Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Accuracy in Media (AIM) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) seeking records about American service members who were prisoners of war (POWs) or missing in action (MIA) from the Vietnam War and potentially still alive in Laos or Vietnam. The CIA conducted a search using specific terms but did not find any responsive records. AIM challenged the adequacy of the CIA's search, arguing that the search terms were insufficient.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the CIA, concluding that the search terms used by the CIA were reasonably likely to yield the requested records if they existed. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' evidence did not significantly suggest that the requested files were in the CIA's current operational files.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and found that the CIA's search terms were inadequate. The court noted that the search terms omitted key terms such as "Laos," "live sighting," "imagery," "reconnaissance," and "rescue," which were relevant to the FOIA request. The court also found that the CIA did not adequately explain why certain terms were used and others were omitted. The court held that the CIA failed to show beyond material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the CIA and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, requiring the CIA to either conduct a new search or provide a supplemental affidavit with adequate search terms and explanations. View "Hall v. CIA" on Justia Law

In December 2021, Officer Shelton Davis of the Montgomery Police Department, while pursuing a fleeing suspect, collided with Madilyn Shuford's vehicle at an intersection in Montgomery. Officer Davis was responding to a woman's plea for help, who claimed a man was trying to kill her. The suspect, Eugene Osborne Jr., fled in a vehicle, prompting Officer Davis to pursue him with activated lights and sirens. During the pursuit, Officer Davis slowed down at a red light but collided with Shuford's vehicle when she pulled into the intersection.Shuford sued the City of Montgomery and Officer Davis, alleging negligence and wanton conduct, and claimed the City was vicariously liable. The City and Officer Davis moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under § 6-5-338, Ala. Code 1975, and Ex parte Cranman. They provided evidence, including Officer Davis's affidavit and body camera footage, showing he was performing his duties with activated lights and sirens. Shuford opposed, arguing Officer Davis did not use proper signals and took unreasonable risks.The Montgomery Circuit Court denied the summary judgment motion without explanation. The City and Officer Davis petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to vacate the denial and grant summary judgment based on immunity.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the petition, holding that Officer Davis was entitled to immunity as he was performing his law enforcement duties and exercising judgment. The court found no substantial evidence from Shuford to refute this. Consequently, the City was also entitled to immunity. The trial court was directed to enter summary judgment in favor of the City and Officer Davis. View "Shuford v. City of Montgomery" on Justia Law

Tom and Becky Carlson filed a contested case against the Texas Comptroller under the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act (PRPRPA), alleging that the Comptroller’s approval of a wind turbine project resulted in a taking of their property. The case was referred to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), where the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed it as untimely filed, stating that neither the Comptroller nor SOAH had jurisdiction. The Carlsons sought clarification from SOAH, which indicated that the case would return to the Comptroller for a final decision. However, the Comptroller later asserted that the ALJ’s order was final and appealable, leading to the Carlsons' mandamus petition.The Carlsons filed a mandamus petition directly in the Supreme Court of Texas, seeking to compel the Comptroller to issue a final order so they could appeal to district court. The State initially defended the Comptroller’s position that the ALJ’s order was final. However, after the Supreme Court requested clarification on the State’s unified position, the Comptroller issued a final decision, rendering the Carlsons' petition moot.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the Comptroller’s issuance of a final decision extinguished the dispute, making the mandamus petition moot. The Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, as there was no longer a justiciable controversy between the parties. The Carlsons agreed with this outcome, as they would now receive the judicial review they sought. View "IN RE CARLSON" on Justia Law

Gianni and Jennifer Pignetti owned two noncontiguous parcels of land in Philadelphia, used for storing vehicles and equipment for Mr. Pignetti's electrical business. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) condemned part of one parcel and all of the other for an Interstate 95 improvement project. The Pignettis sought just compensation, arguing the parcels should be valued together as one under the Eminent Domain Code, which allows for such valuation if noncontiguous tracts in substantially identical ownership are used together for a unified purpose.The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County agreed with the Pignettis, finding that the parcels were used together for a unified purpose and had substantially identical ownership. PennDOT appealed, and the Commonwealth Court reversed, ruling that the Pignettis did not prove the parcels were used together for a unified purpose. The Commonwealth Court applied a stricter standard from the case Morris v. Commonwealth, requiring that the parcels be so inseparably connected that the loss of one would necessarily and permanently injure the other.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of Section 705 of the Eminent Domain Code does not require the stricter standard from Morris. Instead, it requires only that the parcels be used together for a unified purpose. The Court found that the Pignettis' use of the parcels for storing business equipment and vehicles met this requirement. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address whether the parcels had substantially identical ownership, an issue not resolved by the Commonwealth Court. View "Pignetti v. PennDOT" on Justia Law

Bidi Vapor LLC filed a premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2020 for its tobacco-flavored electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) product, the Bidi Stick – Classic. The FDA identified several deficiencies in the application, and despite Bidi Vapor submitting supplemental information, the FDA found the evidence insufficient. On January 22, 2024, the FDA issued a Marketing Denial Order (MDO) based on three independent grounds: high abuse liability of the product, incomplete study on leachable compounds, and lack of adequate comparison data on harmful constituents. This order prevented Bidi Vapor from marketing the Bidi Classic.Bidi Vapor appealed the FDA’s decision, arguing that the FDA violated the Tobacco Control Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The company contended that the FDA failed to conduct a balanced analysis of the product’s benefits and deficiencies, imposed product standards without proper rulemaking, and did not conduct a second cycle of toxicological review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the FDA’s decision was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. The court found that the FDA had appropriately considered the relevant data and provided a satisfactory explanation for its actions, particularly regarding the high abuse liability of the Bidi Classic. The court noted that this deficiency alone was sufficient to support the MDO, and therefore did not address the other two grounds. The court denied Bidi Vapor’s petition for review, upholding the FDA’s Marketing Denial Order. View "Bidi Vapor LLC v. Food and Drug Administration" on Justia Law

Samuel and Peggy Edwards, residents of Rexburg, Idaho, refused to allow PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power Company, to install a smart electrical meter on their property due to health concerns. Rocky Mountain considered this refusal a violation of its terms of service, which required access to electrical meter bases. After negotiations failed, Rocky Mountain informed the Edwards that their electrical service would be terminated unless they allowed the installation. The Edwards filed a formal complaint with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (PUC), arguing they had not denied access and should be allowed to opt-out of the smart meter installation.The PUC consolidated the Edwards' complaint with similar complaints from other customers and granted Rocky Mountain's motion to dismiss, concluding that the Edwards had not provided evidence that smart meters presented a legitimate safety concern and that Rocky Mountain had the authority to access and replace meters. The Edwards' motion for reconsideration was also dismissed by the PUC, leading them to appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed whether the PUC properly determined that Rocky Mountain had the authority to access the Edwards' property to replace the existing meter with a smart meter. The Court affirmed the PUC's decision, concluding that the tariff provisions allowed Rocky Mountain to access and replace meters. The Court also found that the Edwards' constitutional arguments were waived due to insufficient support and authority. The PUC's orders dismissing the Edwards' complaint and denying reconsideration were affirmed. View "Edwards v. IPUC" on Justia Law

The State of Wyoming, Board of Land Commissioners (State Board), granted Temporary Use Permits (TUPs) to permittees for the use of state land in Teton County. The Teton County Board of County Commissioners (County Board) issued abatement notices to the permittees, asserting violations of county land use regulations. The State Board sought a declaration that it and its permittees were not subject to these regulations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State Board, and the County Board appealed.The district court found that the State Board and its permittees were not subject to Teton County's land use and development regulations. The County Board argued that Wyoming statutes required compliance with local zoning laws for state lands under long-term leases and TUPs. The State Board countered that sovereign immunity protected it from such regulations and that the statutes did not apply to TUPs.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the State Board and its permittees operating under a TUP are not subject to county land use and development regulations. The court reasoned that while Wyoming statutes require compliance with local zoning laws for long-term leases of state lands, they do not impose the same requirement for TUPs. The court emphasized that the legislature's omission of TUPs from the statutory requirement for compliance with local zoning laws was intentional. Therefore, the County Board lacked the authority to enforce its land use regulations against the State Board and its permittees operating under a TUP. View "Teton County Board of County Commissioners v. State" on Justia Law

In May 2023, Officers Jacob Ondich and Mathew Lougee of the Casper Police Department arrested Daniel Charles Hemmer at his home and transported him to the Natrona County Detention Center (NCDC). Hemmer was charged with felony theft and entered a no-contest plea in December 2023. Subsequently, Hemmer filed a civil suit against the officers, the Casper Police Department, and NCDC, alleging unlawful entry, arrest without probable cause or a warrant, and a strip search at NCDC. He claimed the officers' actions constituted kidnapping and sought $12 million in damages.The Natrona County District Court dismissed Hemmer's complaint. The court found that Hemmer did not allege facts showing NCDC's involvement in his arrest or provide legal authority for his claims against the detention center. The court also dismissed the claims against the Casper Police Department due to a lack of specific allegations. The kidnapping claim against the officers was dismissed because Hemmer did not support it with legal authority. Additionally, the court concluded that Hemmer failed to submit a timely notice of claim under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and summarily affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court noted that Hemmer's pro se brief did not comply with appellate rules, lacked a statement of issues, and failed to present cogent arguments supported by legal authority. The court emphasized that while pro se litigants are given some leniency, they must still reasonably comply with procedural rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Hemmer's complaint. View "Hemmer v. City of Casper Police Department" on Justia Law

Artur Skobodzinski was driving a commercial vehicle when he was stopped by a North Dakota Highway Patrol trooper for a safety inspection. The trooper detected an odor of alcohol and observed that Skobodzinski had bloodshot eyes. Skobodzinski denied recent alcohol consumption and refused field sobriety tests. He also refused an on-site screening test and a chemical breath test, leading to his arrest for driving under the influence. Skobodzinski requested to speak with an attorney but was only allowed to do so over an hour later at the law enforcement center.The Department of Transportation held an administrative hearing and found that Skobodzinski refused the chemical test and had a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney. Consequently, his driving privileges were revoked for 180 days. The district court affirmed this decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the hearing officer did not err in finding that Skobodzinski refused the chemical test. However, the court found that the hearing officer erred in determining that Skobodzinski was given a reasonable opportunity to speak with an attorney. The court noted that the trooper could have allowed Skobodzinski to contact an attorney immediately after his request, rather than delaying it until they reached the law enforcement center. The court emphasized that the trooper's delay deprived Skobodzinski of a meaningful opportunity to consult with an attorney and potentially cure his refusal to take the chemical test.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and the hearing officer’s decision, thereby reinstating Skobodzinski’s driving privileges. View "Skobodzinski v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Robert Saint, an attorney representing a whistleblower in a False Claims Act case, requested a legal memorandum (White Paper) from the Family & Social Services Administration (FSSA) under Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA). The White Paper was created by HealthNet, a private entity, and given to FSSA for use during Medicaid settlement negotiations. FSSA denied the request, claiming the document was protected by attorney-client privilege and the deliberative material exception.The Marion Superior Court ordered FSSA to disclose the White Paper, finding that FSSA failed to demonstrate an attorney-client relationship or that the document was deliberative material prepared for FSSA’s decision-making. The court also found that any privilege was waived when the document was tendered to FSSA. FSSA appealed, reasserting the deliberative material exception and arguing that the document was used for decision-making within the agency.The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, rejecting FSSA’s arguments and finding that the White Paper was neither intra-agency nor interagency material. The court also found that FSSA waived its private contractor and confidentiality arguments by not raising them earlier.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s order. The court held that the deliberative material exception did not apply because the White Paper was not intra-agency material. The court emphasized that intra-agency material must originate from and be communicated between employees of the same agency. Since the White Paper was created by HealthNet and not generated within FSSA, it did not qualify for the exception. The court concluded that FSSA failed to meet its burden of proof and ordered the disclosure of the White Paper. View "Family & Social Services Administration v. Saint" on Justia Law