Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Dayton Power & Light Company, along with other utilities, sought an RTO adder from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as an incentive for joining a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO). Ohio law mandates that utilities join an RTO, which led FERC to deny Dayton Power's application, arguing that the adder is meant to incentivize voluntary actions, not those required by law. The Ohio Consumers’ Counsel (OCC) challenged the existing RTO adders for other Ohio utilities, leading FERC to remove the adder for AEP but not for Duke and FirstEnergy, citing the latter's comprehensive settlement agreements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court first addressed whether the utilities could challenge the voluntariness requirement of Order 679, concluding that they could because FERC's past practices did not clearly indicate a strict voluntariness requirement. The court then interpreted Section 219(c) of the Federal Power Act, agreeing with FERC that the best reading of the statute supports the requirement that RTO membership must be voluntary to qualify for the adder.The court also considered the utilities' preemption argument, which claimed that federal law should override Ohio's mandate for RTO membership. The court held that the Federal Power Act does not preempt Ohio law, as Congress did not intend to prevent states from mandating RTO participation, especially when such mandates align with federal goals of increasing RTO membership.Finally, the court found FERC's differential treatment of AEP, Duke, and FirstEnergy to be arbitrary and capricious. It noted that all three utilities' rates included a 50-basis-point RTO adder, whether explicitly approved or impliedly included in settlements. The court affirmed FERC's denial of Dayton Power's application and the removal of AEP's adder but reversed the decision to retain the adders for Duke and FirstEnergy, remanding for further proceedings. View "Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves Michigan's electricity market regulations, specifically the Individual Local Clearing Requirement (ILCR), which mandates that electricity retailers in Michigan's lower peninsula procure a certain percentage of their capacity from within that region. Plaintiffs, including Energy Michigan and the Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity (ABATE), challenged the ILCR on the grounds that it violates the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan initially dismissed the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) on Eleventh Amendment grounds but allowed the case to proceed against individual commissioners. The court denied summary judgment motions from both sides, finding that there were factual disputes regarding whether the ILCR discriminated against interstate commerce. After a three-day bench trial, the district court concluded that the ILCR did not violate the Commerce Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the ILCR is facially discriminatory because it requires electricity to be generated within a specific geographic region, effectively favoring in-state over out-of-state electricity. The court held that this discrimination necessitates strict scrutiny, which the district court did not properly apply. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the ILCR can survive strict scrutiny by proving it is the only means to achieve the state's goal of ensuring a reliable energy supply. View "Energy Michigan, Inc. v. Public Service Commission" on Justia Law

Zillow, Inc., a for-profit corporation, requested property tax data from several Kentucky property valuation administrators (PVAs) under Kentucky’s Open Records Act (KORA). The PVAs classified Zillow’s requests as having a commercial purpose and quoted fees amounting to thousands of dollars. Zillow sued, arguing that KORA’s fee structure, which distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial purposes and includes exceptions for newspapers, radio, and television stations, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky held that the commercial/non-commercial distinction did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments but found the newspaper exception unconstitutional. The court severed the newspaper exception from the statute, resulting in both Zillow and newspapers being subject to enhanced fees. The Kentucky Press Association and American City Business Journals intervened and, along with Zillow, appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the commercial-fee statute did not violate the First Amendment as applied to Zillow. It determined that the distinction between commercial and non-commercial purposes was content-neutral and did not impermissibly discriminate based on the content of Zillow’s speech. The court reversed the district court’s order declaring the newspaper exception unconstitutional, vacated the permanent injunction, and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment to the PVAs. View "Zillow, Inc. v. Miller" on Justia Law

Broadgate, Inc. employed an H-1B visa holder who filed a complaint with the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division in February 2018, alleging that Broadgate had not paid him the full wages required by the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Division’s investigation substantiated the claim and found additional violations, including failure to post required workplace notices. Consequently, the Division issued a determination letter in December 2018, finding Broadgate had willfully violated the Act, barring it from the H-1B program for two years, requiring payment of back wages, and assessing a civil penalty.Broadgate sought review before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), challenging only the determination regarding the workplace notices. The ALJ agreed with Broadgate, vacating the determination. However, the Department’s Administrative Review Board reversed this decision. On remand, Broadgate argued that the Division exceeded its authority by investigating violations not alleged in the original complaint. The ALJ rejected this argument, and the Review Board and the district court affirmed the Director’s imposition of fines and penalties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. Broadgate argued that the District Director lacked authority to issue the determination letter and that the Wage and Hour Division exceeded its authority by investigating the notice violations. The court held that the presumption of regularity applied, meaning the Director’s issuance of the letter was presumptive proof of her authority. The court also found that the Division was entitled to investigate the notice violations discovered during the investigation of the wage complaint. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, rejecting Broadgate’s arguments. View "Broadgate, Inc v. Su" on Justia Law

Randell Shepherd, a career coal miner, filed a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), invoking the Act’s presumption that he was entitled to benefits due to his over fifteen years of mining and total disability from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bronchitis, and emphysema. Incoal, Inc., Shepherd’s most recent employer, contested his entitlement, arguing that his disability was caused by smoking, not mining. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found Incoal’s expert opinions unpersuasive and inconsistent with the Act’s regulations and preamble, which recognize pneumoconiosis as a latent and progressive disease. The ALJ ruled that Incoal failed to rebut the presumption that Shepherd was entitled to benefits. The Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirmed the ALJ’s decision.Incoal petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for review, arguing that the ALJ improperly relied on the regulatory preamble over their evidence and that the presumption was effectively irrebuttable, violating the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and correctly applied the law.The Sixth Circuit held that the ALJ was entitled to reference the preamble to assess the credibility of expert opinions and found that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that the BLBA’s rebuttable presumption is constitutional, as it is based on a rational relationship between the length of a miner’s career and the risk of pneumoconiosis. The court concluded that Incoal’s arguments were unpersuasive and that the ALJ applied the correct legal principles. Consequently, the court denied Incoal’s petition for review. View "Incoal, Inc. v. OWCP" on Justia Law

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) changing its air-quality standard for ozone under the Clean Air Act, which required states to amend their state plans. The EPA issued guidance memoranda to assist states, suggesting specific modeling and a minimum threshold for interstate emissions. Kentucky proposed a plan based on this guidance, but the EPA delayed action on the plan for two years and then disapproved it using different modeling and a lower threshold than initially recommended. Kentucky petitioned the court to vacate the EPA's disapproval.The EPA's disapproval of Kentucky's plan was challenged in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The EPA sought to transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the disapproval was a nationally applicable final action. The Sixth Circuit denied the motion, stating that the EPA's disapproval was not nationally applicable and was based on Kentucky's unique facts. The court also found that the EPA's action violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by acting arbitrarily and inconsistently with its prior guidance.The Sixth Circuit held that the EPA's disapproval of Kentucky's plan was arbitrary and capricious. The court noted that the EPA failed to adequately explain its departure from prior guidance and did not consider Kentucky's reliance on the initial recommendations. The court vacated the EPA's disapproval of Kentucky's plan and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court emphasized the importance of consistency and the need for the EPA to justify its actions when changing its approach. View "Kentucky v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Adrian Galvez-Bravo, a Mexican national, entered the United States in 1994 and has lived in the Memphis area since then, except for a brief return to Mexico to marry his wife. He has three children, two of whom are U.S. citizens. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, alleging he was a noncitizen present in the U.S. without being admitted or paroled. Galvez-Bravo conceded the charge and sought cancellation of removal under § 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children.An Immigration Judge (IJ) disagreed with Galvez-Bravo's assessment of hardship, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ's decision, ordering his removal to Mexico. Galvez-Bravo then filed a motion to reopen the removal proceedings, citing new evidence, including his daughter's recent dyslexia diagnosis and the potential impact on his children's education and well-being if he were removed. The BIA denied the motion, concluding that the new evidence did not meet the hardship standard required for cancellation of removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court confirmed its jurisdiction to review the legal challenges presented by Galvez-Bravo, noting that his arguments focused on whether the BIA engaged in reasoned decision-making. The court found that the BIA had articulated a rational explanation for its decision, considering the new evidence but determining that the hardship did not exceed what would normally be expected upon the removal of a close family member. The court also rejected Galvez-Bravo's argument that the BIA's decision was inconsistent with its prior decisions, noting that the unpublished decisions he cited did not establish a pattern of conflicting outcomes.The Sixth Circuit held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Galvez-Bravo's motion to reopen and denied his petition for review. View "Galvez-Bravo v. Garland" on Justia Law

Nicholas and Stacy Boerson, owners of New Heights Farm I and II in Michigan, faced a disappointing corn and soybean harvest in 2019. They submitted crop insurance claims to Great American Insurance Company, which were delayed due to an ongoing federal fraud investigation. The Boersons sued Great American, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for breach of contract, bad faith adjustment, and violations of insurance laws.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the Boersons' claims. It ruled that claims related to Great American's nonpayment were unripe due to the ongoing investigation, while claims alleging false measurements and statements by Great American were ripe but subject to arbitration. The court also dismissed claims against the federal defendants on sovereign immunity grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. It held that the claims related to nonpayment were unripe because the insurance policy barred payment until the investigation concluded. The court also found that the arbitration agreement in the insurance policy covered the ripe claims against Great American, requiring those disputes to be resolved through arbitration. Additionally, the court ruled that sovereign immunity barred the claims against the federal defendants, as there was no clear waiver of immunity for constructive denial claims under the Federal Crop Insurance Act. View "New Heights Farm I, LLC v. Great American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case involves Robert Holman, who challenged a debt-relief program under the American Rescue Plan Act that provided benefits to "socially disadvantaged" farmers and ranchers based on racial categories. Holman, a farmer, argued that he was excluded from the program solely due to his race and sought a preliminary injunction to halt the program. The district court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the program did not meet the strict scrutiny standard required for racial classifications under the Fifth Amendment. However, before a final judgment was reached, Congress repealed the program, leading Holman to seek attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denied Holman's request for fees, ruling that he was not a "prevailing party" under the EAJA because the preliminary injunction did not provide him with lasting relief. The court also noted that the injunction was temporary and revocable, and thus did not materially alter the legal relationship between the parties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court did not definitively rule on whether Holman was a "prevailing party" but found that the Government's position during the litigation was "substantially justified" under the EAJA. The court noted that the Government had presented substantial evidence to defend the program's constitutionality, including historical discrimination against minority farmers by the USDA. The court concluded that a reasonable person could find the Government's position justified, thereby precluding Holman's entitlement to attorney's fees and expenses. View "Holman v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Nayanaben Patel, entered the United States in March 2000 under unclear circumstances. She applied for adjustment of status based on her husband's legal status but lied about her manner of entry. She later admitted to lying but provided conflicting testimonies. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her application for adjustment of status and ordered her removal to India, citing factual inconsistencies. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision.The IJ's decision was discretionary and protected by statute from judicial review. The petitioner did not raise any colorable constitutional claims that would allow for judicial review. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the IJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including the petitioner's multiple contradictory statements and lack of credible evidence regarding her manner of entry.The Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), which bars judicial review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under sections 1182(i) and 1255. The court also found that the petitioner did not exhaust her administrative remedies regarding her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias, and that her judicial bias claim was not a constitutional issue but rather a factual dispute.The court denied the petition for review, emphasizing that the IJ's decision was within his discretion and supported by the evidence. The court also noted a significant error in the IJ's understanding of the difference between a visa and an I-94 form but concluded that this error did not affect the overall decision. View "Patel v. Garland" on Justia Law