Posted 25 Nov 2014 in Case Notes, Commentary, IMLA Briefs
The Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona could upset sign codes nationally.5554035521_f6b59ccafa_n  Most sign codes, like Gilbert’s, include different categories of temporary signs.  It makes sense, for example, to give people more time to remove thousands of election signs and less time to remove a few yard sale signs.  In this case the Court will decide whether local governments may regulate temporary directional signs differently than other temporary signs.  The Court could rule, practically speaking, that all temporary signs must have the same time, place, and manner requirements.  IMLA joined the State and Local Legal Center’s (SLLC) amicus brief asking the Court not to go that far. Gilbert’s Sign Code includes temporary directional signs, political signs, and ideological signs.  After being notified that its temporary directional signs announcing the time and location of church services were displayed longer than allowed, the Good News church sued Gilbert.  The church claimed Gilbert’s Sign Code violates the First Amendment because temporary directional signs receive the less favorable treatment (in terms of size, location, duration, etc.) than political signs and ideological signs.

Posted 24 Nov 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:court collumn First Circuit Third Circuit Sixth Circuit

Posted 17 Nov 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:court collumn Fourth Circuit Sixth Circuit

Posted 17 Nov 2014 in Case Notes, Commentary

Even though there was no disagreements among the federal circuit courts of appeals at the time, Court watchers were shocked with the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a series of cases striking down same-sex marriage bans.  All eyes then turned to the Ninth and Sixth Circuits who had pending cases.  The next day the Ninth Circuit struck down Nevada’s and Idaho’s ban.  On November 6 the Sixth Circuit became the first federal circuit court to uphold bans in four states...

Posted 17 Nov 2014 in Case Notes, Commentary

Last Friday the Supreme Court’s docket went from boring to big with the grant of just one case:  King v. Burwell.  The issue in this case is whether tax credits for low and middle income health insurance purchasers are available under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) if insurance is purchased on a federal exchange rather than a state exchange.  Only 16 states and the District of Columbia have established exchanges.  The ACA makes tax credits available to those who buy health...

Posted 10 Nov 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are the last two weeks' published decisions involving local governments:court collumn Second Circuit Sixth Circuit

Posted 03 Nov 2014 in Case Notes
Cities and states from California to Maine have confronted the problem of hotels that are crime magnets. hotel One solution that some evidence suggests effectively deters crime is ordinances or state laws that require hotels to keep detailed information about guests that are subject to police inspection.  These ordinances and laws generally do not require police to obtain a warrant. In Los Angeles v. Patel a Los Angeles ordinance requires hotel and motel operators to keep specific information about their guests and allows police to inspect the registries without warrants.  Motel operators claim this ordinance is facially invalid under the Fourth Amendment. The first issue the Supreme Court will decide in this case is whether facial challenges to ordinances and statutes are permitted under the Fourth Amendment.

Posted 28 Oct 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:court collumn 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.

Posted 20 Oct 2014 in Commentary
Interpretive and substantive rules.   What is the difference?SupremeCourt2  Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) substantive regulations interpret statutes and federal agencies adopt them only after notice-and-comment.  Interpretive rules and are promulgated without-notice and-comment.  But what if an agency changes an interpretive rule;   should it first seek notice and comment?  The Supreme Court will decide this issue in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association. The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) argues yes in its amicus brief, which agrees with the lower court that significant changes to an interpretation of a regulation amounts to effectively changing the regulation, which requires notice-and-comment.  Local governments frequently have been surprised by interpretive rules that have changed regulations.  IMLA joined the SLLC’s brief.

Posted 20 Oct 2014 in Monday Morning Review
Here are last week's published decisions involving local governments:court collumn 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