Pope Francis’s Statement Endorsing Same-Sex Civil Unions Undermines the Moral Legitimacy and Legal Arguments in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

DAVID S. KEMP, CHARLES E. BINKLEY

David S. Kemp, a professor at Berkeley Law, and Charles E. Binkley, MD, the director of bioethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, consider the implications of Pope Francis’s recently revealed statement endorsing same-sex civil unions as they pertain to a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Kemp and Binkley argue that the Pope’s statement undermines the moral legitimacy of the Catholic organization’s position and casts a shadow on the premise of its legal arguments.

Read More

Stigma and the Oral Argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

LESLIE C. GRIFFIN

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin explains why stigma is a central concept that came up during oral argument before the Supreme Court in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Griffin points out that some religions have long supported racial discrimination, citing their religious texts, but courts prohibited such discrimination, even by religious entities. Griffin argues that just as religious organizations should not enjoy religious freedom to stigmatize people of color, so they should not be able to discriminate—and thus stigmatize—people based on sexual orientation.

Read More

Baker v. USD 229 Blue Valley

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 20-3054

Opinion Date: November 3, 2020

Judge: Scott Milne Matheson, Jr.

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

Plaintiff-appellant Terri Baker appealed the dismissal of this putative class action for lack of standing. She sued on behalf of herself and her son, S.F.B., to challenge Kansas laws and school district policies that: (1) required children to be vaccinated to attend school and participate in child care programs; and (2) provided a religious exemption from these requirements. She claimed these immunization laws and policies violated various federal and state constitutional provisions and statutes. Baker argued she and S.F.B. had standing because the immunization requirements and religious exemptions injured them in two ways: (1) the District misapplied Kansas law when it granted a religious exemption for S.F.B. to attend preschool despite being unvaccinated - her fear that the District would revoke S.F.B.'s religious exemption was an injury in fact that established standing; and (2) Baker "would like the option" of placing S.F.B. in a non-accredited private school (i.e., home school), school programs, or licensed child care - she contended Kansas law inhibited her from exercising these options and caused an injury in fact because she would be unable to secure a religious exemption for S.F.B. if she tried. Finding no reversible error in the district court's dismissal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

COMPTEL v. Federal Communications Commission

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

Docket: 19-1164

Opinion Date: November 3, 2020

Judge: Laurence Hirsch Silberman

Areas of Law: Communications Law, Government & Administrative Law

After the FCC determined that incumbents no longer dominated the telecommunications market because of the plethora of competitor modes of voice transmission, the FCC exercised its statutory authority to forbear from enforcing the wholesale pricing requirement and one element of the unbundling requirement. The DC Circuit denied petitions for review challenging the propriety of the FCC's forbearance of the wholesale price requirements and challenging the forbearance of the unbundling requirement. The court concluded that the Commission looked reasonably at the whole national market for voice transmission and how the incumbents' share of that market is declining rapidly; the Commission was reasonable to focus on the national market when making national policy; and, while the Commission's order did not explicitly address the availability of broadband in rural areas, it clearly stated that it only granted forbearance as to "price cap" incumbents. The court noted that the Commission justified its forbearance policy by stating that it would induce incumbents and insurgents to develop more advanced networks. In regard to the forbearance of the unbundling requirement, the Commission's reasoning largely coincides with its justification for forbearing from enforcing the wholesale requirement. Given that CPUC effectively conceded that greater consideration of public safety would not change the outcome, the court did not think that a remand on this issue was necessary. Finally, the court rejected the remaining administrative law challenges.

Ex parte Alabama Department of Revenue.

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Docket: 1190826

Opinion Date: October 30, 2020

Judge: Michael F. Bolin

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

The Alabama Department of Revenue ("DOR") petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to order Judge Eddie Hardaway to recuse himself from an appeal challenging a decision of the Alabama Tax Tribunal in favor of Greenetrack, Inc. In 2009, the DOR determined Greentrack owed $75 million in sales taxes and consumer-use taxes for its electronic-bingo activities for the period from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2008. In 2013, the Alabama Department of Revenue moved for Judge Hardaway to recuse himself, arguing that recusal was required because Judge Hardaway had recused himself two months earlier from another case on a related matter involving these same parties. In the present dispute, the DOR asked Judge Hardaway to recuse himself. This time the circuit court denied the request without providing any specific rationale or reasoning in its order, finding the "cases and authorities relied upon by the Alabama Department of Revenue do not support recusal under the facts and circumstances of this case." Finding the DOR demonstrated a clear, legal right to the recusal of Judge Hardaway in this matter, the Alabama Supreme Court granted its petition and directed Judge Hardaway to recuse himself.

S.C. et al. v. Autauga County Board of Education et al.

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Docket: 1190382

Opinion Date: October 30, 2020

Judge: Michael F. Bolin

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

The circuit court dismissed with prejudice a complaint relating to an alleged sexual assault of a minor at an Autauga County, Alabama school. Multiple requests for continuances were granted. The last such grant, the circuit court admonished it would not grant additional continuances "absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances." A few days later, plaintiffs moved for another continuance, citing a scheduling conflict involving mediation in a separate case in another county. The circuit court did not rule on the motion, instead issuing an order dismissing the case with prejudice. The Alabama Supreme Court determined the circuit court exceeded its discretion in dismissing S.C. and K.C.'s claims when there was no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiffs. "By contacting court personnel, the parties were attempting to find a date for the circuit court's convenience as well as to make sure that the case proceeded to the merits in a timely manner. . . . That most severe sanction in the spectrum of sanctions is not warranted in this case."

Clowers v. Edwards

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 Ark. 367

Opinion Date: November 5, 2020

Judge: Womack

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint alleging that the Washington County Court order reducing the number of townships and constable positions from fifteen positions to three was illegal because constable positions may be changed only by a direct vote of the people, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. Plaintiff's argument for reversal centered on the legality of the county court order, challenging only the legality of the county court order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the order was legal as a matter of law and could not support a claim for relief.

AMCAL Chico LLC v. Chico Unified School Dist.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: C087700(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: November 5, 2020

Judge: Vance W. Raye

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

Plaintiff AMCAL Chico, LLC (AMCAL) constructed a dormitory complex that would house unmarried university students within the boundaries of defendant Chico Unified School District (the District). The District imposed school impact fees on the complex, and AMCAL filed suit seeking a refund of the fees. The trial court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment. AMCAL appealed, arguing the fees had to be refunded because: (1) the District failed to comply with Government Code section 66001; (2) the fee was an invalid special tax; and (3) the fee was an improper taking. The Court of Appeal determined the imposed fee was reasonable and complied with the Mitigation Fee Act. Therefore, the fee was not an invalid tax, nor was it a taking.

Burns Concrete v. Teton County

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Docket: 46827

Opinion Date: November 2, 2020

Judge: Brody

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

This appeal arose from a dispute over the construction of a ready-mix concrete manufacturing facility in Teton County, Idaho. In 2007, Burns Holdings entered into a development agreement with Teton County regarding property owned by Burns Concrete. The development agreement required the construction of a permanent concrete manufacturing facility on the property within 18 months of the execution of the agreement, but allowed operation of a temporary facility in the meantime. Burns Concrete, the concrete company that would operate the facility, and Burns Holdings, a holding company that was to eventually take title to the property, wanted to build a permanent facility that was 75-feet tall, but the applicable zoning ordinance limited building heights to 45-feet. The County denied Burns Holdings’ application for a conditional use permit and its subsequent application for a variance to exceed the height limit. The Burns Companies operated the temporary facility for several years but never constructed the permanent facility. In 2012, the County sent written notice revoking the authority to operate the temporary facility and demanding that the temporary facility be removed. The Burns Companies subsequently filed this action, stating claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and unjust enrichment. The County counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory judgment for the removal of the temporary facility. This began a multi-year period of litigation that included two appeals to the Idaho Supreme Court, each followed by a remand to the district court. This case has returned to the Supreme Court again, this time as a result of the parties’ cross-appeals of the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the Burns Companies on their breach of contract claim, its award of $1,049.250.90 in damages, and its award of attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment on the issue of breach of contract, but vacated the district court’s judgment for a recalculation of damages. In its recalculation of damages, the district court was instructed to reverse its reduction of damages by the difference between the Temporary Facility’s sales and cost of sales. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s award of attorney fees and remanded the matter for an explanation of the district court’s reduction of requested attorney fees.

Commonwealth, Cabinet For Health & Family Services v. K.S.

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2019-SC-0692-DGE

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Lambert

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

In this dependency, abuse, and neglect proceeding, the Supreme Court held that Ky. Rev. Stat. 620.100(1)(b) does not entitle an indigent parent to state-funded expert assistance in dependency, neglect, and abuse (DNA) cases but that, under certain circumstances, parents are entitled to reasonably necessary expert assistance under the due process provisions of the Kentucky and United States Constitutions. The Cabinet for Health and Family Services filed DNA petitions on behalf of Parents' children based on risk of harm. The family court determined that Mother and Father were indigent, but when counsel for both parties requested funds to hire a medical expert the court denied the request. The court then found that Parents' three children were neglected or abused. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that section 620.100(1)(b) grants indigent parents a right to funding for reasonably necessary expert assistance. The Supreme Court reversed insofar as the court's holding relied on Ky. Rev. Stat. 620.100 but affirmed the court's reversal of the family court on constitutional grounds, holding that whether due process requires a court-appointed expert is best left to the judgment of the trial court. The Court remanded the case for new DNA proceedings with instructions for the family court to analyze the need for expert assistance prior to adjudication.

Lassiter v. Landrum

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2018-SC-0657-DG

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Lambert

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Government Contracts

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals requiring Appellant to comply with a subpoena duces tecum issued to him by the Secretary of the Finance and Administration Cabinet (Secretary), holding that the subpoena powers of the Secretary extend to suspected violations of Kentucky's Model Procurement Code (KMPC) and that the Secretary has the power to subpoena non-government employees as part of an investigation into a possible violation of the KMPC. The Secretary issued a subpoena to Frank Lassiter seeking information to assist in an investigation into whether certain government contracts complied with the KMPC. Lassiter refused to comply with the subpoena, arguing that the Secretary's authority to issue subpoenas under Ky. Rev. Stat. Chapter 45 did not extend to investigations into potential KMPC violations and, regardless, did not allow him to subpoena non-government employees. The circuit court denied the Secretary's motion to compel Lassiter's compliance, finding that the Secretary subpoena power did not apply to investigations into possible violations of the KMPC. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Secretary's subpoena power applies to investigations into possible violations of the KMPC.

Mark Mendes's Case

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Docket: SJC-12857

Opinion Date: October 29, 2020

Judge: Budd

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

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the decision of the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents determining that the Department lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim of Mark Mendes, holding that the Commonwealth had jurisdiction over Mendes's claim. Mendes, a Massachusetts resident, entered into an employment contract, performed much of the work, and was injured outside of the Commonwealth. The Department's reviewing board denied and dismissed Mendes's claim for workers' compensation, determining that Massachusetts lacked jurisdiction over the claim because it was neither the place of hire nor the place of injury. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the board's decision, holding that there were sufficient significant contacts between Massachusetts and Mendes's employment such that the employment relationship was located in Massachusetts.

K & J Investments, LLC v. Flathead County

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 MT 277

Opinion Date: November 4, 2020

Judge: Beth Baker

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing K&J Investments, LLC's petition and complaint for judicial review, rescission, and unjust enrichment against the Flathead County Board of Commissioners and Flathead County Treasurer, holding that the district court properly dismissed all claims for want of jurisdiction. K&J, an investment company, purchased a tax sale certificate from Flathead County for the property at issue for $1,512. K&J later filed an application for refund and abatement due to alleged erroneous property assessments. The Flathead County Board of Commissioners denied the application. K&J filed a petition for judicial review seeking to reverse the Commissioners' denial of tax refund and abatement and including a complaint for rescission of the tax sale certificate and seeking relief for all taxes paid under a theory of unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed the petition and complaint, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because K&J did not follow the required process for seeking reassessment and exhausting administrative remedies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mont. Code Ann. 15-16-604 did not grant the district court authority to consider K&J's claims.

State ex rel. Frazier v. McGraw

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 20-0142

Opinion Date: November 2, 2020

Judge: Armstead

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition as moulded preventing the enforcement of the circuit court's order that stayed the Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) administrative revocation of the driver's license of Dalton Watts pending appeal to the circuit court, holding that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to hear this matter. The DMV sought to prohibit the judge of the circuit court from enforcing his order staying the revocation of Watts' driver's license pending appeal, arguing that because there was no contested case in the administrative proceeding the circuit court did not have jurisdiction. The DMV further argued that Watts' requested for relief below should properly be considered a petition for writ of mandamus against the OAH, which was not a party to the appeal. The Supreme Court granted the writ as moulded, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear either the appeal or a petition for writ of mandamus in this action, thus clearly exceeding its authority in acting upon Watts' filing.

West Virginia Counties Group v. Great Cacapon Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 19-0103

Opinion Date: November 4, 2020

Judge: Walker

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of West Virginia Counties Group Self-Insurance Risk Pool, Inc.'s (WVCoRP) claims against Great Cacapon Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. (VFD), holding that the circuit court did not err. When a fire destroyed the building where VFD was housed, the owner of the building, the Morgan County Commission, was reimbursed for the loss by WVCoRP. Seeking to recover the funds it expended, WVCoRP sued the VFD and other parties for negligence. In the process, WVCoRP invoked a contractual right to subrogation. The circuit court determined that the claims against VFD were barred by W. Va. Code 29-12A-13(c), which prohibits claims against political subdivisions made under a right of subrogation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) WVCoRP's claims spring from its coverage contract with the Commission and fall within any plain meaning of subrogation; and (2) section 29-12A-13(c) is not an insurance law of the State from which WVCoRP is exempt.