Rudisill v. McDonough

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 22-888

Opinion Date: April 16, 2024

Judge: Ketanji Brown Jackson

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Military Law

The case involves a dispute over the interpretation of the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, both of which provide educational benefits to veterans. The petitioner, James Rudisill, served in the U.S. Army for nearly eight years over three separate periods, earning entitlements under both bills. He used a portion of his Montgomery benefits for his undergraduate degree and sought to use his Post-9/11 benefits for divinity school. However, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) limited his Post-9/11 benefits to the duration of his unused Montgomery benefits, arguing that by requesting Post-9/11 benefits before exhausting all of his Montgomery benefits, Rudisill could receive only 36 months of benefits in total, not the 48 months to which he would otherwise be entitled.

The Board of Veterans’ Appeals affirmed the VA’s decision, but the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reversed. The Federal Circuit, however, reversed the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, holding that veterans with multiple periods of qualifying service are subject to a limit on the duration of their benefits.

The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit. The Court held that veterans who separately accrue benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills are entitled to both benefits. Neither the Montgomery GI Bill nor the Post-9/11 GI Bill restricts veterans with two separate entitlements who simply seek to use either one. Thus, Rudisill may use his benefits, in any order, up to a 48-month aggregate-benefits cap. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Bannon v. Godin

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 22-1958

Opinion Date: April 22, 2024

Judge: LYNCH

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves Jennifer Root Bannon, who sued six law enforcement officers and the City of Boston on behalf of her brother's estate. Her brother, Juston Root, was fatally shot by the officers after a series of events that began with him pointing a gun at a hospital security guard and a responding police officer, leading the officers on a high-speed chase, and disregarding police instructions to drop his weapon. Bannon claimed that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances during the fatal shooting and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Bannon's other claims. The court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that the officers acted unreasonably in employing deadly force against Root in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court also independently concluded that the officers were entitled to summary judgment on Bannon's § 1983 and MCRA claims based on qualified immunity.

Melone v. Coit

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 23-1736

Opinion Date: April 25, 2024

Judge: Kayatta

Areas of Law: Admiralty & Maritime Law, Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves a dispute over the construction of an offshore wind project aimed at reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The project, proposed by Vineyard Wind 1, LLC, was expected to provide energy sufficient to power 400,000 Massachusetts homes. However, residents of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket opposed the project, arguing that federal agencies failed to properly assess the potential impact of the project on the endangered North Atlantic right whale.

Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had granted summary judgment in favor of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Vineyard Wind, rejecting the residents' challenge to a biological opinion issued by the NMFS and relied on by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in permitting the construction of the wind power project.

In the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the residents challenged the lower court's decision, arguing that the NMFS's determination that the incidental harassment of up to twenty right whales constituted a "small number" under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. They also argued that NMFS's consideration of the "specified activity" and the "specific geographic region" within which that activity would occur for purposes of issuing the Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to Vineyard Wind was impermissibly narrow in scope.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the NMFS's determination was not arbitrary or capricious and that it had properly delineated the "specific geographic region" for the purposes of the IHA. The court also found that the residents' concerns about the broader effect of the project on the right whale population were unwarranted, as the agency had considered the impact on the entire right whale population in its "negligible impact" analysis, its biological opinion, and in its participation in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's Environmental Impact Statement.

Nantucket Residents Against Turbines v. U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 23-1501

Opinion Date: April 24, 2024

Judge: Kayatta

Areas of Law: Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law

A group of Nantucket residents, organized as Nantucket Residents Against Turbines, challenged the approval of the Vineyard Wind project by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The project involves the construction of a wind power facility off the coast of Massachusetts. The residents alleged that the federal agencies violated the Endangered Species Act by concluding that the project's construction would not jeopardize the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. They also claimed that BOEM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by relying on a flawed analysis by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which granted summary judgment in favor of the federal agencies. The court found that NMFS and BOEM had followed the law in analyzing the right whale's current status and environmental baseline, the likely effects of the Vineyard Wind project on the right whale, and the efficacy of measures to mitigate those effects. The court also found that the agencies' analyses rationally supported their conclusion that Vineyard Wind would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. The appellate court found that the lower court had correctly interpreted the law and that the federal agencies had not violated the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. The court concluded that the agencies' analyses were rational and that their conclusion that the Vineyard Wind project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the right whale was supported by the evidence.

United States v. Boyrie-Laboy

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 22-1354

Opinion Date: April 22, 2024

Judge: MONTECALVO

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case revolves around Carlos Rubén Boyrie-Laboy, a Puerto Rico Police officer, who was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 371, and 641 for his involvement in a conspiracy to commit robbery and theft of government property. Boyrie-Laboy was part of the Humacao Drugs Division, responsible for seizing illegal weapons, drugs, and other contraband. In 2015, Officer Gabriel Maldonado-Martínez joined the division and began working with Boyrie-Laboy. Maldonado-Martínez later became an undercover FBI informant to identify corrupt police officers. Boyrie-Laboy was involved in two thefts of fireworks and was present during two FBI operations designed to catch corrupt officers. However, he did not accept any stolen goods or money from these operations.

The government indicted Boyrie-Laboy and three other officers based on these activities. Boyrie-Laboy was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, conspiracy to steal and convert government property, and theft and conversion of government property. He proceeded to a five-day jury trial, where the jury found him guilty on all counts. Boyrie-Laboy appealed the convictions, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support them.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. Boyrie-Laboy's counsel had declined the opportunity to move for a judgment of acquittal twice during the trial and did not make a post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal. As a result, the court applied the "clear and gross injustice" standard of review. The court found that the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's findings and that upholding Boyrie-Laboy's convictions did not result in a clear and gross injustice. Therefore, the court affirmed the convictions.

Gibbons v. Gibbs

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 23-1902

Opinion Date: April 19, 2024

Judge: Heytens

Areas of Law: Election Law, Government & Administrative Law

This case revolves around the appointment of a general registrar of elections in Lynchburg, Virginia. The plaintiff, Christine Gibbons, was appointed as registrar in 2018 by a board consisting of two Democrats and one Republican. Her term expired in 2023, at which point the board had two Republican members and one Democratic member. The board informed Gibbons that she would have to reapply for her position. Despite reapplying, the two Republican members voted to appoint a different candidate who was a registered Republican. Gibbons sued the board and its two Republican members, alleging that the decision not to reappoint her was based on her political affiliation, which she claimed violated the First Amendment.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that sovereign immunity barred all of Gibbons’ claims. The district court dismissed Gibbons’ claims against the board itself as barred by sovereign immunity, but denied the individual board members’ motions to dismiss. The court concluded that the board members could be sued for equitable relief in their official capacities and for damages in their personal capacities. The board members appealed both orders.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the appellants’ motions to dismiss. The court rejected the board members’ argument that sovereign immunity bars Gibbons’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against them in their official capacities. The court also rejected the board members’ assertion that Gibbons’ damages claims against them are barred by sovereign immunity. The court concluded that individual members of Virginia electoral boards may be sued in their official capacities for equitable relief under Ex parte Young and that Gibbons’ claims for damages against the board members in their personal capacities are not barred by sovereign immunity.

Lewis v. Caraballo

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 22-2115

Opinion Date: April 15, 2024

Judge: Wynn

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law

In 2018, Maryland State Trooper Kevin Caraballo used force while arresting 15-year-old Cameron Lewis. Lewis sued Caraballo for excessive force and battery. Caraballo sought summary judgment, arguing he was entitled to qualified and statutory immunity. The district court denied his motion, leading to this appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that there were disputes of material fact that precluded summary judgment. Specifically, a reasonable jury could find that Caraballo struck Lewis when the teenager did not pose a threat, was not actively resistant, and was subdued. The court held that Lewis’s constitutional right to be free from excessive force in the form of head strikes was clearly established at the time of his arrest. Furthermore, the court held that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Caraballo’s actions amounted to gross negligence or malice, precluding summary judgment in his favor on his statutory immunity defense.

Diamond Services v. Maritime

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-20118

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Judge: Duncan

Areas of Law: Admiralty & Maritime Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the eligibility of a dredging barge, the DB AVALON, to operate in U.S. waters. Federal law stipulates that only vessels "built in the United States" can dredge in U.S. waters, a determination made by the U.S. Coast Guard. Curtin Maritime Corporation sought the Coast Guard's ruling that the AVALON, which incorporated foreign-made spuds and a crane, could operate in U.S. waters. The Coast Guard ruled that the AVALON would be considered U.S.-built. Diamond Services Corporation, a competitor of Curtin, challenged this ruling as arbitrary and capricious.

The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The district court deferred to the Coast Guard's interpretation of its own regulations and granted the Coast Guard summary judgment. Diamond Services Corporation appealed this decision.

The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the Coast Guard's interpretation of its own regulations was reasonable. The court found that the regulations were genuinely ambiguous as to whether the crane was part of the AVALON’s superstructure. The court also found that the Coast Guard's interpretation fell within the regulatory zone of ambiguity and was reasonable. The court concluded that the Coast Guard's ruling was made by the agency, implicated the agency’s substantive expertise, and reflected fair and considered judgment. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment for the Federal Defendants.

United States v. Brannan

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-40098

Opinion Date: April 12, 2024

Judge: Duncan

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

Elden Don Brannan was living with his sister and her three children in Corpus Christi, Texas. In 2022, Brannan's sister called 911 to report that Brannan had assaulted her boyfriend and was threatening suicide. She informed the police that Brannan had a "pipe bomb" in his bedroom closet. The bomb squad removed the device and Brannan was arrested. He was later indicted by a grand jury for possessing an unregistered "destructive device" in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). His sister testified that Brannan had built the device from disassembled fireworks. Brannan's defense was that the device was not an explosive but a "makeshift roman-candle or fountain firework" designed to emit a pyrotechnic display.

Brannan was found guilty by a federal jury. He moved for acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show he had designed the device as a weapon. These motions were denied. Brannan also requested the court to instruct the jury that to convict him under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), it had to find he had intentionally designed the device for use as a weapon. The court rejected this proposed instruction, reasoning that Brannan's intent to design the device as a weapon was not an element of the offense but an affirmative defense. The jury found Brannan guilty and he was sentenced to 24 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.

On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Brannan argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him and that the jury instruction omitted an element of the offense. The court disagreed, affirming Brannan's conviction. The court held that under its binding precedent, the exception to § 5861(d) is an affirmative defense, not an element of the crime. Therefore, the government did not need to prove that the device was "designed for use as a weapon." The court also concluded that the district court did not err by following the circuit’s pattern instructions and declining to add "designed as a weapon" as an element of § 5861(d).

United States v. Fluitt

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-30316

Opinion Date: April 24, 2024

Judge: James L. Dennis

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

In September 2020, George Fluitt was indicted on three counts of fraud and offering kickbacks related to genetic testing services that his company, Specialty Drug Testing LLC, provided to Medicare beneficiaries. As part of a nationwide investigation into genetic testing fraud, the Government executed search warrants at laboratories referred to as the Hurricane Shoals Entities (“HSE”), allegedly operated by Khalid Satary. The Government copied several terabytes of data from HSE, some of which were later determined to be material to Fluitt’s defense.

In the lower courts, the Government established a “Filter Team” to review materials seized in its investigation and identify any that might be privileged. The Filter Team’s review was governed in part by a Protocol Order, which established a multi-step process for notifying a third party that it might have a claim of privilege and then adjudicating that claim. HSE and Satary provided privilege logs to the Filter Team, asserting thousands of claims of privilege. Both Fluitt and the Filter Team found these privilege logs to be facially deficient as they made only threadbare assertions of privilege, without any accompanying explanation.

In the United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the appellants failed to establish their claims of privilege. The court also found that the appellants' argument that they are not bound by the Protocol Order was a red herring, as the magistrate judge evaluated the appellants’ privilege logs under the standards established by federal caselaw. The court also rejected the appellants' argument that Fluitt “has not shown a need for the documents” and has not “demonstrated any kind of relevancy.” The court found that the record suggests that Fluitt “has a need” for the potentially privileged documents, as the Government determined that the potentially privileged materials were material to preparing Fluitt’s defense.

United States v. Sterling

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-30069

Opinion Date: April 25, 2024

Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Education Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves Elliott Sterling, who was convicted for engaging in a fraudulent scheme to obtain loan and grant funds from the Department of Education’s Federal Student Aid Program. Sterling submitted fraudulent applications on behalf of students, both real and fictional, and also committed fraud in connection with his educational consulting business. He was indicted for multiple counts of wire fraud, financial aid fraud, and engaging in monetary transactions involving property derived from specified unlawful activity. Sterling chose to represent himself during the trial after his request for a new counsel was denied.

The district court found Sterling competent to waive his right to counsel and allowed him to proceed pro se in his defense. After a 9-day jury trial, Sterling was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to 132 months of imprisonment, followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. Sterling appealed, raising several Sixth Amendment claims.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found no merit in Sterling’s procedural or substantive challenges. It held that Sterling's waiver of counsel was clear, unequivocal, and voluntary, and that he was competent to represent himself at trial. The court also found that the district court did not err in allowing Sterling to represent himself at his own competency hearing, and that the district court's determination of Sterling's competence did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Hamilton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 23-1466

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Public Benefits

The case involves Keeley Hamilton, who applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income from the Social Security Administration (SSA) due to her physical impairments. An administrative law judge (ALJ) within the SSA denied her applications, concluding that despite her physical impairments, she could still work in two occupations. Hamilton appealed, arguing that she should be considered disabled unless she could work in at least three occupations, a rule she derived from Ninth Circuit caselaw.

Hamilton's applications were initially denied by an ALJ, who found that she could still work in two occupations despite her physical impairments. The district court remanded the case back to the SSA for further proceedings, citing a failure to ask the vocational expert about potential conflicts between his testimony and the occupational information in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. On remand, the ALJ held another hearing and again denied Hamilton's applications, concluding that Hamilton's skills permitted her to perform two semi-skilled sedentary occupations: food checker and auction clerk.

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Hamilton argued that the ALJ should have found her disabled because his findings showed that her skills did not transfer to at least three occupations. The court disagreed with Hamilton's interpretation of the rule, stating that the ALJ did not err by ruling that Hamilton was not disabled under the regulations because she had skills that transferred to a significant range of work. The court affirmed the district court's decision upholding the Social Security Administration's denial of benefits to Hamilton.

Hubbard v. Rewerts

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 21-2968

Opinion Date: April 16, 2024

Judge: Batchelder

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves Carl Hubbard, who was convicted of first-degree murder in Michigan state court in 1992. Over two decades later, Hubbard filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing that he is entitled to an equitable exception to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s (AEDPA) time bar based on a credible showing of actual innocence. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely.

The district court's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Hubbard argued that he had new evidence that impeached the State’s case against him, but he failed to present evidence affirmatively demonstrating his actual innocence. The court held that AEDPA does not permit him to file an untimely habeas petition. The court affirmed the district court's decision, stating that Hubbard's new evidence did not meet the burden of showing that the State had imprisoned an innocent person. Therefore, Hubbard must comply with the same law with which all other habeas petitioners must comply.

Tanner v. Walters

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-1963

Opinion Date: April 15, 2024

Judge: Davis

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves Hattie Tanner, who was convicted of murder and served seventeen years in prison before her conviction was set aside due to insufficient evidentiary support. After her release, Tanner filed a lawsuit against David Walters, a retired police detective, alleging that he violated her constitutional rights by falsifying investigation reports and providing false testimony, leading to her wrongful conviction. Walters sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, which the district court partially granted and partially denied. The court allowed Tanner's claims for fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution to proceed to trial. Walters appealed this decision.

Previously, the district court found that Tanner's claims for fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution should proceed to trial. Walters appealed this decision, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Walters knowingly fabricated evidence against Tanner, and thus he was not entitled to qualified immunity on Tanner's fabrication-of-evidence claim. The court also found that a reasonable jury could find that Walters's false statements influenced the decision to charge Tanner, and that without these false statements, there would not have been probable cause to prosecute Tanner. Therefore, Walters was not entitled to qualified immunity on Tanner's malicious prosecution claim.

United States v. Aldridge

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 23-3179

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Judge: Karen Nelson Moore

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case revolves around Joshua Aldridge, who was found guilty of conspiracy to sex traffic an adult by force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion, among other charges. Aldridge and his girlfriend, Kathy, were both addicted to painkillers and sought out higher-dosage pills from Larry Dean Porter. When they could not afford to purchase pills with money, Porter would allow them to have the pills as long as they agreed to pay him later. Eventually, Kathy was informed that she could “work off” the debt by “cleaning and doing sexual favors.” Aldridge would regularly drive Kathy to Porter’s house, take his pill, leave Kathy at the house, and return to pick her up when she was finished.

The district court denied Aldridge's Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal on the adult-sex-trafficking-by-force conspiracy charge. The court reasoned that a jury could find that Aldridge had personally coerced Kathy to buy pills in exchange for sex acts. The jury found Aldridge guilty on all three counts. At sentencing, the district judge applied two enhancements over Aldridge’s objections: the enhancement for use of a computer to entice or offer and the vulnerable-victim enhancement.

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Aldridge challenged the district court’s denial of his Rule 29 motion and the district court’s application of two sentencing enhancements. The court affirmed the district court's decision, stating that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Aldridge knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy with intent to further its objective. The court also found that the district court properly applied the sentencing enhancements.

United States v. Robinson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-5245

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Judge: Davis

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves Katrina Robinson, founder and director of The Healthcare Institute (THI), a for-profit company in Memphis, Tennessee, that provided certified nursing assistant training. THI received a federal grant from the Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program (GWEP), administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), from 2015 to 2019. The grant provided scholarships for eligible THI students. Robinson was convicted of four counts of wire fraud for actions she took in administering the grant. The district court granted Robinson's post-verdict motion for a judgment of acquittal on two of the counts, and Robinson appealed the denial of acquittal on the remaining two counts.

The district court's decision was based on a federal investigation that raised concerns about Robinson's use of HRSA grant funds for personal expenses and discrepancies in Annual Performance Reports (APRs) that Robinson had submitted on THI’s behalf. The APRs contained inaccurate information on the number of students who graduated from the program, the number of students who received grant-funded scholarships, and the unique numerical identifiers assigned to students. The government argued that these "errors" were intentional manipulations by Robinson to ensure THI’s continued receipt of grant funds.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to prove that Robinson's submission of false information in the APRs constituted a course of conduct intended to deprive the government of money. The court also found that Robinson's intent to defraud was demonstrated by her direct involvement in preparing and submitting the APRs, and her direction to charge personal wedding expenses to the grant. The court reversed the district court's grant of acquittal on one of the counts, finding that a rational juror could conclude that Robinson's transmission of materially false information was done to induce HRSA to continue funding the grant. The court affirmed the district court's denial of acquittal on the remaining two counts.

Montoya v. Jeffreys

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 22-2791

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: KIRSCH

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Class Action, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit brought against the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) by four parents who were convicted of sex offenses and were on mandatory supervised release (MSR). The plaintiffs challenged an IDOC policy that restricts contact between a parent convicted of a sex offense and their minor child while the parent is on MSR. The plaintiffs argued that this policy violates their Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural and substantive due process.

The district court upheld the policy, with two exceptions. It ruled that the policy's ban on written communications was unconstitutional and that IDOC must allow a parent to submit a written communication addressed to their child for review and decision within seven calendar days. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the policy's restrictions on phone and in-person contact.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the district court that the policy does not violate procedural due process. However, it held that the policy's ban on phone contact violates substantive due process. The court found that call monitoring is a ready alternative to the phone-contact ban that accommodates the plaintiffs’ right to enjoy the companionship of their children at a de minimis cost to IDOC’s penological interests.

BMBP V. JEFFRIES

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-35857

Opinion Date: April 16, 2024

Judge: Hurwitz

Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law

The Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project (BMBP) sued the U.S. Forest Service, alleging that the Service's approval of the Walton Lake Restoration Project violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Forest Service developed the project to replace trees infested with laminated root rot and bark beetles with disease-resistant trees. In 2016, the Service contracted with T2, a private company, for logging to implement the decision. BMBP filed this action challenging the 2020 decision notice. The Service filed an administrative record (AR) in 2021.

BMBP argued that the AR was incomplete, contending that deliberative materials were part of the “whole record” and that a privilege log was required if they were not included in the AR. BMBP also argued that all documents in the 2016 AR should be in the AR for this case. The court held that deliberative materials are generally not part of the AR absent impropriety or bad faith by the agency. The court also held that BMBP’s arguments failed to overcome the presumption of regularity.

The court then addressed whether the Service violated NEPA by approving the Project. The court held that BMBP failed to establish that the logging contract with T2 improperly committed resources under any standard. The court also rejected BMBP’s contention that the EA diluted the significance of some impacts by analyzing them on too large a scale. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court and lifted the previous stay of its order dissolving the preliminary injunction.

FEJES V. FAA

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-70129

Opinion Date: April 22, 2024

Judge: NELSON

Areas of Law: Aviation, Criminal Law, Drugs & Biotech, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law, Transportation Law

The case involves James Fejes, a pilot who held a certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under 49 U.S.C. § 44703. Fejes used his aircraft to transport and distribute marijuana to retail stores within Alaska, an activity that is legal under state law but illegal under federal law. After an investigation, the FAA revoked Fejes's pilot certificate under 49 U.S.C. § 44710(b)(2), which mandates revocation when a pilot knowingly uses an aircraft for an activity punishable by more than a year's imprisonment under a federal or state controlled substance law.

Fejes appealed the FAA's decision to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who affirmed the revocation. He then appealed the ALJ's decision to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which also affirmed the ALJ. Throughout the agency proceedings, Fejes admitted that he piloted an aircraft to distribute marijuana within Alaska, but argued that his conduct fell outside of § 44710(b)(2)'s reach.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Fejes's petition for review of the NTSB's order affirming the FAA's revocation of his pilot certificate. The court rejected Fejes's argument that the FAA lacked jurisdiction to revoke his pilot certificate because Congress cannot authorize an administrative agency to regulate purely intrastate commerce like marijuana delivery within Alaska. The court held that airspace is a channel of commerce squarely within congressional authority, and therefore, Congress can regulate Fejes's conduct. The court also rejected Fejes's argument that his conduct was exempt under FAA regulation 14 C.F.R. § 91.19, and that the FAA misinterpreted § 44710(b)(2). The court concluded that the FAA's revocation of Fejes's pilot certificate was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.

Hart v. City of Redwood City

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-17008

Opinion Date: April 19, 2024

Judge: VanDyke

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves a lawsuit filed by the family of Kyle Hart against the City of Redwood City and its police officers, following Hart's death in a police shooting. Hart, who was attempting suicide with a knife in his backyard, was shot by Officer Gomez when he approached the officers with the knife despite commands to drop it. The family alleged constitutional and state law violations arising from the shooting.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Officer Gomez's claim of qualified immunity at summary judgment. The court found that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity, relying on a previous court decision that stated it was objectively unreasonable to shoot an unarmed man who had committed no serious offense, was mentally or emotionally disturbed, had been given no warning of the imminent use of such a significant degree of force, posed no risk of flight, and presented no objectively reasonable threat to the safety of the officer or other individuals.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Officer Gomez was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that Hart posed an immediate threat when he rapidly approached the officers brandishing a knife and refusing commands to drop it. Furthermore, even if Officer Gomez’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct did not violate clearly established law. None of the cases the plaintiffs identified would have put Officer Gomez on notice that his actions in this case would be unlawful.

MATTIODA V. NELSON

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-15889

Opinion Date: April 22, 2024

Judge: Forrest

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

A scientist with physical disabilities, Dr. Andrew Mattioda, sued his employer, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. He alleged that he suffered a hostile work environment after informing his supervisors of his disabilities and requesting upgraded airline tickets for work travel. He also claimed he was discriminated against due to his disability by being passed over for a promotion.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Dr. Mattioda’s hostile-work-environment claim and granted summary judgment in favor of NASA on his disability-discrimination claim. The court concluded that Dr. Mattioda failed to allege a plausible causal nexus between the claimed harassment and his disabilities. It also held that NASA provided a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not selecting Dr. Mattioda for an available senior scientist position.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Dr. Mattioda’s hostile-work-environment claim, affirming that a disability-based harassment claim is available under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act. The court held that Dr. Mattioda plausibly alleged a hostile-work-environment claim based on his disability. However, the court affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment for NASA on the disability-discrimination claim, agreeing that NASA had provided a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not selecting Dr. Mattioda for the senior scientist position. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SIREN RETAIL CORPORATION DBA STARBUCKS

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-1969

Opinion Date: April 24, 2024

Judge: McKeown

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

In February 2022, Workers United sought to represent 90 employees at a Starbucks Reserve Roastery in Seattle. Due to rising COVID-19 cases, the Regional Director ordered a mail-ballot election, which took place in April 2022. Starbucks refused to recognize and bargain with the union, arguing that the Regional Director should have ordered an in-person election. The Regional Director overruled Starbucks' objection and certified the election results. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Starbucks' refusal to recognize and bargain with the union constituted unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act.

The NLRB's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Starbucks argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the enforcement application because the NLRB had severed the question of whether to adopt a compensatory remedy. The court rejected this argument, holding that the NLRB's order was final and reviewable under 29 U.S.C. § 160(e).

Starbucks also claimed that the Regional Director abused his discretion by ordering a mail-ballot election instead of an in-person one. The court rejected this argument as well, holding that the Regional Director had correctly applied the NLRB's own law in deciding to hold a mail-ballot election. The court affirmed the NLRB's finding that Starbucks had violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain. The court granted the NLRB's application for enforcement of its order directing Starbucks to recognize and bargain with the union.

PEREZ V. CITY OF FRESNO

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-15546

Opinion Date: April 15, 2024

Judge: Forrest

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves the family of Joseph Perez, who died after law enforcement officers, under the direction of a paramedic, used their body weight to restrain him while he was prone to secure him to a backboard for hospital transport. The family sued the City and County of Fresno, individual law enforcement officers, and the paramedic, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the officers and paramedic were entitled to qualified immunity. The court held that at the time of Perez's death in 2017, the law did not clearly establish that the officers' actions would be unconstitutional. The court also found that the paramedic was entitled to qualified immunity because the law did not clearly establish that a paramedic acting in a medical capacity to restrain a person for medical transport could be held liable for a constitutional violation. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' Monell claims, finding insufficient evidence that the City and County were deliberately indifferent to their duty to properly train their officers.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the law did not clearly establish, nor was it otherwise obvious, that the officers' actions, directed by medical personnel, would violate Perez's constitutional rights. The court also held that the paramedic was acting in a medical capacity during the incident, and the law did not clearly establish that medical personnel are liable for constitutional torts for actions taken to provide medical care or medical transport. The court concluded that the plaintiffs produced insufficient evidence to support their municipal liability claim against the City and the County based on a failure-to-train theory.

SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER AGENCY V. WHITTAKER CORPORATION

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-55727

Opinion Date: April 15, 2024

Judge: Tallman

Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law

The Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCVWA), a public water agency, sued Whittaker Corporation for contaminating groundwater that the agency pumps from wells. The jury found Whittaker liable for negligence, trespass, public nuisance, and private nuisance, and awarded damages for past harm and restoration or repair costs. The jury verdict was reduced to $64,870,000 due to SCVWA’s fault for failure to mitigate damages and an offset for a settlement between SCVWA and a third party. After a bench trial on the statutory claims, the district court denied SCVWA relief under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and apportioned costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to SCVWA and Whittaker.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury award on Whittaker’s appeal. On SCVWA’s cross-appeal, the court affirmed in part, holding that the district court’s denial of injunctive relief under RCRA, denial of prejudgment interest, and denial of attorneys' fees were proper. However, the court reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in denying SCVWA a finding of liability against Whittaker for one category of incurred response costs under CERCLA and by denying SCVWA declaratory relief under CERCLA. The court remanded the case for the district court to amend its judgment.

Bustillos v. City of Artesia

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-2046

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Judge: Rossman

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Albert Bustillos, an independent journalist, was filming content for his YouTube channel outside the Navajo oil refinery in Artesia, New Mexico. He was approached by refinery security and later by officers from the Artesia Police Department, including Corporal David Bailey. Despite Bustillos asserting he was on public property and had not broken any laws, Bailey arrested him for failure to identify himself in violation of New Mexico law.

Bustillos sued Bailey and the City of Artesia, alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights and New Mexico law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Bailey was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, rejecting Bailey’s qualified immunity defense.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The court found that Bailey lacked reasonable suspicion of a predicate crime, which is required to lawfully arrest someone for concealing identity. The court also found that Bustillos had met his burden to show that Bailey violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court dismissed the portion of the appeal relating to Bustillos’s state-law claims, as the defendants had failed to meet their burden to support pendent appellate jurisdiction.

Rocky Mountain Wild v. Dallas

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-1438

Opinion Date: April 19, 2024

Judge: Carolyn Baldwin McHugh

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land within the Rio Grande National Forest in Colorado, owned by Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture (LMJV). The land, obtained through a land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in 1987, was intended for development into a ski resort village. However, access to the parcel was hindered due to a gravel road managed by the USFS that was unusable by vehicles in the winter.

In 2007, LMJV invoked the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), claiming it required the USFS to grant access to inholdings within USFS land. The USFS initially proposed a second land exchange with LMJV to secure access to Highway 160. However, this proposal was challenged by several conservation groups under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 2017, the district court vacated the USFS decision and remanded to the agency.

The USFS then considered a new alternative in the form of a right-of-way easement to LMJV across USFS land between the Parcel and Highway 160. The USFS consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to secure a new biological opinion (BiOp) and incidental take statement (ITS) for the proposed action in 2018. The USFS then issued a final Record of Decision (ROD) in 2019, approving the easement.

The conservation groups challenged this latest ROD under NEPA, the ESA, and ANILCA. The district court vacated and remanded under the law of the case doctrine, concluding that it was bound by the reasoning of the district court’s 2017 order. The Agencies appealed the district court’s decision vacating the 2018 BiOp and 2019 ROD.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and affirmed the Agencies’ decisions. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the matter under the practical finality rule, and that the Conservation Groups had standing. The court held that the district court incorrectly applied the law of the case doctrine because the Agencies considered a different alternative when issuing the 2019 ROD. The court also concluded that ANILCA requires the USFS to grant access to the LMJV Parcel. The court determined that even if the Conservation Groups could show error under NEPA, they had not shown that any alleged error was harmful. Finally, the court held that the Conservation Groups failed to successfully challenge the 2018 BiOp under the ESA, and that the Agencies correctly allowed the ITS to cover not only the proposed easement, but also LMJV’s proposed development.

United States v. Wilson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 23-2073

Opinion Date: April 15, 2024

Judge: PHILLIPS

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

A California-based psychologist, Dr. Rick Q. Wilson, was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for potential violations of the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA issued an administrative subpoena to obtain Wilson's medical, prescription, and billing records. Wilson challenged the subpoena on statutory, constitutional, and privacy grounds.

The district court initially dismissed the United States' petition to enforce the subpoena, finding it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Fourth Amendment. However, upon reconsideration, the court granted the United States' motion to amend the petition and enforce a narrowed version of the subpoena.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the modified subpoena complied with HIPAA, was not unreasonably burdensome under the Fourth Amendment, and did not violate Wilson's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination due to the required-records exception. The court held that the subpoena was issued within the DEA's authority, was relevant to the DEA's investigation, and was not unreasonably broad or burdensome. The court also found that the records requested fell within the required-records exception to the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.

American Federation of Government Employees v. FLRA

Court: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Docket: 22-5308

Opinion Date: April 23, 2024

Judge: Randolph

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Government & Administrative Law

In 2002, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) advertised job openings with a promotion potential to grade thirteen, while existing employees in comparable positions could only be promoted to grade twelve. The American Federation of Government Employees, National Council of HUD Locals Council 222, AFL-CIO, representing the existing employees, filed a grievance arguing that this violated their collective bargaining agreement with HUD. The grievance proceeded to arbitration.

The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) initially declined to resolve the jurisdictional issue of whether the grievance involved classification, which is generally non-arbitrable, or reassignment, which could be resolved in arbitration. The arbitrator determined that the grievance was arbitrable and found that HUD had violated the collective bargaining agreement. The FLRA agreed with HUD's exceptions that the arbitrator's remedy required reclassification and therefore violated the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS). The FLRA vacated the arbitrator’s remedial award and remanded for an alternative remedy.

In 2018, the FLRA held that the grievance concerned classification and that the arbitrator had always lacked jurisdiction over the grievance. The FLRA vacated all of the arbitrator’s pronouncements and its own prior decisions. The union then filed a complaint in district court claiming that the FLRA’s decision was “ultra vires.” The district court rejected the union’s Administrative Procedure Act claim but denied the FLRA’s motion to dismiss the entire complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court later granted the union’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the FLRA's decision. The court found that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) clearly precluded judicial review of FLRA arbitration decisions in both the courts of appeals and the district courts. The court also held that the FLRA did not violate a clear statutory prohibition by vacating the arbitrator's award and its own prior decisions. The court vacated the district court's orders and instructed it to dismiss the complaint.

Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Docket: 22-1788

Opinion Date: April 19, 2024

Judge: Alan David Lourie

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

Kevin D. Jones, an attorney, held a term position with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) before transferring to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). At the USDA, Jones primarily provided advice and counsel regarding discrimination complaints filed against the agency and litigated ensuing discrimination claims before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). At the ATF, Jones served as an advisor to the Professional Review Board (PRB) as part of a team of attorneys in the Management Division of the ATF Office of General Counsel (OGC). After three months at the ATF, Jones was asked to resign due to his lack of contract law experience. Jones filed a complaint alleging discrimination and lack of due process in his termination.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dismissed Jones's administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Administrative Judge (AJ) of the MSPB found that Jones was not an "employee" as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B) because his positions at the USDA and ATF were not the same or similar. The AJ noted several distinctions between the tasks Jones performed at each agency. Jones did not appeal the Initial Decision to the full Board, so the AJ’s Initial Decision became the Final Decision of the Board.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The court found that the AJ did not err in her determination that Jones's positions at the USDA and ATF were not similar. The court also found that the AJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Jones's appeal.

City of Gulf Shores v. Coyote Beach Sports, LLC

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Dockets: SC-2023-0637, SC-2023-0839, SC-2024-0164, SC-2024-0167

Opinion Date: April 12, 2024

Judge: SELLERS

Areas of Law: Business Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case revolves around a dispute between the City of Gulf Shores and Coyote Beach Sports, LLC. The city passed a municipal ordinance regulating the motor-scooter-rental business, which required renters to possess a specific type of license. Coyote Beach Sports, a Louisiana-based company that rented motor scooters in Gulf Shores, claimed that this ordinance effectively halted its business as most customers did not possess the required license. Consequently, Coyote filed a complaint against the city, seeking a judgment declaring the ordinance invalid, monetary damages, and attorney fees and costs.

The case was first heard in the Baldwin Circuit Court where, after a jury trial, the court declared the ordinance preempted by state law. The jury awarded Coyote $200,416.12 in compensatory damages. The city appealed the trial court's judgment. Later, Coyote filed a motion for attorney fees, and the trial court awarded Coyote $59,320 in attorney fees without holding a hearing. The city appealed this order as well.

The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and the issue of whether the municipal ordinance was preempted by state law. The court concluded that the ordinance was not preempted under any of the three recognized circumstances under which municipal ordinances are preempted by state law. The court found a distinct difference between the state's requirement for a license to operate a motorcycle or motor-driven cycle and a municipality's regulation of the rental of such vehicles. The court also found no conflict between the ordinance and state law. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the judgment of the circuit court and the order awarding Coyote attorney fees, remanding the matters for further proceedings.

City of Valdez v. Prince William Sound Oil Spill Response Corporation

Court: Alaska Supreme Court

Docket: S-18351

Opinion Date: April 19, 2024

Judge: Borghesan

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law

The case revolves around a dispute between the City of Valdez and the Prince William Sound Oil Spill Response Corporation, the State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, and the State Assessment Review Board. The City of Valdez appealed the State's determination that certain property was not taxable. After nearly two decades of administrative and court proceedings, Valdez won. However, due to the length of the litigation, Valdez has not been able to collect taxes on the property that should have been taxed.

The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, ruled that even though the State wrongly determined certain property was not taxable, the State cannot now assess taxes on this property if more than three years have passed since the taxpayer filed its tax return. According to this ruling, taxes may be assessed on this property only for the most recent tax years. Valdez appealed this decision.

The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s decision. The court held that the statutory text is clear and does not suggest that the legislature intended something other than the plain meaning of the text. The court also disagreed with Valdez's argument that it is impossible for a municipality to challenge a taxability determination in less than three years. The court concluded that AS 43.05.260’s three-year limitations period applies to tax assessments under AS 43.56, even if Revenue’s initial decision not to tax certain property was wrong.

Ruelas v. County of Alameda

Court: Supreme Court of California

Docket: S277120A

Opinion Date: April 22, 2024

Judge: Evans

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

A group of non-convicted individuals detained at the Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, California, filed a lawsuit against the county and a private contractor, Aramark Correctional Services, LLC. The detainees were working in the jail's kitchen, preparing meals for the jail population and staff under an agreement between the county and Aramark. They were not paid for their labor. The detainees sued for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime.

The case was initially heard in a federal district court, which granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court reasoned that while the Penal Code addresses employment and wages of state prisoners, it does not address such matters for pretrial detainees confined in county jails. The court also agreed with the County that government entities are exempt from state overtime laws and therefore granted the County's motion to dismiss the claim for overtime wages. The district court certified for interlocutory appeal the legal question of pretrial detainees’ entitlement to minimum and overtime wages.

The Supreme Court of California was asked by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide whether non-convicted incarcerated individuals working in a county jail for a private company have a claim for minimum wage and overtime under California law. The Supreme Court of California concluded that non-convicted incarcerated individuals performing services in county jails for a for-profit company do not have a claim for minimum wages and overtime under Section 1194 of the California Labor Code, even in the absence of a local ordinance prescribing or prohibiting the payment of wages for these individuals.

City of Santa Cruz v. Superior Court

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: H050881(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 16, 2024

Judge: Bamattre-Manoukian

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

The case revolves around a dispute between the City of Santa Cruz (City) and the County of Santa Cruz (County) over the interpretation of the City's claim presentation ordinance. The County sued the City for damages exceeding $1.2 million, alleging that the City's failure to maintain and manage a certain area led to emergency repairs. The County argued that it was not required to present a claim to the City before filing the lawsuit, as per the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.). The City, however, demurred, arguing that the County failed to present a claim directly to the City as required by the City’s claim presentation ordinance (Santa Cruz Mun. Code, § 1.14.010).

The trial court sustained in part and overruled in part the City’s demurrer, rejecting the City's argument that the County was required to present a claim before filing the lawsuit. The court reasoned that the City’s ordinance applies to claims that are “not governed by” section 905 (Santa Cruz Mun. Code, § 1.14.010), and the County’s claim against the City is governed by section 905, which provides an exception to the claims presentation requirement for the County’s claim against the City.

The City appealed, arguing that its ordinance, which applies to claims “not governed by” section 905, must be interpreted as applying to claims “excepted” from section 905. The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District agreed with the City's interpretation. The court concluded that the trial court erred in determining that the County was not required to comply with the claim presentation ordinance before filing its lawsuit against the City. The court directed the trial court to vacate its demurrer order, to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer, and to decide in the first instance whether the County should be granted leave to amend.

Kuigoua v. Dept. of Veteran Affairs

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B323735(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Judge: Wiley

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

The case revolves around Arno Kuigoua, a registered nurse who was employed by the California Department of Veterans Affairs (the Department) at the Knight Veterans Home. Kuigoua was terminated in October 2018 after the Department found him guilty of sexually harassing women and providing substandard care that harmed patients. Kuigoua appealed his termination to the State Personnel Board, but his appeal was rejected. He then filed an administrative charge of employment discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging discrimination based on sex and retaliation.

The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed Kuigoua's case after he sued the Department in state court on state statutory claims. His complaint included allegations of unlawful gender, sex, and/or sexual orientation discrimination and harassment, unlawful race, color, and/or national origin discrimination and/or harassment, failure to prevent unlawful discrimination and/or harassment based on gender, sex, sexual orientation, race, color, and/or national origin, and retaliation based on gender, sex, sexual orientation, race, color, and/or national origin.

The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight reviewed the case after Kuigoua appealed the judgment of the Superior Court. The court found that Kuigoua's claims in court were not like, and were not reasonably related to, those in his administrative complaint. The court also found that an administrative investigation would not have uncovered the conduct that was the focus of Kuigoua's operative complaint. As a result, the court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, ruling that Kuigoua failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Mission Springs Water Dist. v. Desert Water Agency

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: D081984(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 12, 2024

Judge: CASTILLO

Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The case revolves around a dispute between two local water management agencies, Mission Springs Water District (Mission Springs) and Desert Water Agency (Desert Water), over who should be the regional groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) responsible for managing groundwater in the Coachella Valley region of Riverside County, California. The dispute arose from the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which requires the creation of GSAs to manage groundwater basins. Desert Water claimed to be the exclusive GSA within its statutory boundaries, which encompass most of Mission Springs' boundaries. Mission Springs challenged this claim and also sought resolution of competing claims to GSA authority for an additional three-square-mile area outside of Desert Water’s statutory boundaries.

The Superior Court of Riverside County ruled in favor of Desert Water and the California Department of Water Resources (the Department), denying Mission Springs' petition for a writ of mandamus. Mission Springs appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District Division One State of California, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Desert Water did not violate any provisions of the Water Code by becoming a GSA. It also found that Desert Water did not form a new public corporation or public agency within Mission Springs’ jurisdiction by becoming a GSA, and therefore did not violate section 30065 of the Water Code. The court further held that the Department did not err in posting Desert Water’s notice of intent to become a GSA, as Desert Water had complied with all notice requirements. Finally, the court found that the Department was not responsible for resolving the overlapping claims to the three-square-mile area, as the Act requires the agencies to resolve this dispute themselves.

P. v. Lezama

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: G062075(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 22, 2024

Judge: Delaney

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The defendant, Noe Lezama, was initially charged with murder but later entered a plea to voluntary manslaughter in 2019. In 2022, he filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing that the timing and factual basis of his plea should not preclude him from being eligible for resentencing. The trial court summarily denied his petition, concluding that legislative history confirmed that those who pled guilty to manslaughter after statutory amendments eliminated imputed malice theories of murder liability are not eligible for resentencing as a matter of law.

Previously, the trial court had sentenced Lezama to a total of 13 years in prison for voluntary manslaughter and a gang enhancement. The prosecution had initially charged Lezama and another individual with murder and conspiracy to commit murder, alleging that they had killed a man with malice aforethought. However, in 2019, the prosecution and Lezama reached a plea agreement, and the original information was amended to add a count of voluntary manslaughter and modify a criminal street gang enhancement.

The Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that the statutory language and defendant’s record of conviction confirmed that Lezama was not eligible for resentencing. The court noted that Senate Bill 1437, which took effect in 2019, amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. However, the court concluded that this did not apply to Lezama, who pled guilty to manslaughter after such theories had been eliminated by Senate Bill 1437.

State v. Superior Court

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B330847(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 5, 2024

Judge: BENDIX

Areas of Law: Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves a request for calendar entries of the Governor's former senior advisor for energy, Alice Reynolds, under the California Public Records Act (PRA). The request was made by the Energy and Policy Institute (EPI) and sought entries reflecting meetings with 10 specified entities, including the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), electric utilities, and unions representing energy workers, during the year prior to Reynolds' appointment to the presidency of the CPUC. The Governor's office denied the request, citing the deliberative process privilege, which protects the decision-making process of government agencies from public scrutiny.

The trial court ruled in favor of EPI, finding that the public interest in access to these calendar entries outweighed the deliberative process privilege. The Governor appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One.

The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, concluding that EPI's request was sufficiently specific, focused, and limited, and the public interest in disclosure was sufficiently compelling when measured against the minimal impact on government decision-making, to override the deliberative process privilege. The court found that the entities specified in EPI's request were entities with which the Governor's senior energy advisor would be expected to meet regardless of the Governor's particular policy priorities. Therefore, disclosure of records that those meetings took place, without any information as to the substance of those meetings, would reveal little if anything about the Governor's or his senior advisor's policy positions or thought processes. The court also concluded that the public has a substantial interest in knowing the extent to which the current CPUC president interacted with the CPUC and the entities the CPUC regulates when she was the Governor's senior advisor for energy.

Marshall v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles

Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Docket: SC20703

Opinion Date: April 9, 2024

Judge: Mullins

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case revolves around a plaintiff who was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The arresting officer prepared a report of the incident and mailed it to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), but not within the three business days required by statute. At the plaintiff's license suspension hearing, the plaintiff's attorney objected to the admission of the report on the grounds that it was not prepared and mailed within the statutory timeframe. The hearing officer overruled the objection and admitted the report, which was the only evidence submitted at the hearing.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, concluding that strict adherence to the preparation and mailing requirement was not necessary for the report to be admissible. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the preparation and mailing requirement is directory, and therefore, strict compliance with that requirement is not necessary for a report to be admissible at a license suspension hearing.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the Appellate Court's judgment. The court held that the hearing officer abused her discretion in admitting an incident report that did not strictly comply with the preparation and mailing provision of the statute in the absence of testimony from the arresting officer. The court concluded that the preparation and mailing requirement was mandatory because it promoted the accuracy and reliability of the information that would be used at a license suspension hearing. The court clarified that the statute describes substantive requirements that incident reports must meet, and the failure to meet those requirements renders a report inadmissible insofar as it fails to satisfy the exception for the report to be admitted without the need to produce the arresting officer at the suspension hearing.

DeMatteis v. RISE Delaware, Inc.

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Docket: 178, 2023

Opinion Date: April 12, 2024

Judge: LEGROW

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Health Law, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware considered an appeal from a decision of the Superior Court regarding the adoption of a Medicare Advantage Plan for State retirees by the State Employee Benefits Committee (SEBC). The Superior Court had found that the SEBC's decision was subject to the requirements of Delaware’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA), granted a motion to stay the implementation of the Medicare Advantage Plan, and required the State to maintain its retirees’ Medicare Supplement Plan. The Superior Court also denied the plaintiffs' application for attorneys’ fees.

The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware disagreed with the lower court's ruling. It found that the SEBC's decision to adopt a Medicare Advantage Plan was not a "regulation" as defined by the APA. The court reasoned that the decision did not meet the APA's definition of a regulation because it was not a "rule or standard," nor was it a guide for the decision of future cases. Therefore, the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to stay the implementation of the plan. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court.

On cross-appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the Superior Court erred by refusing to grant their application for attorneys’ fees. However, the Supreme Court found this argument moot because fee shifting is available only against a losing party in favor of a prevailing party. Since the Supreme Court reversed the decision below, fee shifting was foreclosed.

Board of Land and Natural Resources v. Crabtree

Court: Supreme Court of Hawaii

Docket: SCPW-23-0000471

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: Eddins

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case revolves around attorney fees in a dispute involving the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), State of Hawaii, and the Sierra Club. In 2022, the BLNR approved permits allowing Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. and East Maui Irrigation Company, LLC to divert water from East Maui streams. The Sierra Club appealed this decision, arguing that the BLNR unlawfully denied its request for a contested case hearing. The environmental court modified the permits and capped the amount of water that could be diverted. The BLNR then petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii, alleging that the environmental court's decision resulted in a water shortage that hindered firefighting efforts during a wildfire.

The environmental court had previously sided with the Sierra Club, ruling that the BLNR should have held a contested case hearing. The court also invoked Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 604A-2(b) and HRS § 91-14(g) to modify the permits, and cited public trust doctrine principles to support the cap on water diversion. The court decided not to void the permits entirely to avoid potential chaos and threats to the reliable availability of necessary water.

The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii held that a state-initiated original proceeding is not protected by sovereign immunity, and thus, the state may be liable for reasonable attorney fees spent opposing a frivolous petition for extraordinary relief. The court concluded that the Sierra Club is entitled to attorney fees, as the BLNR's petition was found to be frivolous and made in bad faith. The court rejected the BLNR's invocation of sovereign immunity, stating that the state waives its sovereign immunity when it initiates an original action.

William and Mary Goche, LLC v. Kossuth County Board of Supervisors in their capacity as Trustees of Drainage Districts 4, 18, and 80

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Docket: 23-0866

Opinion Date: April 19, 2024

Judge: McDonald

Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves William and Mary Goche, LLC; Global Assets, LLC; and Joseph Goche (collectively “Goche”), who own land in three different drainage districts in Kossuth County. The Kossuth County Board of Supervisors administers these districts. Goche alleged that the board of supervisors administered the districts in a way that specifically caused him harm. He brought a suit against the board of supervisors, current and former supervisors, and engineering firm Bolton & Menk, Inc., asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeking punitive damages for the defendants’ alleged breaches.

The defendants moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that they owed no fiduciary duty to Goche as an individual landowner within the drainage districts. The district court granted the motions, leading to Goche's appeal. However, in the appeal, Goche abandoned his breach of fiduciary duty claims and instead contended that he is entitled to proceed against the defendants on a standalone cause of action for punitive damages.

The Supreme Court of Iowa disagreed with Goche's argument. The court clarified that punitive damages are a form of damages available to a plaintiff incidental to a recognized cause of action and not a freestanding cause of action. The court also noted that Goche conceded that the defendants owed him no fiduciary duty in the administration of the drainage districts or in providing engineering services to the districts. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, dismissing Goche's claims.

Jarmer v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Docket: 124920

Opinion Date: April 19, 2024

Judge: Wilson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

Shana L. Jarmer was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) after failing a breath alcohol test. At the time of the arrest, Jarmer was in the driver's seat of a vehicle stuck in a muddy ditch. Despite her efforts to move the vehicle, it remained stationary due to the muddy conditions. Following her arrest, Jarmer was notified that her driving privileges would be suspended by the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDR) under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 8-1014. Jarmer challenged the suspension, arguing that she was merely attempting to operate the vehicle, not actually operating it, as the vehicle was not moving.

The KDR upheld the suspension, finding that Jarmer was operating the vehicle. Jarmer sought judicial review of this decision in Sumner County District Court, which denied her petition, agreeing with the KDR that Jarmer was operating the vehicle since the engine was running, she was behind the wheel, and the tires were spinning. On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Jarmer operated the vehicle because she caused it to function or work when she engaged the transmission and pressed the gas pedal.

The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that to "operate" a vehicle means to "drive" it, which requires motion on the part of the vehicle. The court found that while Jarmer unquestionably attempted to operate the vehicle, her car did not move, despite her best efforts. Therefore, it was factually impossible for Jarmer to "move"—and, under the court's precedent, "operate"—the vehicle. The court concluded that Jarmer's unsuccessful effort to drive her car out of a muddy ditch fails to satisfy K.S.A. 8-1002(a)(2)(A)'s requirement that she was "operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both." The court reversed the suspension of Jarmer's driver's license and remanded the matter to the KDR for further proceedings.

CONN V. KENTUCKY PAROLE BOARD

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2022-SC-0198-DG

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: Vanmeter

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves four appellants who are parole-eligible inmates serving life sentences in the Kentucky Department of Corrections. They were denied any further opportunity at parole for the remainder of their sentences by the Kentucky Parole Board. The appellants challenged the Board's authority to issue a "serve-out," arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of powers.

The Franklin Circuit Court concluded that the Board was within its statutory authority to issue a serve-out on a life sentence and granted summary judgment to the Board. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, reasoning that the legislature had not prohibited the Board from authorizing serve-outs on life sentences.

The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The court held that the Board has the power to issue a serve-out to an inmate serving a life sentence. The court reasoned that while the current statutory scheme may not explicitly authorize the Board to grant serve-outs, the relevant legislative and administrative history indicates that the legislature has condoned the Board’s use of this power. The court also held that the Board's power to issue a serve-out does not violate the constitutional separation of powers. The court concluded that a serve-out is authorized by the legislature and is not constitutionally impermissible.

Calnan v. Hurley

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Citation: 2024 ME 30

Opinion Date: April 25, 2024

Judge: Lawrence

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

The case involves a group of plaintiffs, led by Chris Calnan, who challenged a rule implemented by Maine Emergency Medical Services (Maine EMS) requiring emergency medical service (EMS) workers to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and influenza. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that Maine EMS lacked statutory authority to implement such a rule.

The Superior Court (Kennebec County) dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had named the correct defendants, that it had jurisdiction to consider the challenge to the rulemaking, and that the EMS Board acted within its authority in implementing the immunization rule. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as moot.

On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the EMS Board did not exceed its statutory authority in issuing the immunization rule. The court also concluded that the rule aligns with the purpose of the Maine Emergency Medical Services Act of 1982, which is to ensure optimum patient care and the safe handling and transportation of patients. Lastly, the court determined that the EMS Board followed the applicable rulemaking process for the promulgation of the immunization rule.

Commonwealth v. James

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Docket: SJC-13395

Opinion Date: April 23, 2024

Judge: Georges

Areas of Law: Communications Law, Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law, Internet Law, Juvenile Law

The case involves a professional photographer who sexually exploited a minor. The defendant initially contacted the victim through a social networking site and began communicating with her through various means, eventually soliciting and receiving explicit images of the victim. The defendant also met the victim in person and sexually abused her. After the victim's parents reported the exploitation to the police, an investigation was launched. The police seized a computer tower, an external hard drive, and other items from the defendant's former residence. A forensic examination of the hard drives revealed explicit images of the victim, communications between the defendant and the victim, and hundreds of images of unidentified females in various stages of undress.

The defendant was indicted on multiple counts, including aggravated rape of a child and enticement of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges, except for the eight counts of aggravated rape of a child, where he pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of statutory rape. After being sentenced, the defendant filed a motion for the return of the seized property. The Commonwealth opposed the return of the property, arguing that it was in the "public interest" to destroy the devices. The Superior Court denied the defendant's request for the return of certain property.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted an application for direct appellate review. The court concluded that the procedural requirements set forth in G. L. c. 276, §§ 4 to 8, must be followed before a forfeiture decree may be issued under G. L. c. 276, § 3. The court vacated the Superior Court orders denying the return of certain property to the defendant and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Technical, Professional, and Officeworkers Assn v. Renner

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Docket: 162601

Opinion Date: April 22, 2024

Judge: WELCH

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

The case involves Daniel L. Renner, a groundskeeper for Saginaw County, Michigan, who was part of a bargaining unit represented by the Technical, Professional, and Officeworkers Association of Michigan (the Union). Renner opted out of dues-paying membership with the Union in 2017. In 2018, Renner filed a complaint with his employer, alleging that a coworker smoked around him, which was injurious to his health. When Renner attempted to commence a formal grievance procedure, he was informed that only the Union could pursue the grievance procedure. The Union, however, required Renner to pay a fee for its assistance with the grievance under its pay-for-service policy for nonmembers. Renner refused to pay the fee, the Union did not provide assistance, and the deadline for pursuing the grievance expired.

Renner filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) against the Union, alleging that the Union violated its duty of fair representation by refusing to represent him in a grievance with his employer unless Renner paid a fee for direct representation services. An administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of Renner, concluding that the direct service fee was not permitted under the public employment relations act (PERA) or the collective bargaining agreement and that it constituted an unfair labor practice. MERC adopted the decision of the ALJ, and the Union appealed in the Court of Appeals, which affirmed MERC’s decision.

The Union sought leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court, which granted the Union’s application in part. The Supreme Court held that under the 2014 version of PERA, a public sector union that is the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit violates the union’s duty of fair representation by requiring an employee in that bargaining unit who is not a member of the union to pay a fee for the union’s representative services when the union’s pay-for-service policy denies the nonmember employee access to the grievance administration process under the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the decision of MERC.

Nash v. Commissioner of Public Safety

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Docket: A22-1238

Opinion Date: April 10, 2024

Judge: THISSEN

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case revolves around the interpretation of Minnesota Statutes section 171.177, subdivision 1, which requires law enforcement officers to inform individuals suspected of driving under the influence that refusal to submit to a blood or urine test is a crime. The respondent, Brian Matthew Nash, was pulled over for suspected impaired driving. After failing field sobriety tests, he was arrested and a state trooper obtained a search warrant for a blood or urine test. The trooper informed Nash that refusal to take a test is a crime, and Nash complied. His blood test revealed the presence of a controlled substance, leading to the revocation of his driving privileges.

Nash sought judicial review of his license revocation, arguing that the trooper's advisory did not comply with the statutory requirement. The district court rejected Nash's arguments and sustained the revocation. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed, finding that the advisory given to Nash was misleading and an inaccurate statement of law.

The Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed with the court of appeals' interpretation of the statute. The court held that the trooper's statement that "refusal to take a test is a crime" satisfied the advisory required by section 171.177, subdivision 1. The court reasoned that the statute does not require officers to inform drivers of all the elements and permutations of what is required before the state may take adverse action against them. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case for consideration of the other issues raised by Nash in his appeal.

Barber v. State

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Citation: 316 Neb. 398

Opinion Date: April 19, 2024

Judge: Stacy

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves RaySean Barber, an inmate in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS), who was diagnosed with a mental illness. Barber refused treatment with antipsychotic medications, leading DCS medical staff to apply for a series of involuntary medication orders (IMOs) authorizing monthly injections of the antipsychotic medication Haldol against his will. Barber filed a lawsuit against the State of Nebraska under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA), alleging that DCS employees were negligent in applying for, ordering the initiation and continuation of, and upholding the IMOs.

The State moved to dismiss Barber's complaint, arguing that the claim was barred by the STCA’s exemption for any claim arising out of battery. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the unconsented and involuntary injection is the cause of Barber’s alleged injury—a battery.

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that Barber's claim—that DCS staff negligently subjected him to an IMO and injected him with Haldol against his will—is a claim that arises out of a battery. The court held that because Barber's claim arose out of a battery, it is barred by the exemption in the STCA.

Michaud v. Town of Campton Police Department

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Docket: 2022-0328

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: James P. Bassett

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

Kenneth Michaud submitted a Right-to-Know request to the Town of Campton Police Department, seeking certain records pertaining to him, his address, or any member of his household. The Town denied his request, asserting that it was an attempt to circumvent the discovery process in a separate litigation between the parties. Michaud then filed a lawsuit against the Town to gain access to the requested records. The Town reiterated its justification for the denial, and the court stayed the Right-to-Know suit until the separate litigation reached a resolution. After the resolution of the other litigation, the court ordered the Town to respond to Michaud's requests. The Town provided some documents, but Michaud filed a motion to compel, claiming that not all records were produced. The court denied the motion, finding that the Town had complied with the order and that the withheld records were either already in Michaud's possession or were exempted from disclosure.

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that the Town violated the Right-to-Know Law by categorically denying Michaud's request based on his motive and without first reviewing the records responsive to the request. The court concluded that the Town's initial response was not lawful and that the trial court erred in ruling that the Town's initial denial was lawful. The court also vacated the trial court's denial of Michaud's request for attorney’s fees and costs and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that to award attorney’s fees on remand, the trial court must find that the lawsuit was necessary to enforce compliance with the Right-to-Know Law and that the Town knew or should have known that its conduct violated the Right-to-Know Law.

Mojalaki Holdings v. City of Franklin

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Docket: 2022-0122

Opinion Date: April 9, 2024

Judge: MARCONI

Areas of Law: Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

The case involves Mojalaki Holdings, LLC and GSSG New Hampshire, LLC (the plaintiffs) who appealed a decision by the City of Franklin Planning Board (the Board) that denied their site plan application to install a solar panel array on a piece of land owned by Mojalaki. The proposed solar panel array required the installation of new utility poles and the removal of mature trees to ensure sufficient sunlight. The land, which was mostly open space and was once a golf course, did not have any specific ordinance language addressing solar panel arrays. The Board, after multiple hearings and a site visit, denied the application based on concerns raised by neighbors about the project's potential impact on the scenery, property values, and previous negative experiences with other solar projects in the city.

The Board's decision was upheld by the Superior Court, which agreed with the Board's first and third reasons for denial, namely that the installation of new utility poles would create an industrial look out of place in the neighborhood, and that cutting down mature trees contradicted the purpose provisions. However, the Superior Court did not uphold the Board's second basis, that the solar panel array endangered or adversely impacted the residents, due to lack of supporting facts.

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that the Board could not rely solely on the purpose provisions to deny the application. The court found that the purpose provisions lacked sufficient specificity for site plan review and left the proposed project to be judged by the subjective views of the Board through ad hoc decision making. The court granted the plaintiffs a builder's remedy, allowing them to proceed with their development provided they comply with all other applicable regulations.

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Docket: A-33-22

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Judge: Patterson

Areas of Law: Business Law, Government & Administrative Law, Non-Profit Corporations

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU) sought to obtain records from the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey (CPANJ), a nonprofit association whose members are the twenty-one county prosecutors. The ACLU claimed that CPANJ is a public agency required to disclose records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and a public entity subject to the common law right of access. CPANJ denied the request, asserting that it is not a public agency for purposes of OPRA and is not a public entity subject to the common law right of access. The ACLU filed a lawsuit, but the trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that CPANJ is not a public agency within the meaning of OPRA and that CPANJ’s records do not constitute public records for purposes of the common law right of access. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey agreed with the lower courts, holding that CPANJ is neither a public agency under OPRA nor a public entity subject to the common law right of access. The court found that the ACLU’s factual allegations did not support a claim against CPANJ under OPRA or the common law. The court concluded that a county prosecutor, who is a constitutional officer, is not the alter ego of the county itself, and does not constitute a “political subdivision” as that term is used in OPRA. Therefore, CPANJ, an organization in which the county prosecutors are members, is not a public agency for purposes of OPRA. The court also found that the ACLU did not allege facts suggesting that CPANJ is an entity upon which a common law right of access request for documents may properly be served. The judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Alcantara v Annucci

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citation: 2024 NY Slip Op 02224

Opinion Date: April 25, 2024

Judge: TROUTMAN

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves a group of convicted sex offenders who were confined in the Fishkill Residential Treatment Facility (RTF) while on post-release supervision (PRS). The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) used the Fishkill RTF to confine these offenders past their maximum sentence expiration dates because they were unable to find housing that complied with the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA). The plaintiffs initiated a proceeding in 2016, seeking injunctions, declaratory relief, and class certification, arguing that DOCCS's operation of the Fishkill RTF failed to comply with the statutes governing RTFs because it did not offer adequate programming or employment opportunities.

The Supreme Court dismissed part of the proceeding and converted the remaining into an action seeking a declaration that DOCCS's operation of the Fishkill RTF was non-compliant with the statutes governing RTFs. The court denied class certification, reasoning that the converted declaratory judgment action would adequately protect the interests of similarly situated offenders. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment and a declaration in their favor. The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion in part, concluding that the internal programming was minimally adequate to satisfy DOCCS's statutory obligations. However, the court agreed with plaintiffs that DOCCS failed to provide adequate community-based opportunities.

The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reversing the part that granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs and granted defendants' motion in its entirety. The Court concluded that while the statute requires DOCCS to locate RTFs near a community with employment, training, and educational opportunities, there was no mandate that DOCCS offer such opportunities outside the facility.

The Court of Appeals held that DOCCS's wholesale refusal to secure community-based opportunities for Fishkill RTF residents constitutes a violation of the statute. The Court concluded that DOCCS, at a minimum, must undertake reasonable efforts to secure community-based opportunities for those persons subject to its RTF programming. However, the Court agreed with the Appellate Division that the internal programming at the Fishkill RTF was at least minimally adequate.

In re Aaron Manor Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., LLC v Zucker

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citation: 2024 NY Slip Op 02126

Opinion Date: April 23, 2024

Judge: RIVERA

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

The case involves a dispute over the adjusted Medicaid reimbursement rates for for-profit residential health care facilities in New York. The New York State Department of Health and its Commissioner, in response to a legislative mandate, eliminated a component known as the "residual equity reimbursement factor" from the computation formula used to set these rates. This change was part of a broader effort to reduce Medicaid costs in the state. The petitioners, 116 for-profit nursing homes, challenged this adjustment, arguing that it was retroactively applied and violated their rights under the Public Health Law and the Equal Protection Clause.

The Supreme Court granted the petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the clause pending a final determination of the proceeding. It also partially granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the petitioners' claims that the adjusted rates were not "reasonable and adequate to meet costs" under the Public Health Law and violated their equal protection rights. However, the court found that the adjusted rates were improperly applied retroactively. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.

The New York Court of Appeals, in its review, held that the Department of Health did not violate the legislature's intent when it announced the recalculated rates for services provided on or after April 2, 2020. The court found that the legislature clearly expressed its intent for the elimination clause to be applied without delay, and that the initial implementing ratemaking was not subject to the usual 60-day advance notice requirement. The court also rejected the petitioners' claims that the adjusted rates were not "reasonable and adequate to meet costs" and violated their equal protection rights. The court modified the order of the Appellate Division in accordance with its opinion and, as so modified, affirmed it.

Ludlow v. Ohio Dept. of Health

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2024-Ohio-1399

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Judge: Fischer

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

The case revolves around a public-records request made by Randy Ludlow, a reporter for the Columbus Dispatch, to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH). Ludlow requested a digital spreadsheet copy of the Electronic Death Registration System (EDRS) database, which contains information for all death certificates delivered to ODH. While ODH provided a spreadsheet with details such as decedents’ sex, age, race, birth date, marital status, and date, time, place, manner, and cause of death, it withheld the names and addresses of the decedents, claiming that this information was exempt from disclosure under R.C. 3701.17 as "protected health information."

The Court of Claims initially ordered ODH to provide the requested records, arguing that the information was not exempt from disclosure as it was public information under a different statute, R.C. 3705.23(A). However, the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the names and addresses of the decedents, when combined with their causes of death, were properly withheld as protected health information.

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The court held that the names and addresses of a decedent, when combined with information regarding his or her cause of death, are protected health information under R.C. 3701.17 and are not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. The court noted that while this information may be obtainable under other statutes, those statutes require the requester to satisfy certain requirements before they may receive the information requested.

Vandercar, L.L.C. v. Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2024-Ohio-1501

Opinion Date: April 23, 2024

Judge: FISCHER

Areas of Law: Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Vandercar, L.L.C. entered into a $36 million purchase contract for the Millennium Hotel in Cincinnati and then assigned its interest in the hotel to the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority. The agreement stipulated that the Port would pay Vandercar a $5 million redevelopment fee if the Port issued bonds to redevelop the hotel within a year of its acquisition. The Port acquired the hotel and issued acquisition bonds, but it denied that the bonds were for redevelopment of the hotel, so it refused to pay the redevelopment fee. Vandercar sued the Port for breach of contract for failing to pay the redevelopment fee and also moved for prejudgment interest.

The trial court found that Vandercar was entitled to the redevelopment fee and granted Vandercar’s motion for summary judgment on that issue. However, the trial court denied Vandercar’s motion for prejudgment interest, concluding that prejudgment interest could not be imposed on the Port since it was “an arm/instrumentality of the state.” Both parties appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decisions.

The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals. The court held that the Port, a port authority created under R.C. 4582.22(A), is not exempt from the application of R.C. 1343.03(A), which entitles a creditor to prejudgment interest when the creditor receives a judgment for the payment of money due under a contract. Therefore, the Port may be held liable to pay prejudgment interest. The court remanded the case to the trial court to evaluate Vandercar’s motion for prejudgment interest under the correct standard.

Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Docket: S070517

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: Garrett

Areas of Law: Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

The case involves a dispute over the approval of a site certificate for the construction of a wind energy facility in Umatilla County, Oregon. The Energy Facility Siting Council granted the certificate to Nolin Hills Wind, LLC, despite the proposed facility not complying with a local siting criterion requiring a two-mile setback between any turbine and a rural residence. Umatilla County sought judicial review of the council's decision, arguing that the council should have required Nolin Hills to comply with the two-mile setback rule.

The case was reviewed by the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. The court noted that the council had the authority to approve the proposed energy facility despite its failure to comply with the two-mile setback rule. The court also noted that the council had the authority to approve the proposed facility even if it did not pass through more than three land use zones and even if it did not comply with all of the county’s recommended substantive criteria.

The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon affirmed the council's decision, concluding that the council was authorized to issue a site certificate for the proposed wind facility notwithstanding the failure of the proposed facility to comply with the two-mile setback rule. The court found that the council was not required to reject a proposed facility simply because it did not comply with a local criterion. The court also rejected the county's argument that the council erred in concluding that the proposed facility "does otherwise comply with the applicable statewide planning goals."

City of Lancaster v. PUC

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Docket: 107 MAP 2022

Opinion Date: April 25, 2024

Judge: Brobson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

The case involves the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) and the City of Lancaster, Borough of Carlisle, and Borough of Columbia (collectively referred to as the Municipalities). The dispute centers around Section 59.18 of the PUC’s regulations, which gives natural gas distribution companies (NGDCs) the authority to determine the location of gas meters in historic districts. The Municipalities argued that this regulation violates Article II, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which vests legislative power in the General Assembly, not in private entities like NGDCs.

The Commonwealth Court agreed with the Municipalities, concluding that Section 59.18 unlawfully delegates legislative authority to NGDCs without providing adequate standards to guide their decisions. The court therefore declared Section 59.18 unenforceable.

The PUC appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The PUC argued that Section 59.18 does not delegate legislative power to NGDCs, but rather is a regulatory act under the PUC’s administrative authority. The PUC also contended that the Commonwealth Court failed to consider the safety issues related to meter placement, which is the primary concern of the regulation.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court. The court found that the General Assembly never enacted a statute giving the PUC legislative authority to determine the location of gas meters in historic districts. Therefore, the PUC could not have unlawfully delegated this authority to NGDCs. The court concluded that the Municipalities' disagreement with the PUC's regulation does not amount to a constitutional violation. The case was remanded to the Commonwealth Court for further proceedings.

In re N.B.

Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Docket: 22-75

Opinion Date: April 15, 2024

Judge: Prata

Areas of Law: Family Law, Government & Administrative Law, Juvenile Law

The case involves the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) in Rhode Island, which was held in contempt by the Family Court for failing to place a minor, N.B., in a specific facility, St. Mary’s Home for Children, as ordered by the court. N.B., who has behavioral issues and Type I juvenile diabetes, was initially placed in Hasbro Children’s Hospital after her mother refused to take her home due to safety concerns. The Family Court ordered DCYF to place N.B. at St. Mary’s, but the facility refused to admit her due to her medical needs and behavioral issues. Despite DCYF's efforts to secure a placement for N.B., including contacting multiple potential placements and attempting to hire nurses to monitor N.B.'s diabetic care needs, no suitable placement was available.

The Family Court found DCYF in contempt for failing to place N.B. at St. Mary’s, rejecting DCYF's argument that it was impossible to comply with the placement order. The court ordered DCYF to pay a daily sanction until it complied with the order. DCYF appealed the contempt order, arguing that the Family Court abused its discretion by finding that DCYF had not exercised reasonable efforts to place N.B. and that it was impossible to comply with the placement order.

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated the Family Court’s contempt order. The Supreme Court found that DCYF had made substantial efforts to place N.B. at St. Mary’s and other appropriate facilities, but compliance with the placement order was outside the department’s control due to circumstances such as the refusal of facilities to accept N.B. and ongoing nursing shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court concluded that the Family Court had abused its discretion in finding that DCYF had not used reasonable efforts to place N.B. and in holding DCYF in contempt.

In re N.D.

Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Docket: 22-59

Opinion Date: April 15, 2024

Judge: Prata

Areas of Law: Family Law, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

The case involves the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) in Rhode Island, which was held in contempt by the Family Court for failing to place a minor, N.D., in a residential facility appropriate for her level of need. N.D., a teenager with severe mental health issues, was under the temporary custody of DCYF. Despite the court's order, DCYF was unable to find an appropriate in-state or out-of-state placement for N.D. due to her high level of need and the lack of available facilities. The Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) filed a motion to adjudge DCYF in contempt for this failure.

The Family Court found DCYF in contempt, rejecting DCYF's defense that it was unable to comply with the court's order. The court imposed a contempt sanction of $1,000 per day until N.D. was placed in an appropriate facility, with the sanction to be placed in a trust for N.D.'s benefit. DCYF appealed this decision.

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated the order of the Family Court. The Supreme Court found that while DCYF was in technical violation of the Family Court's order, it had demonstrated that it was literally unable to comply because an appropriate placement for N.D. was not presently within its power. The court noted the lack of appropriate facilities for girls with N.D.'s level of need in Rhode Island, staffing issues, and an increase in mental health problems among adolescents. The case was remanded to the Family Court for further proceedings.

Campbellton Road, Ltd. v. City of San Antonio

Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Docket: 22-0481

Opinion Date: April 12, 2024

Judge: DEVINE

Areas of Law: Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The case involves a dispute between a developer, Campbellton Road, Ltd., and the City of San Antonio, specifically the San Antonio Water System (SAWS). The developer entered into a contract with SAWS in 2003, which included an option for the developer to participate in and fund the construction of off-site oversized infrastructure for a municipal water system. The developer planned to develop two residential subdivisions and needed sewer service for them. The contract stated that if the developer decided to participate in the off-site oversizing project, a contract would form, and the developer would earn credits that could be used to satisfy some or all of the collection component of assessed impact fees.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas concluded that the Local Government Contract Claims Act did not apply, and therefore did not waive immunity, because there was no agreement for providing services to the system. The court held that the system had no contractual right to receive any services and would not have “any legal recourse” if the developer “unilaterally decided not to proceed.”

The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the Act waived the system’s immunity from suit because the developer adduced evidence that a contract formed when the developer decided to and did participate in the off-site oversizing project. The court found that the contract stated the essential terms of an agreement for the developer to participate in that project, and the agreement was for providing a service to the system that was neither indirect nor attenuated. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

San Jacinto River Authority v. City of Conroe

Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Docket: 22-0649

Opinion Date: April 12, 2024

Judge: Busby

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Contracts, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves a dispute between the San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA) and the cities of Conroe and Magnolia, Texas. The SJRA and the cities had entered into contracts obligating the cities to buy surface water from the SJRA. When a disagreement over fees and rates arose, the cities stopped paying their full balances, leading the SJRA to sue the cities for recovery of those amounts. The cities claimed immunity from the suit as government entities.

Previously, the trial court had granted the cities' plea to the jurisdiction, and the court of appeals affirmed this decision. The court of appeals held that the SJRA had not engaged in pre-suit mediation as required by the contracts, and therefore, the cities' immunity was not waived.

The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court held that contractual procedures for alternative dispute resolution, such as pre-suit mediation, do not limit the statutory waiver of immunity for contractual claims against local government entities. The court also found that the mediation requirement did not apply to the SJRA's claims. Furthermore, the court rejected the cities' argument that the agreements did not fall within the waiver because they failed to state their essential terms.

Consequently, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings to resolve the SJRA's claims on the merits.

Salt Lake Co v. Tax Commission

Court: Utah Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 UT 11

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: Hagen

Areas of Law: Aviation, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law, Transportation Law

The case involves Salt Lake County's challenge to the constitutionality of the Aircraft Valuation Law, which provides a preferred method for determining the fair market value of aircraft for tax purposes. The County argued that the application of the law to Delta Air Lines' aircraft resulted in an assessment below fair market value, violating the Utah Constitution. The County also contended that the law, on its face, violated the Utah Constitution by divesting the Utah State Tax Commission of its power to assess airline property.

The Utah State Tax Commission had previously upheld the 2017 assessment of Delta's property, which was calculated according to the Aircraft Valuation Law. The Commission found that the County did not provide clear and convincing evidence that the legislature's preferred method of valuation did not reasonably reflect fair market value.

The Supreme Court of the State of Utah rejected the County's arguments. The court held that the County failed to fully utilize the statutory safety valve, which allows the Commission to use an alternative valuation method if the preferred method does not reasonably reflect fair market value. The court also rejected the County's facial challenge to the Aircraft Valuation Law, concluding that the County did not show that the law prohibits the legislature from prescribing a preferred method for valuing aircraft. Therefore, the court affirmed the Commission's decision.

Spokane County v. Meneses

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Docket: 101,520-8

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: JOHNSON

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves an action filed by Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney Lawrence Haskell against Jilma Meneses, the secretary of the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). The Prosecutor sought a writ of mandamus directing Meneses to comply with statutory duties under chapter 10.77 RCW and timely provide competency services in criminal proceedings. The case specifically concerned three categories of Spokane County defendants in felony criminal proceedings ordered to receive competency services from DSHS.

Previously, a class action was filed in federal court, challenging DSHS's delays in providing competency services to criminal defendants in pretrial custody. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington held these delays violated the class members’ due process rights and issued a permanent injunction against DSHS. The injunction set strict time limits for providing competency services to defendants in pretrial custody, appointed a special court monitor, and began oversight of DSHS’s efforts to comply with the injunction.

In the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, DSHS argued that the court must dismiss the petition for lack of original jurisdiction because the secretary is not a state officer within the meaning of the state constitution. The court agreed with DSHS, concluding that the secretary is not a state officer. The court reasoned that a state officer must be elected, subject to impeachment, and granted a State sovereign power, none of which applied to the secretary. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus.

Duff v. Kanawha County Commission

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 23-43

Opinion Date: April 22, 2024

Judge: HUTCHISON

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

The case involves David Duff II, a Kanawha County Deputy Sheriff, who injured his back while on duty. He applied for workers' compensation benefits and was awarded a 13% Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) award. The award was based on a medical report that found Duff had a 25% whole person impairment, but 12% of this was attributed to a preexisting condition. Duff protested this award to the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review (BOR), arguing that no apportionment was indicated. However, the BOR affirmed the 13% PPD award. Duff then appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (ICA), which also affirmed the BOR's decision.

The case was then brought before the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The court found that the ICA erred in affirming the BOR's decision. The court held that under West Virginia Code § 23-4-9b (2003), the employer has the burden of proving apportionment is warranted in a workers' compensation case. This requires the employer to prove the claimant "has a definitely ascertainable impairment resulting from" a preexisting condition(s). The court found that the respondent failed to carry its burden of proving the degree of impairment to be attributed to any preexisting condition for purposes of apportionment. The court reversed the ICA's decision and remanded the case to the BOR with directions to grant Duff an additional 12% PPD award for a total PPD award of 25%.