National Association of Government Employees, Inc. v. Yellen

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 23-1867

Opinion Date: November 1, 2024

Judge: Gelpi

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

The National Association of Government Employees, Inc. (NAGE) challenged the constitutionality of the Debt Limit Statute, alleging that it posed an imminent risk to its members, who are federal employees. NAGE claimed that if the debt limit was not raised, its members would face layoffs, furloughs, unpaid work, and loss of pension funding. NAGE sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and President Joseph R. Biden.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that NAGE's claims of past injuries were moot due to the passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which suspended the debt limit until January 1, 2025, and required the Treasury Secretary to make whole the G Fund accounts. The court also determined that NAGE's claims of future harm were too speculative to establish standing, as they relied on a series of unlikely events, including a federal default, which has never occurred.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court agreed that NAGE lacked standing to pursue prospective relief because the anticipated future harms were speculative and not certainly impending. The court also found that NAGE's claims of past injuries were moot, as the Fiscal Responsibility Act had addressed the immediate concerns, and there was no reasonable expectation that the same harm would recur. The court rejected NAGE's arguments that the voluntary-cessation and capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exceptions to mootness applied, concluding that the legislative action was independent and not related to the litigation, and that the risk of future harm was not reasonably expected.

MEJIA V. O'MALLEY

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 23-3162

Opinion Date: November 4, 2024

Judge: Collins

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Public Benefits

Consuelo Griselda Nerio Mejia challenged the denial of her disability benefits by the Social Security Administration (SSA). After an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied her application, concluding that despite her severe impairments, she could perform other jobs available in the national economy, Nerio Mejia filed a civil suit. She raised three objections to the ALJ's decision, but the district court only addressed her claim that the ALJ improperly rejected her symptomology testimony, finding that the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for doing so. The court reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the case to the SSA for further proceedings.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California found that the SSA's position was not substantially justified, making Nerio Mejia eligible for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). However, the district court reduced the fee award, excluding time spent on two additional issues that the court did not address, citing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hardisty v. Astrue. The court concluded that fees for work on issues not decided by the court were not compensable under the EAJA.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's order reducing the fee award. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court misapplied Hardisty, which did not address the compensability of fees for undecided issues when a claimant's overall eligibility for fees is already established. The appellate court found that the district court's ruling was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Hensley v. Eckerhart and the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Ibrahim v. United States Department of Homeland Security. These cases establish that a fully compensatory fee should be awarded when a plaintiff achieves excellent results, even if some issues were not decided. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case with instructions to award the full amount of fees requested by Nerio Mejia.

STATE OF NEBRASKA V. SU

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 23-15179

Opinion Date: November 5, 2024

Judge: Nelson

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

Several states challenged Executive Order 14026, which mandated a $15 minimum wage for federal contractors, and the Department of Labor (DOL) rule implementing it. The states argued that the executive order and the DOL rule violated the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA) and the major questions doctrine, and that the DOL rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the states' complaint and denied their request for a preliminary injunction. The district court concluded that the wage mandate did not violate the FPASA, the major questions doctrine did not apply, and the rule was not subject to arbitrary-or-capricious review under the APA because the DOL had to adopt the policy by executive order.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, vacated the denial of the preliminary injunction, and remanded for further proceedings. The Ninth Circuit held that the minimum wage mandate exceeded the authority granted to the President and DOL under the FPASA because the FPASA’s purpose statement does not authorize the President to impose a wage mandate without other operative language in the FPASA. The court also held that the major questions doctrine did not apply because the executive order was not a transformative expansion of authority. Finally, the court found that the DOL acted arbitrarily or capriciously by failing to consider alternatives to the $15 per hour minimum wage mandate, thus violating the APA.

Swinford v. Santos

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 22-13675

Opinion Date: November 4, 2024

Judge: BRANCH

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

Thomas Swinford was shot and killed by Athens-Clarke County police officers after he refused to drop a gun and instead raised and pointed it at the officers. His widow, Jayne Swinford, filed a lawsuit in Georgia state court alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Georgia’s wrongful death statute against seven officers, the police chief, and the county government. The case was removed to federal court.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on qualified and official immunity grounds, relying on body camera footage showing the events leading up to the shooting. The district court considered the footage and granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the officers acted reasonably and did not violate Thomas’s constitutional rights. The court also denied Mrs. Swinford’s motion to amend her complaint and her motion for reconsideration.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that the district court properly considered the body camera footage under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine. The footage showed that the officers had probable cause to believe Thomas posed a serious threat when he raised his gun at them, justifying their use of deadly force. The court found that the officers did not use excessive force and were entitled to qualified immunity. Consequently, the supervisory liability claim against the police chief and the Monell claim against the county also failed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders, including the denial of Mrs. Swinford’s motion to amend her complaint and her motion for reconsideration.

Banuelos v. Superior Court

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B333189(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 5, 2024

Judge: Viramontes

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The petitioner was charged with first-degree murder. During the investigation, the prosecution informed the defense that an investigating officer had a sustained finding of dishonesty, and the police department intended to release related records under Penal Code section 832.7(b)(1)(C). The defense requested these records under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and filed a Pitchess motion seeking additional Brady material. The trial court, after an in-camera review, found no additional Brady material and ordered the release of the dishonesty records but issued a protective order limiting their dissemination.

The trial court's protective order restricted the defense from sharing the records outside the defense team. The petitioner sought an extraordinary writ of mandate to vacate this protective order, arguing that the records were nonconfidential and subject to public inspection under section 832.7(b)(1)(C). The Court of Appeal initially denied the petition, but the Supreme Court directed the appellate court to reconsider.

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo and concluded that the records of the officer's sustained finding of dishonesty were nonconfidential and subject to public inspection under section 832.7(b)(1)(C). The court held that the trial court should not have issued a protective order for these records, as they were not confidential. Consequently, the appellate court granted the petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate its protective order concerning the records of the officer's dishonesty.

Petree v. Public Employees' Retirement System

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: D082749(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 6, 2024

Judge: DATO

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

Plaintiffs, former officers of the City of Perris Police Department or their surviving spouses, claimed that the closure of the Perris PD and their subsequent hiring by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department resulted in a merger of the two departments under Government Code section 20508. They argued that this merger required Riverside County and the Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) to credit their service with the Perris PD as service with the Sheriff’s Department, entitling them to a more generous pension.

The Superior Court of Riverside County found that section 20508 only applies when there is a merger of contracts between successive employing agencies and CalPERS. The court concluded that no such merger occurred because Riverside County did not assume any of the City’s municipal functions. Consequently, the service pensions for the Perris PD officers and the Sheriff’s Department deputies were calculated and paid out by CalPERS under separate contracts with the City and County, respectively. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, Riverside County and CalPERS.

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that section 20508 requires an actual merger of the contracting agencies’ CalPERS contracts before the succeeding agency assumes any statutory obligations. The court found that the County did not assume the City’s municipal obligations but merely contracted to provide law enforcement services. Therefore, the requirements for a contract merger under section 20508 were not met. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the County and CalPERS were not required to treat the former police officers’ service as service with the Sheriff’s Department.

Parker Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Rein

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Docket: 23SA141

Opinion Date: November 4, 2024

Judge: Berkenkotter

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

Parker Water and Sanitation District, a Colorado special district, applied for six permits to construct wells to withdraw nontributary groundwater from the Denver Basin aquifers. The State Engineer approved the applications and issued the permits, including an allowed average annual withdrawal rate and, for the first time, an explicit condition limiting the total volume of groundwater that could be withdrawn over the life of the permits. Parker challenged this condition, arguing that the State Engineer lacked the authority to impose such a limit.

The Water Division One court found in favor of the State Engineer, concluding that section 37-90-137, C.R.S. (2024), and the Statewide Nontributary Ground Water Rules unambiguously set forth a total volumetric limit on the amount of nontributary Denver Basin groundwater a permittee may withdraw. The court determined that the statute and rules require a total volumetric limit equal to the quantity of nontributary groundwater underlying the land owned by the applicant, as determined by the State Engineer at the time the well permit is issued.

The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the water court's decision, holding that section 37-90-137 unambiguously imposes a total volumetric limit on nontributary groundwater withdrawals over the lifetime of a well permit. The court also held that this limit applies to well permits issued under both the current statute and the earlier version enacted through Senate Bill 213. Additionally, the court concluded that the Statewide Nontributary Ground Water Rules unambiguously impose a total volumetric limit and that the State Engineer has the authority to include such a limit in well permits. The court further held that water court decrees determining use rights for nontributary Denver Basin groundwater set forth a total volumetric limit on withdrawals unless an underlying decree explicitly provides otherwise. Finally, the court found that the water court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery.

PPC Realty, LLC v. Hartford

Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Docket: SC20826

Opinion Date: November 5, 2024

Judge: D’Auria

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

The case involves a dispute between a property owner and a city regarding the validity of a lien placed on the property. The property, an apartment building, was destroyed by arson, leading to the displacement of its tenants. The city incurred costs relocating the tenants and placed a lien on the property to recover these expenses under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (URAA).

The trial court ruled in favor of the property owner, determining that the lien was invalid because the displacement was caused by a third party's arson, not by the city's enforcement of its building code. The court allowed the property owner to challenge the lien using an affirmative defense provided by the URAA, which is typically available only in civil actions brought by a municipality to recover relocation expenses.

The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the tenants were "displaced persons" under the URAA because their displacement was a direct result of the city's enforcement of its building code, regardless of the arson being the initial cause. The court further held that the affirmative defense provided by the URAA, which allows a landlord to argue that the displacement was not due to their violation of housing codes, is only available in civil actions brought by the municipality and cannot be used to challenge a lien in an application to discharge it.

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to deny the property owner's application to discharge the city's lien, thereby upholding the city's right to recover its relocation expenses through the lien.

State v. Soliz

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Criminal

Docket: 49848

Opinion Date: November 4, 2024

Judge: Meyer

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

Adrian Renee Soliz was found unconscious behind the wheel of his vehicle, which was impeding traffic. Concerned, a passerby called 9-1-1, and emergency responders arrived at the scene. They discovered drug paraphernalia on Soliz's lap while providing medical assistance for what was later confirmed to be a drug overdose. Soliz was subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and other related offenses.

Soliz filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that under Idaho’s overdose immunity statute (Idaho Code section 37-2739C(2)), he should be immune from prosecution because the evidence was obtained as a result of his medical emergency. The State opposed the motion, contending that the evidence was discovered during a traffic investigation, not solely due to the medical emergency. The district court denied Soliz’s motion, concluding that the evidence was not obtained solely as a result of the medical emergency.

The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Court held that the phrase “as a result of” in the overdose immunity statute means that the drug-related medical emergency must be the sole cause of the discovery of evidence. Since the evidence was discovered during both a traffic investigation and a medical emergency response, the statute did not apply. Therefore, Soliz was not entitled to immunity, and the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss was upheld.

Goodman vs. Saline County Commission

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri

Docket: SC100554

Opinion Date: November 5, 2024

Judge: Rose

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law

Jessica Goodman, the Saline County Assessor, filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration regarding the correct classification of Saline County under Missouri law. Goodman argued that Saline County should be classified as a third-class county based on its assessed valuation over five years, rather than its current classification as a second-class county. The County moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the statute in question, section 48.020.1, exempts Saline County from reclassification regardless of changes in assessed valuation.

The Circuit Court of Saline County dismissed Goodman’s petition. Goodman appealed the decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. The Court of Appeals transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri, believing that the case involved the validity of a state statute, which would fall under the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Missouri determined that it did not have exclusive appellate jurisdiction because Goodman did not properly raise a constitutional challenge to the statute in question. Goodman’s arguments against the County’s interpretation of the statute did not amount to a direct claim that the statute was unconstitutional. As a result, the Supreme Court of Missouri retransferred the case back to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, for further proceedings.

Shreves v. Montana Dept. of Labor

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 MT 256

Opinion Date: November 6, 2024

Judge: Beth Baker

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

Richard Shreves, while incarcerated at the Montana State Prison, received medical care and subsequently filed a complaint against Dr. Paul Rees with the Board of Medical Examiners at the Montana Department of Labor and Industry (DLI). The Correctional Health Care Review Team (CHCRT) reviewed the complaint and found no violation of law or practice rules by Dr. Rees, leading to the closure of the complaint without forwarding it to the Board of Medical Examiners. Shreves then petitioned for judicial review, challenging the CHCRT's decision and the lack of detailed findings in their response.

The First Judicial District Court dismissed Shreves's petition, concluding that he lacked standing. The court reasoned that the CHCRT process did not implicate Shreves's legal rights, as it was designed to screen complaints for potential disciplinary action against the healthcare provider, not to adjudicate the complainant's rights.

The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The court held that Shreves did not have standing to petition for judicial review because the statute governing the CHCRT process did not authorize judicial review at the behest of the complainant. The court also found that Shreves's constitutional challenge to the CHCRT's authority did not confer standing, as he lacked a personal stake in the outcome. Additionally, the court determined that any alleged mishandling of filings by the District Court did not affect the outcome, as the legal conclusions regarding standing were correct.

CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 OK 77

Opinion Date: November 6, 2024

Judge: James E. Edmondson

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Utilities Law

The case involves an order issued by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (Commission) that prevented certain utilities from billing customers for municipal franchise fees and municipal gross receipts taxes based on securitized revenue, as per the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act. The City of Oklahoma City challenged this order, arguing that it unlawfully canceled municipal taxes and franchise fees, and exceeded the Commission's jurisdiction.

The Public Utilities Division (PUD) of the Commission filed an application to prevent utilities from billing customers for these fees and taxes, arguing that such charges would result in a windfall for municipalities. The Commission granted the PUD's application, concluding that the fees and taxes related to extraordinary fuel costs from the 2021 winter storm should not be collected from customers. The Oklahoma Municipal League (OML) intervened, arguing that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to alter franchise agreements and that the fees were legal obligations of the utilities.

The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case and determined that the OML had standing in the controversy. The Court found that the Commission's determination that the February 2021 Regulated Utility Consumer Protection Act changed or altered a utility's legal obligations concerning municipal franchise fees and gross receipts taxes was not sustained by law. The Court held that the Commission did not have the authority to determine the legality of these fees and taxes or to prevent their collection based on securitized revenue.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed the Commission's order, concluding that the Commission's decision was not supported by the law. The case was remanded to the Corporation Commission for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.

MARSHALL v. CITY OF TULSA

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 OK 78

Opinion Date: November 6, 2024

Judge: Rowe

Areas of Law: Animal / Dog Law, Government & Administrative Law

Sarah Marshall, a pet-sitter, was bitten by a pit bull mix named Julian while attempting to separate a dog fight. Julian had been placed with Loren Poss by Tulsa Animal Welfare, a department within the City of Tulsa. Poss, who was fostering Julian, left him with Marshall while she went on vacation. Marshall sued the City of Tulsa under the strict liability dog bite statute, 4 O.S. § 42.1, and for common law negligence.

The District Court of Tulsa County granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that Marshall was considered an "owner" of the dog under 4 O.S. § 42.1 and thus could not recover under the statute. The court also found that the City did not owe a duty of care to Marshall. Marshall appealed the decision.

The Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Marshall was indeed an "owner" under 4 O.S. § 42.1 when read in conjunction with the Tulsa Municipal Ordinance, which defines an owner as anyone having care, maintenance, or control of a dog. The court also held that the City did not owe a duty of care to Marshall because her injury was not foreseeable, as there was no evidence that Julian had shown signs of aggression prior to the incident. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

State v. Sacco

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Docket: S071003

Opinion Date: November 7, 2024

Judge: BUSHONG

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves a criminal defendant charged with domestic violence offenses who served a pretrial subpoena on Clackamas Women’s Services (CWS) to obtain records related to services provided to the alleged victim (AV). CWS moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the records were protected under Oregon Evidence Code (OEC) 507-1 and ORS 147.600, which protect confidential communications and records created or maintained in the course of providing services to victims of domestic violence. The defendant sought the records to challenge AV’s credibility, claiming she fabricated her claims to obtain financial assistance.

The Clackamas County Circuit Court quashed the subpoena in part but ordered CWS to produce records disclosing the cell phone information and financial assistance provided to AV. CWS sought mandamus relief from the Oregon Supreme Court, arguing that the records were protected under the statute and rule, and disclosure without AV’s consent was prohibited.

The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with CWS, holding that the records ordered for production by the trial court were protected under OEC 507-1 and ORS 147.600. The court concluded that the statute and rule broadly protect all records created or maintained by CWS in the course of providing services to victims of domestic violence, including those that do not contain confidential communications. The court also determined that the trial court had no authority to require CWS to create a new document disclosing the information contained in the protected records. Consequently, the court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its orders.