Archives

Sixth Circuit Rules it has Jurisdiction to Decide WOTUS Challenge

Posted in Commentary on March 2, 2016 By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

In a 2-1 decision the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it—rather than a federal district court—has jurisdiction to decide whether the Clean Water Rule, clarifying the scope of the “waters of the United States (WOTUS),” exceeds the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority.

In October the Sixth Circuit assumed it had jurisdiction and issued a temporary nationwide stay of the rule. The WOTUS rule defines “waters the United States,” according to the EPA, “through increased use of bright-line boundaries” to make “the process of identifying waters protected under the Clean Water Act easier to understand, more predictable and consistent with the law and peer reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation of our nation’s water resources.”

The Sixth Circuit stayed the rule concluding it was likely that a number of the definitions were at odds with Rapanos v. United States (2006) and the distance limitations in the final rule weren’t a “logical outgrowth” of the proposed rule, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on November 24, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

First Circuit

Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York v. Mun. of San Juan, No. 13-1605 (Nov. 20, 2014): The court upheld injunction against municipalities that had issued permits for gated communties in Puerto Rico that did not provide access to public streets for First-Amendment activities.

Third Circuit

Dougherty v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, No. 13-3868 (Nov. 21, 2014): The court affirmed denial of motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds in case presenting First-Amendment retaliation claim.

Sixth Circuit Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on October 28, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

Third Circuit

Thorpe v. Borough ofJim Thorpe, No. 13-2446 (Oct. 23, 2014): The court reversed district court’s conclusion that Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act requires the Borough to disinter Jim Thorpe. In the court’s view, “Congress could not have intended th[is] kind of patently absurd result.”

Fourth Circuit

Davis v. City of Greensboro, No. 13-1820 (Oct. 22, 2014): In suit brought by police officers and firefighters claiming that the City failed to pay certain wages and benefits, the court affirmed district court’s denial of the City’s motion to dismiss because governmental immunity does not protect the City from breach of contract and estoppel claims. Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on October 20, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

Sixth Circuit

Cass v. City of Dayton, No. 13-4409 (Oct. 16, 2014): In 1983 action alleging that officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the court affirmed summary judgment for defendants because officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable and did not violate Fourth Amendment.

Seventh Circuit

Swisher v. Porter County Sheriff’s Dept., No. 13-3602 (Oct. 15, 2014): The court reversed the judgment for defendants because Plaintiff, who brought 1983 action alleging he was denied proper medical care while he was a pretrial detainee, had no duty to exhaust administrative remedies at the jail because jail’s grievance procedure was not clear.

Ninth Circuit Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on October 13, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

First Circuit

Showtime Entn’t v. Town of Mendon, No. 12-2121 (Oct. 8, 2014): The Town’s adult-business-entertainment bylaws unconstitutionally infringe on Showtime’s right to engage in a protected expressive activity; the regulations’ underinclusiveness indicates that Town does not have substantial interest in regulating adult businesses to curb secondary effects.

Seventh Circuit

Matz v. Klotka, No. 12-1674 (Oct. 6, 2014): In 1983 action alleging Fourth-Amendment violation arising out of arrest, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for officers on qualified-immunity grounds.

Ninth Circuit Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on July 28, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

[Update: I added the Ninth Circuit’s Daubert decision. (7/31)]
Second Circuit

Carter v. Inc. Vill. of Ocean Beach, No. 13-815 (July 21, 2014): Affirming award of attorney’s fees to County defendants in case brought by former police officers alleging wrongful termination and defamation.

Cox v. Onondaga Sheriff’s Dept., No. 12-1526 (July 23, 2014): Affirming dismissal of complaint alleging Title VII retaliation for racial-harassment claims.

Reyes v. New York City Dept. of Ed., No. 13-158 (July 25, 2014): Finding that under IDEA, proposed IEP and school placement failed to provide student with free appropriate public education.

Fourth Circuit Continue reading →

Ninth Circuit Denies En Banc Review in Newport Beach Case

Posted in Case Notes on March 7, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

The Ninth Circuit has denied the sua sponte call for en banc review in Pacific Shore Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, No. 11-55460, a case that we have written about previously here. Judge O’Scannlain, joined by Judges Tallman, Callahan, Bea, and Ikuta, filed a dissental, that is, a dissent from the denial of en banc review. It appears to be telegraphing that the Supreme Court should consider the case:

The panel’s opinion in these consolidated cases invents an entirely unprecedented theory of actionable government discrimination: sinister intent in the enactment of facially neutral legislation can generate civil liability without evidence of discriminatory effect. Such unwarranted expansion Continue reading →