The Supreme Court released its opinion on Tuesday April 17, 2012, in Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S. Ct. 1657 (2012), holding that private individuals temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work are entitled to seek qualified immunity.
Recent legislative efforts in Wisconsin and Ohio provide a framework for discussing the growing trend of limiting public sector bargaining rights that is rapidly sweeping the nation in response to recessiong-induced budget deficits.
Concentrated Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs), as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, are lots or facilities where animals are confined for 45 or more days of the year and vegetation is not sustained during the normal growing season.1 Both federal and state governments regulate CAFOs. Local governments, however, rarely pass regulations to protect their communities. Yet, a CAFO community endures the highest burden.
Most states provide for routine remedies in their open meeting laws or in general law, including injunctive and declaratory relief, extraordinary writs, and invalidation. Each of these remedies has its advantages and disadvantages. A few states have adopted additional remedies that may enable better tailoring of the remedy to a violation. Some statutes simply confirm the court’s power to impose a remedy that might have been within the court’s power in any event, while others are truly innovative.
On January 23, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Jones case, finding that the government’s actions constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
“All I did was answer the phone.” So begins the humble response of Immediate Past Chair Dwight Merriam to the thanks given to him for initially connecting with the ABA Section of Public Contract Law. That connection began the year-long process of planning the Section’s Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C., this past April to occur in conjunction with the Section of Public Contract Law’s 7th Annual State & Local Procurement Symposium.