Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

An electric supplier was granted a license to operate in Connecticut in 2007. In 2014, the state’s utility authority began a proceeding to redesign the standard billing format for residential customers, ultimately deciding in 2023 to allocate the costs of this redesign among all licensed electric suppliers, including this supplier. Meanwhile, in 2021, the supplier entered into a settlement agreement with the authority’s enforcement office and other state entities, agreeing to leave the Connecticut market for six years in order to resolve various alleged violations. After the cost allocation decision was issued, the supplier moved to withdraw its license, asserting it had no further obligations to the state.The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) denied the motion to withdraw the license without prejudice, instructing the supplier to pay the allocated assessment before the license could be relinquished. The supplier appealed to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain, arguing that the denial was a final agency decision in a contested case or a declaratory ruling subject to judicial review. The Superior Court granted PURA’s motion to dismiss the appeal, finding that the denial was not a final decision in a contested case and that no declaratory ruling had been issued.On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that the supplier had waived its argument that PURA’s denial was a declaratory ruling, since it had argued the opposite in the Superior Court. The Supreme Court further held that PURA’s denial of the motion to withdraw was not a final decision in a contested case because no statute required PURA to hold a hearing on such a motion. The Court also found that the assessment was not a civil penalty, so statutes requiring hearings before penalties did not apply. Thus, the trial court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was affirmed. View "Clearview Electric, Inc. v. Public Utilities Regulatory Authority" on Justia Law

An administrative law judge (ALJ) at the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a protective order during a dispute between Qualcomm and Apple, requiring recipients of confidential business information, including expert witness Gregory Sidak, to return or destroy that information after the case ended. However, the ALJ who issued the order had been appointed solely by the ITC chairman, not by the full commission as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The ITC later ratified the ALJ’s appointments but did not ratify past actions taken by those ALJs. Years after the underlying case ended, the ITC began investigating Sidak for allegedly violating the protective order’s requirements. Sidak participated in the investigation by exchanging letters and affidavits, but eventually sued, arguing that the protective order was void because it was issued by an unconstitutionally appointed ALJ and never ratified, and sought to enjoin the ITC from enforcing it against him.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia found in Sidak’s favor, holding that the protective order could not lawfully be used as the basis for the investigation or for imposing sanctions on him. It permanently enjoined the ITC from taking further action against Sidak based on the challenged order. The ITC appealed the district court’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Sidak had standing, that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, and that Sidak had a right of action under the Constitution. The court further held that Sidak’s challenge was both timely and ripe, rejecting the ITC’s arguments that the claim was either too early or too late. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting permanent injunctive relief. View "J. Sidak v. United States International Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Three individuals, Barbara Moore, Vanessa Reed, and Christine Burrell, served as members of the Lipscomb City Council, each representing a different district. After a city council meeting in May 2025, the council rejected a proposed redistricting plan and resolved to keep district boundaries unchanged. However, in the August 2025 municipal election, the election was conducted using the rejected redistricting map. Despite this, the three council members were sworn into office for their respective districts under the original boundaries. Mayor Robin Sims, claiming the council members no longer met residency requirements due to the district lines used in the election, filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO), a permanent injunction, and a writ of quo warranto, seeking their removal from office.The Jefferson Circuit Court, Bessemer Division, issued the TRO, then granted the writ of quo warranto and the permanent injunction, finding that the council members did not meet the statutory residency requirements and declaring their seats vacant. The court denied the council members’ motion to dismiss and their subsequent postjudgment motion, holding that they were unlawfully occupying their seats. The court also denied their request to stay enforcement of its judgment pending appeal.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the statutory requirement that an informant provide security for costs at the commencement of a quo warranto action was not satisfied. The bond posted was solely for the injunction, not for the quo warranto proceeding. Because this requirement is jurisdictional, the trial court’s judgment was void. The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the judgment and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to vacate its judgment. View "Moore v. State of Alabama ex rel. Mayor Sims" on Justia Law

A property owner sought permission from San Luis Obispo County to construct single-family homes on several lots in Los Osos, an already developed coastal community. The County granted the permit, concluding the homes were an appropriate use under local zoning. However, the California Coastal Commission appealed the County’s decision to itself and denied the permit, asserting that it had appellate jurisdiction because the proposed development was situated in a sensitive coastal resource area (SCRA) under the County’s local coastal program (LCP), and because the site was designated for more than one principal permitted use.After the Commission's denial, the property owner filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate in San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, contending the Commission lacked appellate jurisdiction on both grounds. The superior court sided with the Commission on the SCRA issue but rejected the Commission’s alternative jurisdictional basis. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the Commission properly exercised appellate jurisdiction based on the SCRA designation and did not address the alternative argument.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case and clarified several important principles. It held that courts must exercise independent judgment—not deferential review—when determining the Commission’s appellate jurisdiction if the matter turns on legal interpretation of an LCP. The court further held that, where the Commission and a local government offer conflicting interpretations of an LCP, judicial deference to either is unwarranted when no interpretive advantage is clearly established. Examining the LCP, the court found that the proposed development was not in an SCRA as designated by the LCP. It also ruled the Commission does not have appellate jurisdiction solely because a site has multiple principal permitted uses; jurisdiction arises only if the proposed use is not among those principal permitted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed. View "Shear Development Co. v. Cal. Coastal Com." on Justia Law

John Mercer was charged with two counts of driving while intoxicated (DWI) in Garland County, Arkansas, in 2017. He pled no contest to both charges in 2018. The Garland County District Court imposed fines, required alcohol education, and placed Mercer on at least six months of probation, which included a $25 monthly probation fee and conditions such as random drug and alcohol testing. Mercer made several probation-fee payments as a result. Mercer later filed a lawsuit, alleging that probation and associated fees in DWI cases are not authorized under Arkansas law and therefore constitute an illegal exaction. He also asserted federal and state due-process claims, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and repayment of the fees collected.The Garland County District Court moved to dismiss Mercer’s complaint in the Garland County Circuit Court, arguing that it was entitled to sovereign immunity under the Arkansas Constitution. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, rejecting the sovereign immunity defense. After further proceedings and amended complaints, the district court again sought dismissal, but the circuit court denied the motion. The district court then filed an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, challenging the denial of sovereign immunity.The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that Mercer’s illegal-exaction claim may proceed because the Arkansas Constitution expressly authorizes such claims, overriding sovereign immunity. The court also held that Mercer’s federal due-process claim survives dismissal, as state sovereign immunity cannot categorically bar federal causes of action in state courts of general jurisdiction. However, the court ruled that Mercer’s Arkansas Civil Rights Act claim is barred by sovereign immunity, as there is no constitutional authorization for such suits against the state. The court affirmed the circuit court’s order in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "GARLAND COUNTY DISTRICT COURT v. MERCER" on Justia Law

Two business partners were traveling on Interstate 65 in Kentucky when their rental car hydroplaned during a heavy rainstorm, resulting in a crash that killed one partner and seriously injured the other. The decedent’s widow, on behalf of herself, her children, and her husband’s estate, along with the surviving partner, brought suit against the engineering firms responsible for the design of a highway-widening project completed years earlier. The plaintiffs alleged that the engineers negligently designed the widened highway, causing increased water pooling and a greater risk of hydroplaning in the area where the accident occurred.The Fayette Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the engineers, holding that they were immune from suit as contractors for a governmental entity and that the claims were preempted by federal law because the design complied with required state and federal standards. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that contractors do not automatically share the immunity of the state, that government approval of the design did not insulate the engineers from potential liability for negligent design, and that the state negligence and wrongful death claims were not preempted by federal law.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the Court of Appeals. It held that private engineering firms hired by a state agency are not entitled to the Commonwealth’s sovereign or derivative immunity simply by virtue of their contract. The court also found that summary judgment was inappropriate on the ground of the engineers’ work being “mandated” by the government because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the design was required or whether the engineers exercised independent judgment. Finally, the court held that Kentucky’s negligence and wrongful death claims were not preempted by federal law, as the state claims did not impose standards more stringent than those required by federal regulations. View "HMB PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, INC. V. IVES" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization requested that a state commission produce all emails and text messages sent between certain commission members, agency officials, and two legislators from June 2020 onward, including those sent or received on private devices or accounts. The commission responded by producing hundreds of documents from its own records but did not produce communications held exclusively on the private cell phones or private email accounts of individual commission members, stating that these were not public records under the Open Records Act (ORA). The nonprofit organization then brought suit, alleging a willful violation of the ORA for the commission’s failure to provide these additional communications, arguing that commission members used their private accounts to conduct all commission business and that such communications should be disclosed.The Franklin Circuit Court granted summary judgment in part to both sides. The court determined that emails sent or received by commission members on their private email addresses concerning commission business were public records and ordered their disclosure, but found that text messages on private devices, while public records, were exempt from disclosure due to the impracticality and privacy concerns of retrieval. The court also found that the commission had not willfully violated the ORA. Both the commission and the nonprofit appealed, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals largely rejected the commission’s position, holding that both emails and texts on private devices were subject to disclosure and that the agency’s asserted burdens and privacy interests required more fact-specific analysis.The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that private records in the exclusive ownership and control of individual commission members and former members, kept on their personal devices or accounts, are not “public records” held by a “public agency” for purposes of the ORA and are not subject to disclosure. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action and grant summary judgment to the commission. View "KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION V. KENTUCKY OPEN GOVERNMENT COALITION, INC." on Justia Law

The case involved a medical negligence and wrongful death claim arising from care provided to a resident at a county-owned skilled nursing facility in Nebraska. The plaintiffs, the decedent’s personal representative and surviving spouse, alleged that substandard care by the facility’s staff caused fatal injuries. The suit was initiated against several entities purportedly associated with the facility, but only two remained as defendants after some were dismissed for procedural reasons.After the complaint was filed in the District Court for Merrick County, the primary remaining defendant, identified as Litzenberg Memorial Long Term Care, moved to dismiss the case. The defendant argued that the complaint failed to demonstrate compliance with the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act’s presuit notice requirement, claiming that notice was not properly served on the appropriate official. Before the court ruled on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to clarify factual allegations regarding compliance with presuit notice and to correct the defendant’s name. The proposed amendment included details suggesting that the Merrick County clerk was an appropriate recipient for notice, and asserted that the defendant should be estopped from contesting notice due to representations made by the clerk.The district court denied the motion for leave to amend and granted the motion to dismiss, finding the amendment would be futile because the notice had not been properly served. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court determined that under the applicable procedural rule, the plaintiffs were entitled to amend their complaint once as a matter of course prior to any responsive pleading. The court held that filing a motion for leave to amend did not waive this right. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing that the plaintiffs be allowed to amend their complaint. View "Cyboron v. Merrick County" on Justia Law

A commercial fisherman from Erie County, Ohio, who owned a fisheries business, challenged a state rule that amended commercial fishing regulations to exclude seine fishers from receiving yellow perch quotas. The rule, promulgated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Wildlife, allocated quotas exclusively to trap net fishers and prohibited the transfer of quotas to seine licenses. The fisherman alleged that this rule deprived him of economic value and constituted a taking without compensation, and further brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy against both state and federal defendants.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The district court dismissed with prejudice all claims against Ohio and the state officials, holding that there was no protected property interest in the value of a fishing license or uncaught fish under the Takings Clause. The court also found that sovereign immunity barred all claims against the state and its officials, even if the claims otherwise had merit, and determined the state law claims were insufficiently pled. Claims against the federal defendants were dismissed without prejudice for defective service of process.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that sovereign immunity barred the takings and state law claims against Ohio and the state officials, rejecting the appellant’s arguments that these defendants had waived immunity or that recent Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court decisions required judicial review of the state rule. However, the appellate court held that because the dismissal was based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the claims against the state defendants should have been dismissed without prejudice. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the federal defendants. The judgment was thus affirmed in part and reversed in part, with instructions to dismiss the state claims without prejudice. View "White's Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Ohio Dep't of Nat. Res. Div. of Wildlife" on Justia Law

A federal prisoner was sentenced in December 2020 and, due to pending charges in another jurisdiction, was held at a detention center in Rhode Island rather than being promptly transferred to his designated Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility in South Carolina. During this period of post-sentencing detention, the prisoner claims to have participated in programs under the First Step Act (FSA), thereby accruing approximately 150 days of time credits, which could reduce his time in custody. However, the BOP did not recognize these credits because he had not undergone a formal risk and needs assessment—the BOP’s prerequisite for awarding such credits—until his eventual arrival at the designated facility in March 2022.After exhausting administrative remedies, the prisoner filed a pro se habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, seeking recognition of his alleged FSA credits. The magistrate judge, without briefing or discovery, recommended dismissal. The district court adopted this recommendation, concluding that the BOP’s regulation reasonably required an initial assessment before credits could be earned, and applied Chevron deference to uphold the agency's interpretation. The district court also found no evidence the prisoner had “successfully participated” in qualifying programs before arrival at the BOP facility and dismissed the petition without prejudice, refusing to require a government response.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded. The Fourth Circuit held that the case was not moot, as the prisoner could still benefit from the FSA credits if his risk status changed or a warden approved his release. The court further held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned Chevron deference, the district court must independently determine whether the BOP’s interpretation of “successful participation” aligns with the best reading of the statute. View "Benson v. Warden FCI Edgefield" on Justia Law