Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

The Missouri General Assembly enacted two statutes effective August 28, 2023: the SAFE Act, which generally prohibits health care providers from performing gender transition surgeries or prescribing cross-sex hormones and puberty-blocking drugs for minors, and the Medicaid ban, which precludes MO HealthNet payments for such treatments when used for gender transition. The statutes include specific exemptions, such as for treatment of certain medical conditions and for minors already receiving such care prior to enactment. E.N., on behalf of her minor child and joined by medical professionals and organizations, challenged both laws, alleging violations of equal protection, due process, and the gains of industry clause under the Missouri Constitution.The Circuit Court of Cole County conducted a two-week bench trial and entered judgment in favor of the State, upholding the constitutionality of both statutes. The court found the challengers had raised only facial challenges and determined that neither statute violated the constitutional provisions cited. The challengers appealed, raising multiple points of error regarding the constitutional analysis and factual findings at trial.The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the circuit court’s determination de novo, applying a presumption of constitutionality. Relying on recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the court held that both statutes classify based only on age and medical use, not on sex or transgender status. Thus, rational-basis review applied. The court found that the statutes are rationally related to legitimate state interests, such as safeguarding minors and managing public resources, and do not infringe fundamental rights. The court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, concluding that the challengers failed to demonstrate any constitutional violation. View "E.N. v. Kehoe" on Justia Law

Christopher Thigpen applied for and received unemployment benefits from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) for 104 weeks spanning March 2020 to March 2022. During this period, Thigpen was employed as a personal care assistant, earning weekly wages, but reported to DEED each week that he had not worked or received other income. This misrepresentation led to Thigpen receiving overpayments totaling $39,605 in standard and pandemic unemployment benefits. In April 2022, DEED reviewed his account, confirmed his employment during the relevant period, and determined that he had obtained the overpayments due to misrepresentation. As a result, DEED assessed a penalty of 40 percent of the overpaid amount, imposed 1 percent monthly interest, and barred Thigpen from receiving any future unemployment benefits until repayment, subject to a statutory ten-year cancellation period.Thigpen appealed the determination before an unemployment law judge, arguing that he did not intend to defraud DEED and misunderstood the forms. After multiple evidentiary hearings, the unemployment law judge found Thigpen’s explanations not credible, upheld the finding of misrepresentation, and applied the statutory penalty, interest, and benefit ineligibility.Thigpen requested certiorari review from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, burden of proof, denial of due process, and constitutionality of the penalties under the Excessive Fines Clauses of the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions. The Court of Appeals rejected all arguments, specifically finding the penalties proportionate and comparable to those for similar offenses in Minnesota and other states.On further appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the penalty, interest, and benefit ineligibility for unemployment benefit misrepresentation do not violate the Excessive Fines Clauses, as they are not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense and are consistent with penalties in Minnesota and other jurisdictions. View "Thigpen vs. Best Home Care LLC" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a Nebraska resident, received Medicaid benefits administered by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS). In April 2024, she was sent a notice stating her Medicaid eligibility was ending due to income exceeding program standards. The notice informed her of her rights to request a conference or appeal and outlined the process for a fair hearing. She did not appeal the termination, and her coverage ended on May 1, 2024. Subsequently, she filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, alleging that the termination notices failed to meet due process requirements and seeking class certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, including reinstatement of benefits until proper notice was provided.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska considered only her individual claims, as she did not challenge the court’s decision to exclude class claims on appeal. The district court denied her request for a temporary restraining order, finding she was unlikely to succeed because her claims sought retroactive relief barred by sovereign immunity and because the notices likely satisfied due process. The court then dismissed her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding she had not alleged an ongoing violation of federal law and was not seeking prospective relief, as required to invoke the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s alleged due process violation was a discrete past event—the issuance of the notice and termination of benefits—not an ongoing violation. The court further held that the relief sought was retrospective, not prospective, and thus barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court concluded that the Ex parte Young exception did not apply, and affirmed the dismissal. View "Filyaw v. Corsi" on Justia Law

An Army veteran serving a lengthy prison sentence in Florida applied for and received disability benefits for service-related post-traumatic stress disorder. Initially, the Veterans Benefits Administration approved his claim at a 70 percent rate, later increasing it to 80 percent. However, after his felony conviction and incarceration, the Administration reduced his monthly benefits to a 10 percent rate pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5313, which limits disability payments for veterans incarcerated for more than 60 days due to a felony.The veteran filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, naming the United States Congress as defendant. He alleged that the statute reducing his benefits violated the Bill of Attainder Clause and the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment, seeking both prospective and retroactive relief. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal, assuming without deciding that the court had jurisdiction over facial constitutional challenges, but finding the claims frivolous. The district court adopted this recommendation, dismissing the complaint and declining to address the plaintiff’s general objections.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that sovereign immunity barred the suit against Congress, as Congress has not waived immunity for constitutional claims arising from its enactment of legislation. The court further held that any amendment to name a different defendant would be futile because the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act provides an exclusive review scheme for challenges to veterans’ benefits decisions, channeling all such claims—including constitutional challenges—through the administrative process and ultimately to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Federal Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. View "Johnson v. United States Congress" on Justia Law

Fletcher Properties, Inc. and other appellants own multi-tenant residential properties in Minneapolis. The City of Minneapolis enacted an ordinance prohibiting property owners from refusing to rent to individuals based on requirements of public assistance programs, including Section 8 housing vouchers. Fletcher challenged the ordinance, claiming it violated the Minnesota Constitution’s Takings Clause and was preempted by the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).The district court initially ruled in favor of Fletcher, finding the ordinance violated due process and equal protection clauses. The court of appeals reversed this decision, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed, remanding the case to address the remaining claims. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the City, rejecting Fletcher’s takings and preemption claims. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, leading to the current appeal.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the ordinance does not constitute a physical or regulatory taking under the Minnesota Constitution. The court applied the Penn Central factors, concluding that the economic impact of the ordinance, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action did not support a finding of a regulatory taking. The court also determined that the ordinance does not effect a physical taking as landlords voluntarily rent their properties and are not compelled to continue doing so.Additionally, the court held that the ordinance is not preempted by the MHRA. The court found no conflict between the ordinance and the MHRA, as the MHRA does not grant landlords an affirmative right to reject voucher holders. The court also concluded that the MHRA does not occupy the field of housing discrimination based on public assistance, allowing for local regulation.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, upholding the ordinance. View "Fletcher Properties, Inc. vs. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

Karla Smith and Holly Bladel sued Iowa state officials and the State of Iowa after Iowa opted out of federal unemployment programs established during the Covid-19 pandemic. These programs, created under the CARES Act, provided various unemployment benefits. Iowa initially participated in these programs but decided to end its participation in June 2021. Smith and Bladel claimed that this decision violated the U.S. Constitution, the Iowa Constitution, and Iowa state law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa dismissed the case, ruling that the defendants were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and that the plaintiffs lacked a constitutionally protected property interest in the CARES Act benefits. Smith and Bladel appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Smith's official-capacity claims against Iowa and its officials, as the claims did not fall under the Ex parte Young exception for ongoing violations of federal law. The court also found that Smith lacked a protected property interest in the CARES Act benefits because Iowa had the discretion to opt out of the programs. Consequently, Smith's due process claim against the Governor and Director in their individual capacities failed. Additionally, the court ruled that Smith's state law claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and her request for declaratory relief was inappropriate as it sought to address past actions rather than future conduct. The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed all of Smith's claims. View "Smith v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

A group of foster children challenged the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) for using their federal Social Security benefits to reimburse itself for foster care costs. The children claimed this practice violated their due process and equal protection rights under the Alaska Constitution and sought restitution. The Superior Court of Alaska found a due process violation and ordered OCS to notify foster children about its practice regarding Social Security benefits. However, the court rejected the equal protection and restitution claims, deeming them preempted by federal law.The Superior Court held that OCS violated due process by not informing foster children about their Social Security benefits and the potential financial advantages of having a private representative payee. The court ordered OCS to provide notices explaining the concept of a representative payee, the consequences of OCS being the payee, and the possibility of proposing an alternative payee. OCS argued that complying with the notice order would violate federal privacy laws, but the court modified its order to address these concerns.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court’s conclusions. The Supreme Court held that the due process claim and the court’s notice order were not preempted by federal law. The court determined that foster children have a property interest in knowing about their Social Security benefits and the ability to nominate a private payee. The court found that OCS’s systematic practice of using benefits to reimburse itself without notice created a high risk of depriving children of their rights.The Supreme Court also held that the equal protection claim was preempted because it would conflict with federal regulations governing the use of Social Security benefits. The court concluded that OCS’s practice of using benefits for foster care costs was permissible under federal law. Finally, the court rejected the proposed remedies of disgorgement and creating a trust, as they would constitute impermissible attachments on federal benefits and were preempted by federal law. View "State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services v. Z. C." on Justia Law

Chesla A. Scott challenged the Idaho Department of Labor's service of three determination notices, claiming she did not receive them while temporarily working out-of-state. The Department mailed the notices to her last known address, and Scott missed the fourteen-day appeal period. When she attempted to appeal, the Department's Appeals Examiner dismissed her appeal as untimely. Scott argued that the Department's service by mail did not meet constitutional due process requirements.The Appeals Examiner conducted a hearing and concluded that Scott's appeal was untimely under Idaho Code section 72-1368(3) and (5). The Idaho Industrial Commission affirmed this decision, denying Scott's request for a new hearing and conducting a de novo review of the record. The Commission also concluded that Scott had not timely filed her appeal.Scott appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that the Department's service by mail was constitutionally inadequate. The Court reviewed whether Scott exhausted her administrative remedies and preserved her constitutional challenge. The Court held that Scott had exhausted her administrative remedies and preserved her due process claim, allowing it to be reviewed.The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the Department's mailing of the determination notices was reasonable under all the circumstances and did not violate due process. The Court found that the Department's method of service was reasonably calculated to provide notice, and Scott's failure to receive the notices was not due to any fault of the Department. The Court did not award attorney fees to either party but awarded costs to the Department. View "Scott v. Home Depot USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to two Montana laws, HB 544 and HB 862, and a rule adopted by the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) regarding Medicaid funding for abortions. The plaintiffs, including Planned Parenthood of Montana and other healthcare providers, argue that these provisions infringe on the constitutional rights of their patients by imposing restrictions on Medicaid coverage for abortions. Specifically, the laws and rule bar Medicaid from covering abortions provided by non-physicians, require prior authorization for abortion services, and limit Medicaid coverage to abortions deemed "medically necessary" under a restrictive definition.The First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County issued a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of HB 544, HB 862, and the DPHHS rule. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, which included violations of the right to privacy and equal protection under the Montana Constitution. The court applied strict scrutiny, determining that the laws and rule were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision to grant the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court agreed that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, as the challenged provisions infringed on the fundamental right to privacy and equal protection. The court held that the state failed to demonstrate that the laws and rule were narrowly tailored to address a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk. The Supreme Court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest supported maintaining the injunction. View "Planned Parenthood v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves Bradley Rodriguez, who applied for disability benefits and supplemental security income, claiming a disability due to a traumatic brain injury, bipolar disorder, and depression. His application was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Appeals Council also denied his request for review. Rodriguez then filed a federal lawsuit challenging the denial of benefits, raising several constitutional issues regarding the appointment of SSA ALJs, Appeals Council members, and the Commissioner of the SSA. He also argued that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the SSA. The court found that the ALJ was properly appointed, the Appeals Council members were not principal officers requiring presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, and the for-cause removal provision for the Commissioner was unconstitutional but severable. The court also held that Rodriguez was not entitled to a new hearing because he did not show that the unconstitutional removal provision caused him any harm. Additionally, the court determined that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the Commissioner had the statutory authority to appoint SSA ALJs and properly exercised that authority through ratification in July 2018. The Appeals Council members were deemed inferior officers, not principal officers, and thus did not require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. The court also agreed that the for-cause removal provision for the Commissioner was unconstitutional but severable, and Rodriguez did not demonstrate entitlement to retrospective relief. Finally, the court found that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, including medical records and vocational expert testimony. View "Rodriguez v. Social Security Administration" on Justia Law