Latest 4 Cases This Week: United States v. Abouselman (10th Cir.), Kenton County Board of Adjustment v. Meitzen (Ky.), Toch, LLC v. City of Tulsa ...

Reflections on the Pending Supreme Court Challenge to the Affordable Care Act in California v. Texas: Part One in a Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this first of a series of columns on the latest prominent challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone examine the stare decisis effects of the Supreme Court’s initial blockbuster decision involving the ACA. The authors demonstrate several, perhaps surprising, ways that the earlier decision should shape how the Court views the present challenge.

Read More

United States v. Abouselman

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 18-2164

Opinion Date: September 29, 2020

Judge: David M. Ebel

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

The Pueblos of Jemez, Santa Ana, and Zia resided along the Jemez River at a time when their lands passed from Spanish to Mexican sovereignty, and finally to the United States. In 1983, the United States initiated a water-rights adjudication for the Jemez River Basin, claiming water rights on behalf of the Pueblos. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review centered on whether the Pueblos' aboriginal water rights were extinguished by the imposition of Spanish authority "without any affirmative adverse act." No matter the method used, the sovereign’s intent to extinguish must be clear and unambiguous; “an extinguishment cannot be lightly implied in view of the avowed solicitude of the Federal Government for the welfare of its Indian wards.” Moreover, “if there is doubt whether aboriginal title has been validly extinguished by the United States, any 'doubtful expressions, instead of being resolved in favor of the United States, are to be resolved in favor of’ the Indians.” The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court, finding that while "All conquering sovereigns possess authority over their land and resources ... not until the sovereign exercises this authority through clear and adverse affirmative action may it extinguish aboriginal rights."

Kenton County Board of Adjustment v. Meitzen

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2018-SC-0677-DG

Opinion Date: September 24, 2020

Judge: Hughes

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

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision reversing the circuit court's order dismissing Property Owners' appeal from the decision of the Kenton County Board of Adjustment granting approval of a conditional use application to allow the operation of a nursery school in a residential zone, holding that Kentucky law requires that a party must claim to be "injured or aggrieved" to perfect an appeal to circuit court under Ky. Rev. Stat. 100.347(1). After the Board unanimously granted the conditional use application Property Owners filed an appeal, alleging that the Board's action was improper because it did not meet certain statutory requirements and the requirements of the Kenton County Zoning Ordinance. The circuit court dismissed the appeal, concluding that Property Owners failed to allege that they were injured or aggrieved by the final action of the Board, and therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court of appeals reversed, interpreting the "injured or aggrieved" language to be a standing requirement rather than a jurisdiction requirement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Property Owners failed to follow the appeal procedures in section 100.347(1) by not claiming in the complaint to be injured or aggrieved, and therefore, the circuit court appeals properly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.

Toch, LLC v. City of Tulsa

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Citation: 2020 OK 81

Opinion Date: September 29, 2020

Judge: Darby

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

Defendant the City of Tulsa (City), passed an ordinance creating a tourism improvement district that encompassed all properties within City which had hotels or motels with 110 or more rooms available for occupancy. Plaintiff-appellee Toch, LLC owned Aloft Downtown Tulsa (Aloft) with 180 rooms. Toch petitioned for a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was invalid for a variety of reasons, including that the district did not include all hotels with at least 50 rooms available. The court granted summary judgment to Toch based on its determination that City exceeded the authority granted in title 11, section 39-103.1. The question before Oklahoma Supreme Court was whether section 39-103.1 granted authority to municipalities to limit a tourism improvement district to a minimum room-count of a number larger than 50. To this, the Court answered in the affirmative, reversed the trial court, and remanded for further proceedings.

City of Morgantown v. Calvary Baptist Church

Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

Docket: 18-1134

Opinion Date: September 29, 2020

Judge: Margaret L. Workman

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding that, as applied to an unimproved eighty-foot subdivided piece of property owned by the Calvary Baptist Church, the City of Morgantown's enforcement of its R-1 single-family residential zoning classification was unconstitutional, holding that the zoning ordinance, as applied to the particular property of the Church, was arbitrary and unreasonable. Upon finding that the enforcement of the R-1 single-family residential zoning classification was unconstitutional the circuit court ordered the City to cure the unconstitutional zoning classification of the property by amending it to that of a B-2 service business district that permits various commercial uses of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's order declaring the zoning enforcement action unconstitutional and ordering the City to cure the classification error by amending the classification of the partition was proper.