Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Mady Marieluise Schubarth pursued compensation for land allegedly seized from her family in Soviet-occupied Germany after World War II. She sued BVVG Bodenverwertungs-und-Verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG), an agent of Germany, under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). BVVG argued that U.S. courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the taking was a domestic matter, not subject to the expropriation exception. The district court disagreed and denied BVVG’s motion to dismiss.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially dismissed Schubarth’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Germany but reversed and remanded as to BVVG, allowing the case to proceed. On remand, the district court directed jurisdictional discovery, and BVVG again moved to dismiss, claiming the expropriation was a domestic taking. The district court denied this motion, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of BVVG’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the 1945 expropriation of the Estate was not a domestic taking because it implicated both Germany and the Soviet Union, thus interfering with relations among states. The court concluded that the expropriation could not be considered a domestic taking and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the expropriation constituted a taking in violation of international law. View "Schubarth v. BVVG Bodenverwertungs- Und -Verwaltungs GMBH" on Justia Law

Kimball Wind, LLC operates a wind facility in Nebraska, generating electricity transmitted on a network owned by the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). Before operations began, WAPA determined that a substation expansion was necessary to safely transmit the facility's electricity. WAPA offered to cover part of the expansion costs, requiring Kimball Wind to pay the rest. Kimball Wind agreed under protest, believing WAPA wrongfully made it responsible for most of the costs. Kimball Wind petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for an order directing WAPA to reimburse its contribution to the substation expansion.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determined that section 211A of the Federal Power Act does not provide for the relief sought by Kimball Wind. The Commission found that Kimball Wind did not seek an order for transmission services, which is the sole form of relief provided by section 211A. Kimball Wind then filed a request for rehearing, arguing that the order was internally inconsistent and unsupported by substantial evidence. The Commission denied the request for rehearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the Commission that section 211A does not authorize the Commission to issue an order directing WAPA to reimburse Kimball Wind for its contribution to the substation expansion. The court found that Kimball Wind did not seek an order for transmission services, the only type of order the Commission may issue under section 211A. Consequently, the court denied the petition for review. View "Kimball Wind, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

Gary Perez and Matilde Torres, members of the Lipan-Apache Native American Church, believe that certain religious services must be conducted at a specific site within Brackenridge Park in San Antonio, Texas. The City of San Antonio planned improvements to the park, including tree removal and bird deterrence, which Perez and Torres argued would destroy their sacred worship space. They sued the City, claiming violations of their religious rights under the First Amendment, the Texas Constitution, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and a new clause in the Texas Constitution that prohibits limiting religious services.The federal district court granted limited relief, allowing the Church access for certain ceremonies but did not enjoin the City's improvement plans. Perez appealed, and the Fifth Circuit initially affirmed the district court's decision but later withdrew its opinion and certified a question to the Supreme Court of Texas regarding the scope and force of the new Texas Religious Services Clause.The Supreme Court of Texas held that the Texas Religious Services Clause imposes a categorical bar on governmental limitations of religious services, regardless of the government's interest in the limitation. However, the Court also concluded that the scope of the clause is not unlimited and does not extend to the government's preservation and management of publicly owned lands. The Court emphasized that the clause does not require the government to provide or maintain natural elements necessary for religious services on public property. The case was remanded to the federal courts for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "PEREZ v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO" on Justia Law

A mother and daughter drowned while floating on innertubes on the Turkey River after going over a low-head dam. Their estates sued the State of Iowa, Fayette County, the Fayette County Conservation Board, and the City of Clermont, alleging negligence and premises liability for failing to maintain warnings about the dam. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims.The Iowa District Court for Fayette County dismissed all claims. The court concluded that the claims were barred by the public-duty doctrine and that the petition failed to meet the heightened pleading requirements in Iowa Code § 670.4A. The court also dismissed the claims against the State, referring generally to the reasons set forth in the State’s motion, which included qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, discretionary function immunity, and the public-duty doctrine.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the heightened pleading requirements did not apply to the estates’ common law tort claims of negligence and premises liability. The court also determined that the public-duty doctrine did not bar the claims, as the allegations involved affirmative acts of negligence by the defendants. Additionally, the court found that the State’s sovereign immunity and discretionary function immunity did not apply at this stage, as the petition alleged inattention rather than considered choices by the State. The court also rejected the recreational immunity defense, concluding that the estates sufficiently pleaded an exception to the statute.The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Estate of Kahn v. City of Clermont, Iowa" on Justia Law

Promenade D’Iberville, LLC, the owner and developer of a large retail shopping center in D’Iberville, Mississippi, discovered soil issues during construction in 2009. The problems were linked to the use of OPF42, a soil stabilizer containing bed ash from Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA), a Florida public utility. Promenade filed a lawsuit in 2010 in the Harrison County Circuit Court against several parties, including JEA, alleging damages from the defective product.The Harrison County Circuit Court granted JEA’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing sovereign immunity based on California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt (Hyatt III). The court also held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause and comity principles required dismissal due to Florida’s presuit notice and venue requirements. Promenade appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and found that Hyatt III does not apply to JEA, as it is not an arm of the State of Florida but an instrumentality of the City of Jacksonville. The court also determined that neither the Full Faith and Credit Clause nor comity principles mandated dismissal. The court held that Promenade should be allowed to proceed with its claims against JEA in Mississippi, seeking damages similar to those allowed under Mississippi’s constitution for property damage.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the trial court’s judgment of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "The Promenade D'Iberville, LLC v. Jacksonville Electric Authority" on Justia Law

Two air ambulance providers, Guardian Flight, LLC, and Med-Trans Corporation, sued Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) for failing to timely pay dispute resolution awards under the No Surprises Act (NSA). The providers also claimed that HCSC improperly denied benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and was unjustly enriched under Texas law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the providers' complaint. The court found that the NSA does not provide a private right of action for enforcing dispute resolution awards. It also dismissed the ERISA claim for lack of standing, as the providers did not show that the beneficiaries suffered any injury since the NSA shields them from liability. Lastly, the court dismissed the quantum meruit claim, stating that the providers did not perform their services for HCSC's benefit. The court also denied the providers' request for leave to amend their complaint, deeming it futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the NSA does not contain a private right of action and that the statute's text and structure support this conclusion. The court also upheld the dismissal of the ERISA claim, reiterating that the beneficiaries did not suffer any concrete injury. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the quantum meruit claim, as the providers did not render services for HCSC's benefit. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint. View "Guardian Flight v. Health Care Service" on Justia Law

Steve Eggleston sued Clark County and Georgina Stuart, a social worker, alleging violations of his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Eggleston claimed that Stuart coerced him into signing temporary guardianship papers for his children during an ongoing child abuse/neglect investigation by threatening that his children would be permanently removed from his care if he did not comply. Stuart and Clark County moved for summary judgment, arguing that their actions were protected by qualified immunity and discretionary-act immunity. The district court denied their motion.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada denied the motion for summary judgment, leading Stuart and Clark County to file a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the order. The district court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Stuart's conduct violated clearly established law and whether her actions were protected by discretionary-act immunity.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and granted the petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that Stuart was entitled to qualified immunity on Eggleston's substantive and procedural due process claims because her conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. The court also held that Stuart was entitled to discretionary-act immunity on Eggleston's IIED claim, as her actions involved individual judgment and were based on considerations of social policy. The court directed the district court to vacate the order denying summary judgment and to enter an order granting summary judgment in favor of Stuart and Clark County. View "Clark County v. District Court" on Justia Law

West Virginia filed a complaint in state court against CaremarkPCS Health, LLC, a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), alleging that Caremark unlawfully drove up the cost of insulin, causing financial harm to the state. The complaint included state law claims of civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of contract. Caremark removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), arguing that its conduct in negotiating rebates, which is central to the complaint, was performed under the direction of the federal government as part of its work for federal health plans.The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia found that removal was unwarranted and remanded the case to state court. The district court concluded that Caremark failed to meet the requirements for federal officer removal and noted that West Virginia had disclaimed any federal claims in its complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Caremark was entitled to remove the case to federal court under § 1442(a)(1). The court found that Caremark acted under a federal officer because it administered health benefits for federal employees under contracts with FEHBA carriers, which are supervised by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The court also determined that Caremark had a colorable federal defense, specifically that federal law preempted West Virginia's claims. Finally, the court concluded that the charged conduct was related to Caremark's federal work, as the rebate negotiations for federal and non-federal clients were indivisible. Thus, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's remand decision and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "West Virginia ex rel. Hunt v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C." on Justia Law

In October 2017, the FBI mistakenly raided the home of Hilliard Toi Cliatt, Curtrina Martin, and her 7-year-old son in suburban Atlanta, instead of the intended gang hideout. The error occurred due to Special Agent Guerra's reliance on a personal GPS device and the team's failure to notice the correct street sign and house number. The raid resulted in personal injuries and property damage. The plaintiffs sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for the officers' negligent and intentional actions.The district court granted summary judgment to the government, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Eleventh Circuit applied a unique approach to FTCA claims, holding that the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) overrides all exceptions, including the discretionary-function exception, allowing intentional-tort claims to proceed without further analysis. The court also allowed the government to assert a Supremacy Clause defense, which it found valid, leading to summary judgment for the United States.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) overrides only the intentional-tort exception, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions in §2680. The Court also held that the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in FTCA suits. The case was vacated and remanded to the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider whether the discretionary-function exception bars the plaintiffs' claims and to assess liability under Georgia state law without reference to a Supremacy Clause defense. View "Martin v. United States" on Justia Law

Simon Soto, a Marine Corps veteran, served from 2000 to 2006 and was medically retired due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In 2016, Soto applied for combat-related special compensation (CRSC) and was approved, but his retroactive compensation was limited to six years due to the Barring Act's limitations period. Soto filed a class-action lawsuit arguing that the CRSC statute should displace the Barring Act's limitations period.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Soto and the class, holding that the CRSC statute provides its own settlement mechanism, thus displacing the Barring Act. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed this decision, stating that the CRSC statute does not explicitly grant settlement authority and therefore cannot displace the Barring Act.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the CRSC statute does confer authority to settle CRSC claims, thereby displacing the Barring Act’s settlement procedures and limitations period. The Court reasoned that the CRSC statute authorizes the Secretary concerned to determine both the validity of CRSC claims and the amount due, creating a comprehensive compensation scheme. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Soto v. United States" on Justia Law