Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, which are self-insured health and welfare trust funds, challenged a statutory requirement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) that obligated them to pay contributions to the Transitional Reinsurance Program (TRP) for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 benefit years. They argued that these mandatory payments constituted a taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment, claiming a protected property interest in the specific funds held in their trust accounts, which are maintained solely for providing health and welfare benefits to covered individuals.The United States Court of Federal Claims reviewed the case and granted the Government’s motion for partial summary judgment on the Fifth Amendment takings claim. The Claims Court found that the plaintiffs did not possess a cognizable property interest in the TRP payments, as the obligation was merely to pay money, not to surrender specifically identifiable funds. The court rejected the argument that the trust agreements created a property interest in the sums paid, and also dismissed the alternative claim that the trust accounts themselves were the specific funds at issue. The Claims Court further held that a taking would only occur if the government appropriated the entire fund, which did not happen here. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was denied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Claims Court’s decision, holding that the statutory obligation to pay TRP contributions did not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment because it was an obligation to pay money, not an appropriation of a specific, identifiable fund. The court clarified that a mere requirement to pay money, even from a trust account, does not give rise to a takings claim. The Federal Circuit also found harmless error in the Claims Court’s alternative reasoning regarding appropriation of funds in toto. The judgment was affirmed. View "ELECTRICAL WELFARE TRUST FUND v. US " on Justia Law

Several small businesses and a coalition of states challenged a series of executive orders issued by the President that imposed new tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all goods imported from most countries. These tariffs, referred to as the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs, were imposed in response to declared national emergencies related to drug trafficking and trade imbalances. The executive orders directed changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, resulting in significant increases in import duties on products from Canada, Mexico, China, and other major trading partners.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States Court of International Trade (CIT), arguing that the President exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing these tariffs. The CIT granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose the challenged tariffs and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The government appealed, and the Federal Circuit consolidated the cases, stayed the injunction pending appeal, and heard the matter en banc.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, holding that IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate” importation does not include the power to impose tariffs of the type and scope at issue. The court found that IEEPA does not mention tariffs, duties, or taxes, and contrasted it with other statutes where Congress has explicitly delegated tariff authority to the President with clear limitations. The court also concluded that the government’s interpretation would raise serious constitutional concerns under the major questions and non-delegation doctrines. The Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT’s declaratory judgment that the executive orders were invalid, but vacated the universal injunction and remanded for the CIT to reconsider the scope of injunctive relief in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump" on Justia Law

Several landowners in Colorado owned property subject to a railroad easement held by Great Western Railway of Colorado, LLC. The railroad line, originally used for transporting sugar beets, had fallen into disuse except for railcar storage. In 2008, Great Western sought permission from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to abandon the line. The STB granted this request and issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) to allow negotiations for possible interim recreational trail use. Negotiations failed, and the NITU expired. Instead of abandoning the line, Great Western repeatedly extended its abandonment authority and ultimately decided not to abandon the line, continuing to use it for storage and making some improvements.The landowners sued the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the issuance of the NITU constituted a temporary taking under the Fifth Amendment. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Claims Court granted summary judgment to the government, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the NITU caused a taking. Specifically, the court determined that Great Western would not have abandoned the line at the time of the NITU, so the NITU did not delay the vesting of the landowners’ reversionary interests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Claims Court’s decision de novo. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that to establish a compensable taking in a rails-to-trails case, plaintiffs must show that the issuance of the NITU caused a delay in abandonment that would have otherwise occurred, thereby postponing the vesting of their property interests. The court found that the evidence showed Great Western would not have abandoned the line regardless of the NITU, so causation was not established. The court also rejected arguments that state law abandonment or mere issuance of a NITU alone could establish a taking. The judgment for the government was affirmed. View "SAUER WEST LLC v. US " on Justia Law

Shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, acting derivatively on behalf of these entities, challenged the federal government’s actions following the 2008 financial crisis. After the housing market collapse, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and authorizing it to act as conservator for the Enterprises. The FHFA placed both entities into conservatorship, and the U.S. Treasury entered into agreements to provide financial support in exchange for senior preferred stock and other rights. In 2012, a “net worth sweep” was implemented, redirecting nearly all profits from the Enterprises to the Treasury, effectively eliminating dividends for other shareholders. The plaintiffs, as preferred shareholders, alleged that this arrangement constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.The United States Court of Federal Claims previously reviewed the case and granted the government’s motion to dismiss. The Claims Court relied on the Federal Circuit’s prior decision in Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, which held that, under HERA, the Enterprises lost any cognizable property interest necessary to support a takings claim because the FHFA, as conservator, had broad authority over the Enterprises’ assets. The Claims Court found the plaintiffs’ claims indistinguishable from those in Fairholme and dismissed them accordingly.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court affirmed the Claims Court’s decision, holding that claim preclusion barred the plaintiffs’ derivative takings claims because the issues had already been litigated in Fairholme. The court rejected arguments that the prior representation was inadequate or that the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County fundamentally changed takings law. The Federal Circuit concluded that Fairholme remained binding precedent and affirmed the dismissal. View "FISHER v. US " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants, owners of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA), sued the United States, alleging a taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment due to the enactment of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). They claimed that the restructuring of COFINA's debts under PROMESA resulted in a significant loss of the principal and interest value of their bonds and their security interest.The United States Court of Federal Claims determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over the case but dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The court found that the enactment of PROMESA by Congress did not constitute sufficient federal government action to support a takings claim. The court reasoned that the actions of the Puerto Rico Oversight Board, which was created by PROMESA and acted autonomously, could not be attributed to the United States as coercive or as an agency relationship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Claims Court. The Federal Circuit held that PROMESA did not displace Tucker Act jurisdiction, as there was no clear congressional intent to withdraw the Tucker Act remedy. The court also agreed with the Claims Court that the United States did not exert coercive control over the Oversight Board's actions, which were necessary to establish a taking. The court concluded that the plaintiffs could not establish that the United States was liable for the alleged taking of their property. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Claims Court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' request to amend their complaint. View "DINH v. US " on Justia Law

A group of landowners in Indiana, who own land adjacent to the former Indiana Nickel Plate Line, sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. They sought compensation for an alleged taking under the Fifth Amendment, arguing that the issuance of Notices of Interim Trail Use (NITUs) under the National Trails System Act Amendments of 1983 constituted a taking of their property.The Court of Federal Claims rejected the plaintiffs' request to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court. It held that the plaintiffs lacked a compensable property interest because the releases signed by their predecessors-in-interest conveyed fee simple estates to the Peru and Indianapolis Railroad Company. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that under Indiana law, the releases conveyed fee simple titles to the railroad company. The court relied on the Indiana Supreme Court's decisions in Newcastle & Richmond Railroad Co. v. Peru & Indianapolis Railroad Co. and Indianapolis, Peru, & Chicago Railway Co. v. Rayl, which established that releases executed under the railroad's legislative charter conveyed fee simple estates. The court also declined to certify a question to the Indiana Supreme Court, finding that the relevant Indiana law was clear and controlling. View "ATS FORD DRIVE INVESTMENT, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

United Water Conservation District (United) filed a lawsuit against the United States, seeking just compensation for an alleged taking under the Fifth Amendment. United claimed that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) required it to increase the amount of water bypassing its diversion dam to protect an endangered species of trout, resulting in a loss of water that United could otherwise use for beneficial purposes.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed United's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, determining that the claim should be evaluated as a regulatory taking. The court reasoned that United had not yet exhausted its administrative remedies by applying for and being denied an incidental-take permit under the Endangered Species Act, making the claim not ripe for adjudication.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court agreed that United's claim was regulatory in nature, as the NMFS's actions did not constitute a physical appropriation of water already diverted by United. Instead, the actions required more water to remain in the river, representing a regulatory restriction on United's use of the water. The court held that United's claim was not ripe because it had not yet obtained a final agency action by applying for and being denied an incidental-take permit. Therefore, the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was appropriate. View "UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT v. US " on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Michael Etchegoinberry, Erik Clausen, Barlow Family Farms, L.P., and Christopher Todd Allen, own land in the Westlands Water District, part of the San Luis Unit in California. They alleged that the United States failed to provide necessary drainage for their irrigated lands, leading to a rise in the water table and accumulation of saline groundwater, which they claimed resulted in a taking of their property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.The United States Court of Federal Claims initially denied the government's motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, agreeing with the plaintiffs that their claim was timely under the stabilization doctrine. This doctrine postpones the accrual of a takings claim until the damage has stabilized and the extent of the damage is reasonably foreseeable. The case was then stayed for nearly seven years for settlement attempts. In 2023, the Court of Federal Claims revisited the issue and dismissed the case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the stabilization doctrine did not apply and the claim was time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the dismissal. The court held that the stabilization doctrine did not apply because the plaintiffs' claim was based on the regular and known lack of drainage over many years, not an irregular or intermittent physical process. Even if the doctrine applied, the court found that the plaintiffs' claim accrued before the critical date of September 2, 2005, as they were aware of the permanent nature of the damage to their land well before that date. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim was time-barred and affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "ETCHEGOINBERRY v. US " on Justia Law

Shareholders lacked standing to challenge, as an illegal exaction, U.S. government’s acquisition of AIG stock as loan collateral. In 2008, during one of the worst financial crises of the last century, American International Group (AIG) was on the brink of bankruptcy and sought emergency financing. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York granted AIG an $85 billion loan, the largest such loan to date. The U.S. Government received a majority stake in AIG’s equity under the loan, which the Government eventually converted into common stock and sold. One of AIG’s largest shareholders, Starr, filed suit alleging that the Government’s acquisition of AIG equity and subsequent actions relating to a reverse stock split were unlawful. The Claims Court held that the Government’s acquisition of AIG equity constituted an illegal exaction in violation of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 343, but declined to grant relief for either that or for Starr’s reverse-stock-split claims. The Federal Circuit vacated in part, holding that Starr and the shareholders it represented lack standing to pursue the equity acquisition claims directly, as those claims belong exclusively to AIG, rendering the merits of those claims moot. The court affirmed as to Starr’s reverse-stock-split claims. View "Starr International Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act (VACAA) provisions vesting significant authority in administrative judges violates Appointments Clause. In 2014, Congress investigated reports that senior executives in the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) had manipulated hospital performance metrics by maintaining secret wait lists of veterans who needed care. The resulting VACAA established new rules for the removal of DVA Senior Executive employees, 38 U.S.C. 713. Previously, senior DVA executives could only be removed under the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. 1101, and were entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), to a hearing, and to attorney representation. Section 713 created an accelerated timeline for MSPB appeals and required the MSPB to refer all appeals to an administrative judge (AJ) for decision within 21 days. Helman, the Director of the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System, was removed from her position under section 713. An MSPB AJ affirmed. Helman sought review from the full Board. Citing section 713(e)(2), the Board refused to take any further action. The Federal Circuit remanded, holding that, by prohibiting Board review under section 713(e)(2), Congress vested significant authority in an AJ in violation of the Appointments Clause. Section 713(e)(2) and two related sections are severable, leaving the remainder of the statute intact. View "Helman v. Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law