiers was arrested for driving under the influence. The arresting officer read Meiers the implied consent advisory and conducted a chemical breath test, which showed an alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The officer completed and certified a report and notice form, printed and signed the test record and checklist, and provided copies to Meiers and the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). However, the officer did not certify the test record and checklist before forwarding it to the NDDOT.Meiers requested an administrative hearing, where he objected to the admission of the uncertified test record and checklist, arguing that it was not certified as required by N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1, and thus the NDDOT lacked authority to suspend his driving privileges. The hearing officer overruled the objection, admitted the test record and checklist, and suspended Meiers’s driving privileges for 180 days. Meiers appealed to the District Court of Mountrail County, which reversed the hearing officer’s decision, concluding that a certified copy of the test record and checklist was required to invoke the NDDOT’s authority.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the requirement in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1(4) for the test record and checklist to be certified is not a basic and mandatory provision that impacts the NDDOT’s authority to suspend a driver’s privileges. The court emphasized that the certification requirement is for evidentiary purposes and can be accomplished through other means. Therefore, the NDDOT had the authority to suspend Meiers’s driving privileges despite the lack of certification on the test record and checklist. The Supreme Court reinstated the NDDOT’s decision to suspend Meiers’s driving privileges. View "Meiers v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Courthouse News Service, a news organization, sought remote online access to civil court records from the Circuit Court for Prince William County, Virginia, similar to the access granted to Virginia attorneys. Virginia law prohibits the clerk from providing such access to non-attorneys. Courthouse News sued, claiming this restriction violated its First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed Courthouse News's Equal Protection claim and granted summary judgment for the defendants on the First Amendment claims. The court found the restrictions to be content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations justified by the state's interests in the orderly administration of justice and protecting sensitive personal information.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's ruling on the First Amendment and Equal Protection claims, holding that the access restriction was a content-neutral regulation narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests. The court found that the restriction did not violate the First Amendment as it provided ample alternative channels for accessing court records and did not burden more access than necessary. The court also concluded that the restriction did not violate the Equal Protection Clause for the same reasons it passed First Amendment scrutiny.However, the court vacated the district court's ruling on the Dissemination Restriction claim, finding that Courthouse News lacked standing to challenge it since the restriction only applied to those with remote access, which Courthouse News did not have. The case was remanded for the district court to dismiss this claim without prejudice. View "Courthouse News Service v. Smith" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed two successive applications for disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Her first application, alleging disability beginning June 24, 2017, was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on September 18, 2018. While appealing this denial to the district court, she filed a second application for benefits for a later period. Washington State Disability Determination Services (DDS) reviewed the second application and awarded benefits, determining she was disabled starting September 19, 2018, the day after the ALJ denied her first application.The district court partially ruled in her favor on the first application and remanded it for further proceedings. The Appeals Council remanded the case to the ALJ with instructions. On June 23, 2021, the ALJ reopened the second application and denied the benefits previously granted by DDS. The ALJ concluded that the plaintiff was disabled beginning July 14, 2020, on her first application. The district court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s reopening and denial of benefits on the second application.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s reopening of the second application. The Appeals Council did not reopen the second application, and the ALJ’s reopening occurred more than two years after the award, which is only permissible in cases of fraud or similar fault. Finding no evidence of fraud or similar fault, the Ninth Circuit held that the ALJ erred in reopening and reversing the award of benefits on the second application. The court remanded for the district court to direct the agency to award benefits according to DDS’s decision. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on the first application, concluding that the ALJ’s finding that the plaintiff was not disabled between June 24, 2017, and September 19, 2018, was supported by substantial evidence. View "NEVIN V. COLVIN" on Justia Law

Four Native American tribes operating casinos in Oklahoma filed a federal lawsuit in August 2020 to invalidate certain tribal-gaming compacts entered into by the Governor of Oklahoma and other tribes. These compacts were approved by the U.S. Secretary of the Department of the Interior by operation of law. The tribes argued that the Governor lacked the authority to enter into these compacts, violating Oklahoma law and their rights under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).The Governor, represented by private counsel, defended the compacts' validity under federal law, arguing that any provisions violating state law could be severed. In July 2023, the Oklahoma Attorney General filed a notice to assume control of the state's defense, asserting that the compacts were invalid under state law. The Governor moved to strike the Attorney General's appearance, arguing that he had the authority to retain counsel and that the Attorney General could not override this.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia certified a question to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma regarding whether the Attorney General could assume control of the defense over the Governor's objection. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that the Attorney General could not take control of the defense in this case. The court emphasized the Governor's constitutional role as the "Supreme Executive" with the authority to select and direct counsel for the state's interests. The court also noted that the Attorney General could appear in the case but could not override the Governor's choice of counsel. View "CHEROKEE NATION v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR" on Justia Law

Interfaith Sanctuary Housing Services, Inc. (IFS) applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a large-scale low-barrier shelter home in Northwest Boise. The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) initially denied the application, citing concerns about compatibility with the neighborhood, undue burden on public facilities, adverse effects on nearby properties, and insufficient information on mitigating adverse impacts. IFS appealed to the Boise City Council, which reversed the PZC’s decision and granted the CUP, imposing 30 conditions of approval. The Veterans Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. (VPNA) sought reconsideration, which was denied, and then petitioned the district court for judicial review.The district court upheld the City Council’s decision, finding no error in the Council’s actions. VPNA appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that the City Council’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, based on unlawful procedure, and that the Council’s reasoned statement was inadequate under the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA).The Idaho Supreme Court found that the City Council’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and based on unlawful procedure because the PZC’s determination that the CUP could not be conditioned into compliance with the CUP criteria was not an error. The Court also found that the City Council’s reasoned statement was conclusory and failed to adequately resolve pertinent factual disputes, thus violating LLUPA and depriving VPNA of due process. The Court concluded that VPNA demonstrated a prejudice to its substantial rights.The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to invalidate the City Council’s approval of the CUP. VPNA was awarded costs but not attorney fees on appeal. View "Veterans Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. City of Boise" on Justia Law

A group of individuals and West Rockhill Township challenged the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regarding its approval of a compressor station project by Adelphia Gateway, LLC. The DEP's approval was part of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act (APCA) enforcement. The challengers sought review from the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (EHB), which dismissed the appeals, citing the Third Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for such federal law-related decisions.The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed the EHB's dismissal, holding that the EHB had jurisdiction to review the DEP's decision. The court reasoned that an appeal to the EHB is not a "civil action" under the NGA, which grants the Third Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions challenging state agency decisions under federal law. The court distinguished administrative proceedings from civil actions, noting that EHB appeals are administrative in nature and not subject to the NGA's jurisdictional provision.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and affirmed the Commonwealth Court's decision. The court held that the EHB has jurisdiction to review the DEP's permitting decisions under the CAA and APCA. It concluded that EHB appeals are not "civil actions" as defined by the NGA, and thus, the Third Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction does not preempt EHB's review. The court also emphasized that the DEP's decisions are not final until the opportunity for EHB review has passed, aligning with Pennsylvania's statutory framework and the federal Clean Air Act's delegation of authority to state agencies. The case was remanded to the EHB for substantive review of the challengers' appeals. View "Cole v. DEP" on Justia Law

A group of individuals and West Rockhill Township challenged the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) approval of a compressor station project by Adelphia Gateway, LLC. The DEP's approval was issued under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and Pennsylvania's Air Pollution Control Act (APCA). The challengers sought review of the DEP's decision before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (EHB).The EHB dismissed the appeals, agreeing with Adelphia that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), which grants federal courts original and exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions for the review of state administrative agency decisions made pursuant to federal law.The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversed the EHB's dismissal, holding that the EHB had jurisdiction to hear the appeals. The court reasoned that an appeal to the EHB is not a "civil action" as defined by the NGA, and thus, the EHB's review was not preempted by federal law. The court also noted that the DEP's decision was not final until the opportunity for EHB review had expired or been exhausted.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court's decision. The court held that the EHB has jurisdiction to review the DEP's permitting decisions under the CAA and APCA. The court found that the EHB's review process is an administrative proceeding, not a civil action, and therefore, it does not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts as outlined in the NGA. The court also emphasized that the DEP's decision is not final until the EHB review process is complete or the time to seek such review has expired. View "West Rockhill Twp v. DEP" on Justia Law

In 2015, Jesus Rodriguez-Morelos began offering Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) classes, falsely claiming they were affiliated with the nonprofit organization United with Migrants. He charged students for these classes, which were not state-approved, and used the nonprofit's name and tax-exempt document without authorization. Complaints about the classes led to an investigation by the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA), revealing that Rodriguez-Morelos was unlawfully receiving money for the unapproved classes.Rodriguez-Morelos was charged with several crimes, including identity theft under section 18-5-902(1)(a), C.R.S. (2024). A jury convicted him on all charges. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the theft and criminal impersonation convictions but vacated the identity theft conviction. The court concluded that the identity theft statute's definition of "personal identifying information" pertains to individuals, not organizations, and thus did not apply to Rodriguez-Morelos's use of the nonprofit's name and document.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the identity theft statute's reference to "personal identifying information" applies only to information concerning single, identified human beings, not organizations. Therefore, Rodriguez-Morelos's actions did not constitute identity theft under the statute. View "People v. Rodriguez-Morelos" on Justia Law

Two state forensic chemists in Massachusetts tampered with drug evidence and falsified test results, affecting tens of thousands of drug cases. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) vacated over 30,000 criminal cases due to this misconduct. The SJC ruled that under the Fourteenth Amendment, affected individuals were entitled to the repayment of most funds collected due to their vacated convictions but not the automatic return of forfeited property. Instead, individuals had to file motions for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.The plaintiffs, whose criminal convictions were vacated, sought a federal court order for the automatic return of their forfeited property and related relief. The Commonwealth defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits suits in federal court against a state by its own citizens. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the complaint in part, ruling that it could not order the automatic return of forfeited property but allowed other claims to proceed under the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the Eleventh Amendment bars all the relief sought by the plaintiffs. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims focused on a past wrong, and the Ex parte Young exception applies only to prospective relief against ongoing violations of federal law. Additionally, the state officials sued lacked the authority to enforce or change the state court procedures. The court reversed the district court's partial denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case in full. View "Cotto v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, Local 39 (the Union), Macy’s Inc., and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). During negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, Union members rejected Macy’s final offer and went on strike. After three months, the Union ended the strike and offered to return to work unconditionally. Macy’s responded by locking out the Union members, which led the Union to file a charge with the NLRB, alleging that the lockout was an unfair labor practice.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Union, finding that Macy’s violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by locking out employees without providing a clear and complete offer outlining the conditions necessary to avoid the lockout. The NLRB adopted the ALJ’s findings and ordered Macy’s to reinstate the employees and compensate them for any losses incurred due to the lockout. Macy’s and the Union both petitioned for review of the NLRB’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it had jurisdiction because the Union was a “person aggrieved” by the NLRB’s decision. The court found that substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s conclusion that Macy’s lockout was unlawful because the Union was not clearly and fully informed of the conditions necessary for reinstatement. The court also upheld the NLRB’s remedial order, including the make-whole relief for direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms, finding no clear abuse of discretion.The Ninth Circuit denied both the Union’s and Macy’s petitions for review and granted the NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement of its final order. The court concluded that the NLRB’s actions were within its broad discretion to effectuate the policies of the NLRA. View "MACY'S INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" on Justia Law