Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A nonprofit organization focused on election integrity requested that Hawaii’s State Elections Office provide a statewide list of registered voters, citing a provision in the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) that allows for public inspection of certain election records. Hawaii’s State Elections Office declined to provide the statewide list and recommended that the organization seek separate county-level lists from each of the four County Clerks, as the Office does not maintain or distribute such a combined list. After receiving this response, the organization sought injunctive and declaratory relief in federal court, arguing that the NVRA entitled it to the statewide voter list.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii dismissed the action, holding that the organization’s claim was not ripe because it had not first requested the information from the counties. The court found there was no Article III jurisdiction, as the organization had not suffered a concrete injury and could still pursue county-level records. The district court allowed time for the organization to amend its complaint if its claims became ripe, but the organization declined, maintaining that the NVRA required disclosure by the State. Final judgment was entered, and the organization appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the organization did have standing, as the denial of information requested under the NVRA constitutes a sufficient injury for Article III purposes. The appellate court also found the claim to be ripe, as the State had made clear it would not provide the requested information. However, on the merits, the Ninth Circuit held that the NVRA does not require disclosure of a statewide voter list, as such a list is not a record “concerning the implementation” of list-maintenance programs under the statute. The court therefore affirmed dismissal, but on the merits, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the claim with prejudice. View "PUBLIC INTEREST LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC. V. NAGO" on Justia Law

An employee of a Texas electric utility company testified before a legislative committee about technical problems with the company's new smart meters, attributing fire hazards to the meters and referencing specific service calls. He was also the chief spokesperson for the union representing workers at the company, and he testified the day after unsuccessful collective bargaining negotiations. In his testimony, he identified himself as both an employee and a union representative, but did not mention the ongoing labor dispute or the negotiations. After learning of his remarks, the company terminated his employment, citing a violation of its policy against providing misleading information to public officials.An administrative law judge found that the employee’s testimony was protected under federal labor law, specifically section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which protects concerted activities for mutual aid or collective bargaining. The National Labor Relations Board agreed, concluding the company had committed unfair labor practices and ordering reinstatement and back pay. On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit previously found the testimony was not “maliciously untrue” but remanded for the Board to determine whether the employee’s speech sufficiently indicated it was connected to an ongoing labor dispute. On remand, the Board again found the discharge unlawful, reasoning that the context and the employee’s identification as a union representative sufficiently communicated the labor dispute connection.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the employee’s statements were not protected because they did not disclose a connection to an ongoing labor dispute, as required by Supreme Court precedent. The court found the Board’s analysis legally erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. It therefore granted the company's petition for review, denied enforcement of the Board’s order, and vacated the finding of an unfair labor practice. View "Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A longtime Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives was prosecuted in federal court for engaging in extensive bribery schemes. The first involved a major utility company, Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), which, facing financial difficulties, funneled more than $3 million to the defendant’s political associates through intermediaries and sham contracts in exchange for the defendant’s legislative support of ComEd’s agenda over several years. The government presented evidence that these payments resulted in concrete legislative actions by the defendant that benefitted ComEd, including support for specific bills and regulatory changes. The second scheme involved the defendant’s agreement to recommend a Chicago alderman for a state board appointment in exchange for business referrals and benefits to the defendant’s family.Following a lengthy trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the jury convicted the defendant on several counts, including conspiracy, federal-program bribery, honest-services wire fraud, and Travel Act violations. The jury acquitted him on some counts and was deadlocked on others. The district court denied the defendant’s motions for acquittal and for a new trial, then imposed a sentence of imprisonment and a substantial fine.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the adequacy of the jury instructions. The Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supported each conviction and found no prejudicial error in the jury instructions, including those related to the definition of “official act,” “corruptly,” and the intent elements of bribery. The court also concluded that any potential instructional error regarding state law bribery under the Travel Act was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The convictions and sentence were affirmed. View "USA v. Madigan" on Justia Law

Arthur Miles was sentenced to a total of 300 months’ imprisonment following two separate federal convictions. After his first sentencing in October 2022, Miles was housed at the Marion County Jail in Indiana for fifteen months—some of this time was before and some after his second federal sentencing. During his time at the county jail, Miles worked as an orderly. He later argued that under the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”), he was entitled to earn time credits for this work, which could reduce his sentence, because his federal sentence had commenced and the work was equivalent to an evidence-based recidivism reduction (“EBRR”) program.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reviewed Miles’s habeas petition after a magistrate judge recommended denying the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge found that BOP regulations preventing prisoners from earning FSA credits until they arrived at a federal facility conflicted with the FSA’s language. The district court, however, rejected this recommendation and dismissed Miles’s petition, holding that the BOP’s rules did not violate the FSA.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the BOP’s regulation, which delayed the accrual of FSA time credits until a prisoner’s arrival at a federal facility, was invalid because it conflicted with the statutory definition of when a sentence commences. The court further held that a risk and needs assessment is not a prerequisite for earning FSA credits, and that prisoners may earn credits for qualifying programming—such as work as an orderly—performed after sentencing even while housed in non-federal facilities. The court vacated the dismissal of Miles’s habeas petition and remanded for further proceedings to determine his entitlement to credits for his time at the county jail. View "Miles v. Bowers" on Justia Law

A local air quality management district initiated legal action against an engineering company, its chief executive officer, and a related business, alleging they committed statutory and regulatory violations connected to their agricultural service operations. The district claimed that the defendants failed to correct their conduct after being issued several notices of violation for operating equipment without proper permits and failing to comply with emission controls. The defendants, in response, asserted that the notices were based on an internal district policy that had not been properly adopted through the required public rulemaking procedures.The defendants filed a cross-complaint in the Superior Court of Yolo County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They argued that the district relied on a “secret” policy (Policy 24) not properly promulgated under statutory procedures, which unfairly deprived them of certain agricultural exemptions. The district responded with an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion under section 425.16, asserting that the cross-complaint targeted protected regulatory and legal activities, including the investigation, issuance of notices, and initiation of litigation. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the cross-complaint was a challenge to the validity of the underlying policy, not to the enforcement actions themselves.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed whether the cross-complaint arose from activities protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court held that the causes of action in the cross-complaint were directed at the validity of the district’s internal policy rather than at the district’s protected enforcement activities. Therefore, the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order denying the anti-SLAPP motion and awarded costs on appeal to the defendants. View "People ex rel. Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management Dist." on Justia Law

Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. was engaged in gas production from two New Mexico units under a federal lease, which required payment of royalties to the federal government. State officials, acting under federal authority, audited Devon Energy’s operations and disallowed certain deductions related to the treatment and transportation of natural gas over a four-year period. The charges for these services were bundled, making it difficult to separate deductible from non-deductible costs. A related Devon entity had previously resolved a similar dispute with the government through a settlement agreement, which established formulas for calculating allowable deductions.The Office of Natural Resources Revenue, a federal agency, reviewed Devon Energy’s objections to the audit and upheld the disallowance, ordering payment of the contested royalties or further documentation. Devon Energy sought review in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, arguing that the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not considering the prior settlement agreement. The district court affirmed the agency’s decision, reasoning that the agreement did not cover all disputed royalties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo, applying the arbitrary-and-capricious standard. The Tenth Circuit found that the agency erred by failing to consider the prior settlement agreement, which may have had significant legal and factual implications for the calculation of deductions. The court also found that the record was insufficient to support the government’s alternative arguments for affirmance, such as the identity of the contracting entity and the expiration of the agreement’s terms. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for the district court to determine the appropriate remedy—whether vacatur of the agency’s decision or a remand to the agency is warranted. View "Devon Energy Production Company v. DOI" on Justia Law

A company operating a landfill in California suspected that neighboring state facilities were contributing hazardous waste, complicating its efforts to clean up groundwater contamination. The company alleged that activities at several state-run institutions bordering its landfill—including a correctional facility and a health care center—involved the use and disposal of hazardous substances that were leaching into the groundwater. In response, the company entered into an agreement allowing it to collect data from these state facilities, which it then used to support its claim that hazardous waste generation at those sites was undermining its remediation efforts.The company brought a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) against the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Director of the California Department of General Services. The lawsuit alleged that, by virtue of their official positions, these state officials controlled the generation and management of hazardous waste at the implicated facilities. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that the officials’ general supervisory roles were insufficient to establish the “fairly direct” connection to the alleged violations required for an exception to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity under the doctrine established in Ex parte Young.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a “fairly direct” connection between the named officials and the alleged RCRA violations. The court clarified that general supervisory authority or oversight of state agencies does not, by itself, subject state officials to suit under Ex parte Young; a more specific connection to the alleged unlawful conduct is required. Thus, the action against these particular officials could not proceed. View "FORWARD, INC. V. MACOMBER" on Justia Law

In this case, Texas enacted Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4) in 2023 to address a significant increase in illegal immigration across its southern border. The law criminalizes certain acts of unlawful entry and reentry, tracking federal immigration statutes, and allows for state judges to order the return of individuals found in violation. Before the law took effect, two nonprofit organizations that provide legal services to immigrants and El Paso County filed suit, seeking to have S.B. 4 declared unlawful and its enforcement enjoined. The nonprofits claimed the law would frustrate their missions and require them to divert resources, while El Paso County alleged it would incur increased costs and suffer a loss of public trust.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction, finding that S.B. 4 was likely preempted by federal law and that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, based on the alleged frustration of their missions, resource diversion, and reputational harm. Texas appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A divided panel initially affirmed the injunction, heavily relying on Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman to find organizational standing. However, the Supreme Court subsequently decided FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which narrowed the circumstances under which organizations can claim standing based on resource diversion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The court concluded that voluntarily incurring costs, merely adjusting to new laws, or alleging reputational harm do not constitute cognizable injuries. As a result, the Fifth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, declining to address the merits of the preemption claim. View "USA v. State of Texas" on Justia Law

A Montana ballot initiative, known as BI-9, sought to amend the state constitution by creating a new section that would define and limit the powers of “artificial persons,” such as corporations and other entities, by prohibiting them from spending money or anything of value to influence electoral outcomes. The initiative arose after a previous attempt (BI-4) by the same proponents was rejected for violating the state’s constitutional separate-vote requirement. The Montana Attorney General again found BI-9 legally insufficient, determining that it combined multiple unrelated constitutional changes in a single proposal and therefore violated Article XIV, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution.After the Attorney General’s finding, the proponents petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Montana for declaratory judgment, challenging the Attorney General’s assessment. The Attorney General argued that BI-9 not only added new material to the constitution but also limited the powers of artificial persons, affected a wide range of entities beyond corporations, and implicitly amended other constitutional provisions, all of which, in his view, required separate votes.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the initiative and disagreed with the Attorney General’s conclusions. The Court held that BI-9 constituted a single constitutional amendment under Article XIV, Section 11, because the proposal’s various components were closely related and did not amount to “logrolling” or voter deception. The Court distinguished the current proposal from prior rejected initiatives and found that the specification of affected entities and the consequences of political spending restrictions did not require separate votes. The Court reversed the Attorney General’s rejection of BI-9 and ordered him to prepare and forward a ballot statement to the Secretary of State. View "Transparent Election Initiative v. Knudsen" on Justia Law

An attorney whose license to practice law in Connecticut was suspended for one year sought reinstatement and, after delays in the consideration of her application, filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. She alleged that the delay by the standing committee responsible for reviewing her reinstatement was racially discriminatory. When the standing committee sought guidance from the Superior Court regarding how to proceed given her discrimination complaints, the attorney filed a second complaint alleging retaliation. The Commission investigated this second complaint, found reasonable cause, and certified it for a public hearing.The Judicial Branch, named as a respondent in the administrative proceedings, moved to dismiss the retaliation complaint, arguing that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction, particularly because the underlying conduct implicated the core judicial function of regulating attorney admission. The Human Rights Referee denied the motion to dismiss, and the Judicial Branch appealed to the Superior Court under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act. The Superior Court concluded that the Commission’s assertion of jurisdiction over attorney reinstatement decisions violated the separation of powers doctrine, as such matters fall within the exclusive authority of the Judicial Branch, and ordered that the complaint be dismissed.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal because the Judicial Branch had asserted a colorable claim of immunity from suit based on the separation of powers doctrine, which would be irretrievably lost absent immediate review. The Supreme Court further held that, under the circumstances, the Commission’s exercise of jurisdiction over complaints arising from attorney discipline or reinstatement proceedings would impermissibly interfere with the essential functions of the Judicial Branch, violating the separation of powers. The Court clarified, however, that its ruling does not shield the Judicial Branch from judicial review of discrimination claims arising from its regulation of the bar. View "State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities" on Justia Law