Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Interim Storage Partners (ISP) applied for a license to build a facility in West Texas to store spent nuclear fuel. During the licensing process, a Texas government agency and Fasken Land and Minerals, a private business, submitted comments on the draft environmental impact statement prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Fasken also sought to intervene in the licensing proceeding but was denied by the NRC. Fasken challenged this denial before the full Commission and the D.C. Circuit but was unsuccessful.In September 2021, the NRC granted ISP a license to build and operate the storage facility. Texas and Fasken sought review of the NRC's licensing decision in the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit vacated ISP's license, allowing Texas and Fasken to challenge the NRC's decision despite not being parties to the licensing proceeding.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Texas and Fasken were not entitled to judicial review of the NRC's licensing decision because they were not parties to the Commission's licensing proceeding. The Court emphasized that under the Hobbs Act, only a "party aggrieved" by a licensing order of the Commission may seek judicial review. To qualify as a party, one must be the license applicant or have successfully intervened in the proceeding. Since Texas and Fasken did not meet these criteria, they could not obtain judicial review. The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case with instructions to deny or dismiss the petitions for review. View "Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas" on Justia Law

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its denial of small refinery exemption petitions under the Clean Air Act's (CAA) renewable fuel program. The CAA requires most domestic refineries to blend renewable fuels into transportation fuels, with a phased exemption scheme for small refineries. Following a Supreme Court decision in HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn., the EPA reconsidered and ultimately denied 105 exemption petitions in 2022, based on its interpretation of "disproportionate economic hardship" and an economic theory that Renewable Identification Number (RIN) costs are passed through to consumers.The small refineries challenged these denials in multiple regional Circuits. Most Circuits either dismissed the challenges for improper venue or transferred them to the D.C. Circuit. However, the Fifth Circuit retained jurisdiction, ruling that the EPA's actions were locally applicable and not based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect, as the EPA still examined refinery-specific facts before issuing denials.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the EPA's denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the "nationwide scope or effect" exception, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit. The Court concluded that the EPA's interpretation of "disproportionate economic hardship" and its RIN passthrough theory were determinations of nationwide scope or effect that formed the core basis for the denials. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit erred in retaining jurisdiction, and the case was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C." on Justia Law

A jurisdictional dispute arose between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) over maintenance work at SSA Terminals in the Port of Seattle. Both unions claimed the right to perform the work under their respective collective bargaining agreements. SSA initially assigned the work to ILWU, but IAM threatened economic action, prompting SSA to seek a resolution from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB assigned the work to IAM, leading ILWU to pursue a grievance against SSA, which an arbitrator upheld.SSA then filed an unfair labor practice charge against ILWU, alleging that ILWU's pursuit of the grievance violated section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act. ILWU defended itself by invoking the work-preservation defense, which protects primary union activity. The NLRB rejected this defense, stating it was not applicable in pure jurisdictional disputes where multiple unions have valid contractual claims. The NLRB ordered ILWU to cease and desist from pursuing the maintenance work at Terminal 5.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the NLRB's position was foreclosed by its previous decision in International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. NLRB (Kinder Morgan), which established that a valid work-preservation objective provides a complete defense against alleged violations of section 8(b)(4)(D). The court vacated the NLRB's order and remanded the case for the NLRB to evaluate the merits of ILWU's work-preservation defense. The court also denied the petitions for review by IAM and the NLRB's cross-petition for enforcement. View "International Longshore and Warehouse Union v. National Labor Relations Board" on Justia Law

Clifford Bain was seriously injured when a bus owned and operated by the City of Cheyenne collided with him while he was riding his motorcycle. Bain filed a complaint against the bus driver and the City under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA). The bus driver and the City admitted liability but claimed immunity from any liability exceeding $250,000 under the WGCA. Bain then filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the limitation in § 1-39-118(a)(i) of the WGCA was unconstitutional under Article 10, § 4(a) of the Wyoming Constitution. The district court denied Bain’s motion, declaring the statute constitutional. Bain subsequently filed a petition for writ of review with the Wyoming Supreme Court.The district court denied Bain’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that § 1-39-118(a)(i) of the WGCA is not a limitation on damages but rather a limitation on the waiver of immunity. Bain then filed a petition for writ of review, which the Wyoming Supreme Court granted.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Court held that § 1-39-118(a)(i) is a limitation on the waiver of immunity under the WGCA and not a limitation on damages, thus it does not violate Article 10, § 4(a) of the Wyoming Constitution. The Court emphasized that the statute limits the legal responsibility or obligation of governmental entities and is consistent with the legislative intent to balance the equities between injured persons and taxpayers. The Court concluded that Bain did not meet his burden of proving the statute unconstitutional. View "Bain v. City of Cheyenne" on Justia Law

In 2019, the New York Legislature enacted the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), expanding rent stabilization to all municipalities in the state. The City of Kingston declared a housing emergency on August 1, 2022, opting into the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA). Petitioners, a group of landlords, sought to invalidate Kingston's opt-in and two guidelines set by the Kingston New York Rent Guidelines Board (KRGB).The Supreme Court upheld Kingston's emergency declaration, finding the city's survey methodology reasonable. However, it vacated the KRGB guidelines, ruling that the fair market rent guideline required a case-by-case determination and that the rent adjustment guideline lacked statutory authority.The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating the KRGB guidelines. It held that the emergency declaration was based on a good faith study and that the fair market rent guideline did not require a case-by-case assessment. The rent adjustment guideline was also upheld, as the ETPA allows for rent adjustments without specifying that they must be upward.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. It found that the City's 2022 survey was reasonably reliable and relevant, supporting the emergency declaration. The court also upheld the fair market rent guideline, noting that it did not have an impermissibly retroactive effect, as no refunds were issued for periods before August 1, 2020. The challenge to the rent adjustment guideline was deemed unpreserved and not properly before the court. View "Matter of Hudson Val. Prop. Owners Assn. Inc. v City of Kingston" on Justia Law

New York City is legally required to provide health insurance coverage for its retired employees. For over 50 years, the City offered a choice of health insurance plans, including Medicare supplemental plans and Medicare Advantage plans (MAPs). In 2021, to reduce costs, the City decided to discontinue most options, including the popular Senior Care plan, and enroll all retirees in a custom-designed MAP managed by Aetna Life Insurance Company. Petitioners, consisting of nine retirees and one organization, initiated this proceeding to prevent the City from eliminating their existing health insurance plans.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners on their promissory estoppel cause of action and their claim under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 12-126 (b) (1). The Appellate Division affirmed the decision, concluding that the City had made a clear and unambiguous promise to provide Medicare supplemental coverage for life and that petitioners reasonably relied on this promise.The Court of Appeals of New York reviewed the case and determined that the petitioners were not entitled to judgment on their promissory estoppel cause of action. The court found that the Summary Program Descriptions (SPDs) provided by the City did not constitute a clear and unambiguous promise of lifetime Medicare supplemental insurance coverage. The court also rejected the petitioners' alternative grounds for relief, including their claim under Administrative Code § 12-126 (b) (1) and the Moratorium Law. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. View "Matter of Bentkowski v City of New York" on Justia Law

A group of nonpublic schools and organizations representing them challenged regulations issued by the New York State Commissioner of Education. These regulations required nonpublic schools to provide an education substantially equivalent to that of public schools. If a nonpublic school failed to meet this standard, it would no longer be considered a school providing compulsory education under New York law.The Supreme Court of New York upheld most of the regulations but invalidated the specific provisions that deemed noncompliant nonpublic schools as not fulfilling compulsory education requirements. The court found that these provisions exceeded the Commissioner’s authority. The respondents, including the Commissioner, appealed this decision.The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, ruling that the Commissioner had the authority to promulgate the challenged regulations. The court held that the regulations were within the Commissioner’s statutory authority and did not compel parents to unenroll their children from noncompliant schools or authorize school closures. One Justice dissented, arguing that the regulations exceeded the Commissioner’s authority.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The court concluded that the Commissioner lawfully promulgated the regulations, which simply enforced the statutory mandate that nonpublic schools provide substantially equivalent education. The court found that the regulations did not require parents to unenroll their children or authorize school closures but merely stated that noncompliant schools did not meet the statutory requirements for compulsory education. The court also addressed mootness issues related to recent legislative amendments but found that the challenge to the specific regulatory provisions remained a live controversy. View "Matter of Parents for Educ. & Religious Liberty in Schs. v Young" on Justia Law

A psychiatric hospital in Florida, Suncoast Behavioral Health Center, and its management company, UHS of Delaware, Inc. (UHS-DE), were cited by the Secretary of Labor for violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s General Duty Clause by failing to protect employees from patient-on-staff violence. The citation followed an OSHA investigation that revealed numerous instances of workplace violence at the hospital.The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission) affirmed the citation, concluding that Suncoast and UHS-DE operated as a single employer and that the Secretary of Labor had proven the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed abatement measures. The Commission did not address the economic feasibility of two specific abatement measures related to hiring additional security staff, as the feasibility and efficacy of the other six measures were undisputed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the Commission’s finding that Suncoast and UHS-DE operated as a single employer, noting that they shared a common worksite, integrated operations, and common management. However, the court found that the Secretary of Labor failed to prove the economic feasibility of the two security staffing-related abatement measures. Consequently, the court set aside the ALJ’s finding regarding these two measures but upheld the citation based on the six undisputed abatement measures.The court denied in part and granted in part the petition for review, affirming the citation but clarifying that Suncoast and UHS-DE are not obligated to implement the two security staffing measures. View "UHS of Delaware, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the ward map adopted by the Jersey City Ward Commission following the 2020 federal census. The Commission found a 59% population deviation between the most and least populous wards, which exceeded the maximum allowed by the Municipal Ward Law (MWL). The Commission created a new map with a 1.8% deviation and revised the boundaries of all six wards. Plaintiffs, including individuals and community organizations, argued that the new map failed to meet the MWL’s compactness requirement and violated equal protection principles under the New Jersey Constitution. They also claimed a violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA).The trial court concluded that the Commission’s map created sufficiently compact wards under the MWL and dismissed the plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional claims. The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the MWL claims, remanding for factfinding on whether the Commission’s determination of compactness had a rational basis. It affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection and NJCRA claims.The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the MWL, equal protection, and NJCRA claims. The Court held that the Commission’s map was a proper exercise of its discretion under the MWL. It found that the Commission was not required to use mathematical measures of compactness or consider communities of interest in its determination. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s remand for additional factfinding, reinstating the trial court’s judgment on the MWL claim. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection and NJCRA claims, concluding that the Commission’s compliance with the MWL negated the equal protection claim and that no statutory or constitutional violation occurred to support the NJCRA claim. View "Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves Pavan V. Parikh, the Hamilton County clerk of courts, who implemented a policy in May 2022 that eliminated remote online access to court records in residential-eviction cases older than three years from the date of judgment satisfaction. Parikh argued that this policy was to prevent misuse of court documents by the public, such as employers and landlords. The judges of the Hamilton County Municipal Court objected to this policy and issued Administrative Order No. 23-45 in October 2023, directing Parikh to rescind the policy and restore online access to the records. Parikh did not comply, leading to the judges threatening contempt proceedings.Parikh filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition in the First District Court of Appeals to prevent the judges from enforcing the administrative order and holding him in contempt. The judges counterclaimed, requesting a writ of mandamus to compel Parikh to comply with their order. The court of appeals, with visiting judges from the Twelfth District, ruled in favor of the judges, granting their motion for judgment on the pleadings on the prohibition claim and issuing a writ of mandamus ordering Parikh to rescind his policy and comply with the administrative order.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the court of appeals' judgment. The court held that Parikh had a clear legal duty under R.C. 1901.31(E) to comply with the judges' administrative order. The court also determined that Parikh had an adequate remedy through appeal if held in contempt, and the judges did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to hold him in contempt for noncompliance. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of Parikh's request for a writ of prohibition and the granting of the judges' request for a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Parikh v. Berkowitz" on Justia Law