Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A non-profit publisher mailed its legal resource book, The Habeas Citebook, to prisoners at a Washington state correctional facility. In 2018, the state's Department of Corrections implemented two policies: one prohibited inmates from possessing case law documents unless approved, and another barred possession of legal materials containing information about other Washington state inmates. Relying on these policies, prison officials at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center rejected and delayed delivery of the book. Although the Department’s Publication Review Committee later found the book permissible, the publisher was not notified of this reversal, and delivery to prisoners was significantly delayed—sometimes by over a year.The Human Rights Defense Center sued the prison superintendent and mailroom sergeant in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The district court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, holding that the claims were either moot, failed on the merits, or did not establish personal liability. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding genuine disputes of material fact and instructing the district court to reconsider standing and liability issues. On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment for the defendants and denied requests for injunctive relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity against damages on the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims regarding the mail policies and lack of notice, as there was no clearly established precedent finding such policies unconstitutional. However, it reversed the district court’s denial of injunctive relief related to both the mail policy and notice procedures, finding that the appropriate legal standards had not been applied. The court also reversed the grant of qualified immunity on the delayed delivery claim, finding the right at issue clearly established, and remanded for further proceedings. View "HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, INC. V. UTTECHT" on Justia Law

A city employee was driving a city-owned trash truck as part of his regular route, which required operating a specialized vehicle and collecting trash from hundreds of homes. On the day in question, while the employee was driving in a “normal” fashion and not actively conducting trash collection maneuvers, he failed to stop at a stop sign, resulting in a collision with another vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle, Taylor B. Jolley, sustained injuries and filed a lawsuit against both the city and the employee, alleging negligence.The case was first heard by the Circuit Court for the City of Chesapeake. That court sustained the city’s plea in bar, finding that both the city and its employee were protected by sovereign immunity and dismissing the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the circuit court’s decision. The appellate court concluded that neither the city nor the employee was entitled to sovereign immunity, reasoning that the employee was engaged in ordinary driving rather than discretionary or judgment-driven actions tied to the governmental function of trash collection.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case. It determined that the city itself was protected by sovereign immunity because trash collection is a governmental function, not a proprietary one. However, the court held that the employee was not entitled to sovereign immunity for his actions at the time of the collision, since he was engaged in ordinary driving, not exercising special discretion or judgment beyond typical driving tasks. The court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling as to the employee’s lack of immunity, reversed as to the city’s immunity, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision. View "Ellis v. Jolley" on Justia Law

An 18-year-old named Elijah Henry was driving with friends in Pleasanton, California, when a police officer, Officer Harvey, entered a parking lot to check for vehicle break-ins. Seeing the officer, Henry and his friends got into their car and left. Officer Harvey, suspecting a burglary, began to follow Henry’s car without activating lights or siren, intending to perform a traffic stop but not initiating a formal pursuit as defined by Pleasanton’s police policy. Henry, fearful of police attention, accelerated and ran a red light, colliding with Melanie Gilliland’s car and causing her serious injuries. Henry was later convicted of felony DUI, but no evidence connected him or his friends to the suspected burglary.Gilliland sued both Henry and the City of Pleasanton for negligence. In Alameda County Superior Court, the City moved for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from liability under California Vehicle Code section 17004.7, which protects public entities from damages caused by suspects fleeing police if the entity has a compliant vehicular pursuit policy and provides regular training. The first judge denied summary judgment, finding neither an actual nor perceived pursuit occurred under the City’s policy. At a later bench trial before a different judge, the court found the City immune, reasoning Henry believed he was being “pursued” in the ordinary sense, even though no formal pursuit was initiated.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and held the trial court applied the wrong legal standard for immunity under section 17004.7. The appellate court determined that “pursued” must be defined according to the public entity’s vehicular pursuit policy, not by its ordinary meaning. Because the lower court failed to consider evidence that Henry did not believe he was pursued within the meaning of the policy, the judgment in favor of the City was reversed and remanded for application of the correct standard. View "Gilliland v. City of Pleasanton" on Justia Law

On November 14, 2020, Officer David Collier and his partner arrived at a residence in Escambia County, Florida, to serve arrest warrants on Jacob Settle and his wife. Settle was in his truck parked closely alongside the house in a dark, debris-filled backyard. When the officers approached and identified themselves, Settle refused to exit the vehicle. After Collier threatened to break the truck’s windows, Settle started the engine and shifted the transmission into gear. Collier, believing he and his partner were in imminent danger due to his proximity to the truck, fired his gun into the vehicle, fatally wounding Settle. Settle’s estate sued Collier for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and for battery under Florida law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida considered Collier's motion for summary judgment, in which he asserted qualified immunity and state law immunity. The district court denied the motion, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude Collier violated Settle’s constitutional rights by using deadly force on a non-moving vehicle that did not pose a risk to the officers. The district court also denied state immunity for the battery claim, reasoning that a jury could find Collier acted with wanton disregard for Settle’s safety.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that Collier was entitled to qualified immunity, concluding that his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable because Settle’s actions—starting the engine and shifting the truck into gear while resisting arrest—could reasonably be perceived as an immediate threat. The court further held that Collier was entitled to state statutory immunity from the battery claim, as his conduct met the standards for justified use of force under Florida law. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Collier. View "Settle v. Collier" on Justia Law

An individual developed a disabling respiratory condition after working for over fifteen years in coal transportation for two companies. His employment included time as a railroad engineer, during which he transported coal to and from an underground mine and, after that mine's closure, worked at an aboveground preparation plant connected to another underground mine by a long conveyor belt. For much of this period, he was regularly exposed to coal dust. Later, he suffered significant respiratory impairment, leading him to apply for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. After his death, his widow continued the claim for survivor’s benefits.An administrative law judge (ALJ) initially denied the claim, finding that the individual had not worked for the required fifteen years “in an underground coal mine” due to absences and because his work at the preparation plant was not “in an underground mine.” The ALJ concluded that the plant, being over five miles from the underground mine and separated by undeveloped land, was not “appurtenant” to the mine and that conditions at the plant were not substantially similar to an underground mine. The Benefits Review Board reversed, holding that the preparation plant was “appurtenant” to the mine due to functional connection, ownership, and the conveyor system, thus qualifying the employment for the statutory presumption. The Board then awarded benefits based on this presumption.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that aboveground work at an underground coal mine can qualify for the presumption under the Act, but the statutory definition of “coal mine” imposes geographical limits. The court found the Board erred by disregarding the distance between the plant and the mine and by not deferring to the ALJ’s factual determination. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fairfield Southern Company v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between the California FAIR Plan Association (CFPA), a statutorily created insurer of last resort, and the state’s Insurance Commissioner. The Commissioner issued an order in 2021 directing CFPA to submit a plan to offer and sell a comprehensive “Homeowners’ Policy” that included, among other coverages, premises liability and incidental workers’ compensation. CFPA challenged this order, contending that the Basic Property Insurance Law only required it to provide first-party property insurance—coverage for direct loss to property—not liability coverage or similar third-party protections.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied CFPA’s petition for a writ of mandate. The court found ambiguity in the statutory definition of “basic property insurance,” specifically in the phrase allowing for “other insurance coverages as may be added.” Deeming the term ambiguous, the court deferred to the Department of Insurance’s interpretation that allowed the Commissioner to require CFPA to offer additional coverages, including liability insurance, so long as such coverages had a connection to the insured property. The court relied in part on the longstanding approval of liability coverage in certain businessowner policies since the early 1990s.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the lower court’s decision de novo. It concluded that, while the statutory language was ambiguous, extrinsic evidence such as legislative history and statutory context demonstrated that the Legislature intended for CFPA to be limited to providing first-party property insurance. The court found no sufficient basis to defer to the Department of Insurance’s later-adopted interpretation that expanded coverage to liability. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and directed the trial court to grant CFPA’s petition for writ of mandate, holding that the Commissioner lacked authority under the Basic Property Insurance Law to require CFPA to offer liability coverage. View "California FAIR Plan Assn. v. Lara" on Justia Law

Florida challenged a federal agency document known as the “Informational Bulletin” that interpreted Medicaid’s hold-harmless rule and threatened to claw back billions in Medicaid funds if certain state practices continued. Florida’s Medicaid funding system relies on a Directed Payment Program, under which local governments assess special fees on private hospitals, pool these fees, and transfer the funds to the state agency, which then uses them to secure additional federal matching funds. The state feared the new federal interpretation could jeopardize its program and moved to preliminarily enjoin the Bulletin’s implementation.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, following a magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied Florida’s motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court held that the Bulletin was not a “final agency action” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and therefore not subject to judicial review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, the Bulletin was indeed a final agency action subject to judicial review under the APA. However, the Eleventh Circuit held that Florida was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge, concluding that the Bulletin’s interpretation of the Medicaid hold-harmless rule was consistent with the statutory text, was not arbitrary or capricious, and did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking. The court thus reversed the dismissal of the complaint, affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Florida Agency for Health Care Administration v. Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services" on Justia Law

The case concerns two decisions made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding air quality standards in the Detroit area under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Michigan sought to redesignate the Detroit area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), relying on air quality data from 2019–2021. However, in June 2022, the area recorded exceedances attributed to wildfire smoke from Canada. Michigan requested the EPA to exclude these exceptional-event data points. Meanwhile, Detroit missed its attainment deadline and was reclassified from Marginal to Moderate nonattainment, triggering additional requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) implementation.After Detroit missed its attainment deadline, the EPA finalized its determination of nonattainment and reclassified the area as Moderate nonattainment, setting deadlines for Michigan to submit RACT revisions. Michigan submitted its redesignation request before these RACT requirements became effective. The EPA later approved Michigan’s exceptional-events request and redesignated Detroit to attainment, despite Michigan not having implemented the newly required RACT measures for Moderate nonattainment areas. Sierra Club challenged both the EPA’s approval of the exceptional-event exclusion and the subsequent redesignation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed both EPA actions. The court held that the EPA’s approval of Michigan’s exceptional-event request was not arbitrary or capricious, finding that the agency had adequately explained its reasoning and considered the relevant data linking wildfire smoke to the ozone exceedances. However, the court vacated the EPA’s redesignation of Detroit to attainment, holding that the CAA requires a state to satisfy all requirements applicable at the time of redesignation, not merely those in effect when the redesignation request was submitted. Because Michigan had not met the RACT requirements by the time of redesignation, the EPA’s action was contrary to law. Thus, the approval of the exceptional-event request was affirmed, and the redesignation was vacated. View "Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

A company sought approval to construct a 500 kW solar-energy project in Randolph, Vermont. The proposed project required a certificate of public good (CPG) from the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC). A portion of the project's infrastructure, such as its access road and interconnection line, would be located on land with slopes exceeding 25%. Local and regional planning commissions, as well as the Town of Randolph Selectboard, initially supported the project and jointly requested the site be designated as a “preferred site.” After neighbors raised concerns that some panels would be located on steep slopes in conflict with the Town Plan, the applicant agreed to revise the project so that no panels would be built on slopes over 25%. The Town conditioned its continued support on this revision and on receiving the final site plan.The PUC’s hearing officer initially recommended denying the CPG due to uncertainty about whether the Town’s conditions regarding slope measurement had been met. The PUC rejected this recommendation, refocusing on whether the Town itself was satisfied with the conditions. The applicant subsequently provided a letter from the Town confirming its support and satisfaction with the conditions. The PUC found the project's compliance with soil-erosion control measures sufficient, particularly in light of a stormwater permit issued by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), and ruled that the project would not unduly interfere with the region’s orderly development. The PUC granted the CPG; the neighbors’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and they appealed.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case, giving deference to the PUC’s expertise and factual findings. The Court affirmed the PUC’s grant of the CPG, holding that the PUC correctly applied the legal standards under 30 V.S.A. § 248, properly considered the Town Plan’s land-conservation measures, reasonably relied on the Town’s assurances and ANR’s permit, and did not misapply its own rules regarding “preferred site” status. View "In re Petition of Randolph Davis Solar LLC" on Justia Law

Russian producers of phosphate fertilizers were investigated by the U.S. Department of Commerce after a domestic company alleged that the Russian government was providing subsidies, specifically through the provision of natural gas at prices below market value. Commerce’s investigation focused on whether these subsidies were both “specific” to an industry or enterprise and constituted a financial benefit through the sale of gas at less than adequate remuneration. During the investigation, Commerce requested and reviewed data from Russian authorities and Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled gas supplier, about the volume and pricing of natural gas provided to various Russian industries. The evidence showed that the agrochemical industry, which includes fertilizer producers, was the largest industrial consumer of natural gas, though some non-industrial sectors consumed more in total.Commerce determined that the subsidy was “de facto specific” because the agrochemical industry was a predominant industrial user of natural gas. It also found that natural gas was provided at less than adequate remuneration, using a third-tier benchmark analysis that relied on international energy price data, after concluding that Russian market prices were distorted by government intervention and not set by market principles. Commerce’s final determination imposed countervailing duties on Russian phosphate fertilizer imports.The United States Court of International Trade reviewed Commerce’s decisions and upheld both the specificity and pricing determinations, remanding only on unrelated issues. Upon remand, Commerce reaffirmed its conclusions, and the Trade Court entered final judgment in support of the agency’s findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trade Court’s judgment. The court held that Commerce has reasonable flexibility in determining the appropriate comparator group for the “predominant user” analysis and that its approach in this case was reasonable. The court also upheld Commerce’s less-than-adequate-remuneration analysis and rejected arguments that further adjustments were required by statute. The judgment sustaining the countervailing duties was affirmed. View "MOSAIC COMPANY v. US " on Justia Law