Justia Non-Profit Corporations Opinion Summaries

A nonprofit organization that publishes content critical of United States immigration policy was issued a subpoena by the New York Attorney General’s office seeking documents related to its governance, finances, and relationships with vendors and contractors. The organization alleged that the subpoena was motivated by a desire to suppress its viewpoints and thus violated its rights under the First Amendment and the New York State Constitution. The Attorney General, however, maintained that the investigation was prompted by concerns about possible self-dealing and regulatory noncompliance.After the subpoena was issued, the nonprofit partially responded but maintained objections. It then filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages and an injunction against enforcement of the subpoena, claiming the subpoena was retaliatory and unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter, the Attorney General initiated a special proceeding in New York State Supreme Court to compel compliance. The organization moved to dismiss or stay the state proceeding, raising constitutional arguments. The state court ruled against the nonprofit, ordering compliance with the subpoena (with some redactions allowed), and the New York Appellate Division, First Department affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed a further appeal.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the nonprofit’s request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the federal claims, holding that they were precluded by the earlier state court judgment under the doctrine of res judicata. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the state court’s decision was final and on the merits, involved the same parties and subject matter, and therefore barred the federal claims. The court also dismissed as moot the appeal of the denial of preliminary injunctive relief. View "VDARE Foundation, Inc. v. James" on Justia Law

A nonprofit research foundation affiliated with a state university entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the university in 2007, becoming a statutorily regulated direct-support organization (DSO). The MOU provided that the foundation’s board would include two appointees from the university but was otherwise silent on board approval and on budget approval processes. In 2018, the Florida Legislature enacted a law requiring all DSO board appointments to be approved by the university’s board of trustees. Around the same time, a regulation by the Board of Governors (BOG) required university boards of trustees to approve DSO budgets. The foundation challenged these requirements, arguing that they impaired its contractual rights under the MOU.The Circuit Court conducted a trial and found that the MOU limited the university’s involvement to only the two appointees and that the statutory board approval requirement impaired the MOU. It concluded that the university failed to show a significant and legitimate public purpose for the statute. However, regarding the budget approval dispute, the court held that the MOU did not address budget approval, so there was no contractual impairment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed both findings, concluding that the statutory board approval requirement rewrote the parties’ contract, while the regulation on budget approval did not impair the MOU.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case. It held that the MOU only addressed the university’s power to appoint two board members and was silent on approval of other appointments or on budget approval. Therefore, the statutory and regulatory changes did not impair any specific contractual obligations. The court reversed the Fourth District’s ruling on the board appointment issue and otherwise affirmed, holding that neither the statute nor the regulation unconstitutionally impaired the MOU. View "Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees v. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute Foundation, Inc." on Justia Law

The plaintiff was an employee who brought claims for wrongful termination, Labor Code violations, and breach of contract against two defendants: the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Public Transportation Services Corporation (PTSC). MTA had created PTSC, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, to provide retirement and employment benefits to certain workers and to manage employees who support MTA’s transportation functions. The plaintiff did not file a prelitigation claim under the Government Claims Act (GCA) before suing these entities.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County first granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of both defendants, finding that the plaintiff had not alleged compliance with the GCA’s claim presentation requirements. The plaintiff was given leave to amend but continued to argue that PTSC was not a public entity subject to the GCA, and that even if it was, the claims presentation requirement should not apply because PTSC had not registered as required by statute. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, finding both defendants to be public entities and that PTSC was not required to register separately from MTA. The court entered judgment for both defendants.On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, the plaintiff did not challenge the judgment in favor of MTA but contested the ruling as to PTSC. The appellate court held that PTSC qualifies as a public entity for purposes of the GCA’s claims presentation requirement, given its creation and control by MTA. However, the court found that if PTSC failed to register properly on the Registry of Public Agencies—including with county clerks where it maintains offices—this would excuse the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the GCA. The judgment for MTA was affirmed, but the judgment for PTSC was reversed and remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint. View "Black v. L.A. County Metropolitan Transp. Authority" on Justia Law

A nonprofit corporation purchased a 192-unit apartment complex from a government agency in 1994 at a significant discount. In exchange, the purchaser agreed by contract to rent all units at below-market rates to low-income families for 40 years and to comply with annual reporting and administrative fee requirements. Around 2016, the purchaser stopped fulfilling these obligations, including the reporting and fee provisions. The government’s successor agency, through its monitoring agent, notified the purchaser of the breach and initiated legal action seeking remedies under the contract.The purchaser counterclaimed in state court, seeking a declaration that the agreement was no longer enforceable and an injunction against further enforcement. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as successor to the original government agency, intervened, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and moved to dismiss the counterclaim. The purchaser argued that the contract’s obligations ended when Congress repealed the statute that created the original agency and authorized such agreements. The district court rejected this argument, holding that the contract remained enforceable, dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice, and remanded the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the contract’s plain language required the purchaser to comply with its obligations for the full 40-year term, regardless of the repeal of the underlying statute. The court found that the FDIC, as successor, retained both contractual and statutory authority to enforce the agreement. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the counterclaim, concluding that the agreement remains enforceable and the purchaser is still bound by its terms. View "Affordable Housing Group, Inc. v. Florida Housing Affordability, Inc." on Justia Law

Three non-profit corporations, each formed by littoral homeowners in the Portlock neighborhood of East Honolulu, purchased narrow beachfront reserve lots that separated their homes from the ocean. In 2003, Hawai‘i enacted Act 73, which declared certain accreted lands—land gradually added to the shoreline by natural forces—to be public property, preventing private parties from registering or quieting title to such land. Shortly after purchasing the lots, the non-profits (the Ohanas) filed an inverse condemnation action, alleging that Act 73 resulted in an uncompensated taking of accreted land seaward of their lots, in violation of the Hawai‘i Constitution. The parties stipulated that, if a taking occurred, just compensation would be based on the fair market rental value of the accreted land.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit initially granted partial summary judgment to the Ohanas, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed in part, holding that Act 73 effected a taking of existing accreted lands. On remand, after a bench trial with expert testimony, the circuit court found that the fair market rental value of the accreted land was zero dollars, based on credible evidence that the land’s use was highly restricted and had no market value. The court declined to award nominal damages or attorneys’ fees. The ICA affirmed, finding the circuit court’s factual determinations were supported by substantial evidence and that sovereign immunity barred attorneys’ fees.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i affirmed the ICA’s judgment. It held that the circuit court did not err in awarding zero dollars as just compensation, nor in declining to award nominal damages, because the Ohanas suffered no compensable loss. The court further held that the just compensation clause of the Hawai‘i Constitution does not waive sovereign immunity for attorneys’ fees in inverse condemnation cases. View "Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State" on Justia Law

After the Washington Medical Commission adopted a policy to discipline physicians for spreading COVID-19 “misinformation,” several plaintiffs—including physicians who had been charged with unprofessional conduct, physicians who had not been charged, and advocacy organizations—filed suit. The Commission’s actions included investigating and charging doctors for public statements and writings about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines. Some plaintiffs, such as Dr. Eggleston and Dr. Siler, were actively facing disciplinary proceedings, while others, like Dr. Moynihan, had not been charged but claimed their speech was chilled. Additional plaintiffs included a non-profit organization and a public figure who alleged their right to receive information was affected.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismissed the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. The court found that the claims were constitutionally and prudentially unripe, and that the doctrine of Younger abstention required federal courts to refrain from interfering with ongoing state disciplinary proceedings. The district court also addressed the merits, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible First Amendment or due process claim, but the primary basis for dismissal was abstention and ripeness.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Younger abstention barred claims challenging ongoing state disciplinary proceedings (including as-applied and facial constitutional challenges, and due process claims) for all plaintiffs subject to such proceedings. The court also held that Younger abstention did not apply to claims for prospective relief by plaintiffs not currently subject to proceedings, but those claims were constitutionally and prudentially unripe because no concrete injury had occurred and further factual development was needed. The Ninth Circuit thus affirmed the dismissal of all claims. View "STOCKTON V. BROWN" on Justia Law

Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., and its subentities sought an exemption from Wisconsin's unemployment compensation taxes, claiming they were controlled by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior and operated primarily for religious purposes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the exemption, ruling that the organizations did not engage in proselytization or limit their services to Catholics, and thus were not operated primarily for religious purposes.The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development initially denied the exemption request, but an Administrative Law Judge reversed this decision. The Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission then reinstated the denial. The state trial court overruled the commission, granting the exemption, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the organizations' activities were secular and not primarily religious, and that the statute did not violate the First Amendment.The United States Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's application of the statute violated the First Amendment. The Court found that the statute imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines, subjecting it to strict scrutiny. The Court concluded that the statute, as applied, could not survive strict scrutiny because the State failed to show that the law was narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. The judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission" on Justia Law

The Texas Attorney General alleged that Annunciation House, a nonprofit organization in El Paso, was unlawfully harboring illegal aliens. The Attorney General sought to examine the organization's records and initiate quo warranto proceedings, which could lead to the revocation of its charter. Annunciation House, which provides shelter to immigrants and refugees, was served with a records request by state officials, who demanded immediate compliance. Annunciation House sought legal relief, arguing that the request violated its constitutional rights.The 205th Judicial District Court in El Paso County granted a temporary restraining order and later a temporary injunction against the Attorney General's records request. The court also denied the Attorney General's motion for leave to file a quo warranto action, ruling that the statutes authorizing the records request were unconstitutional and that the allegations of harboring illegal aliens did not constitute a valid basis for quo warranto. The court further held that the statutes were preempted by federal law and violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case on direct appeal. The court held that the trial court erred in its constitutional rulings and that the Attorney General has the constitutional authority to file a quo warranto action. The court emphasized that it was too early to express a view on the merits of the underlying issues and that the usual litigation process should unfold. The court also held that the statutes authorizing the records request were not facially unconstitutional and that the trial court's injunction against the Attorney General's records request was improper. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "PAXTON v. ANNUNCIATION HOUSE, INC." on Justia Law

In 2018, the City of Nashua approved a bond resolution to construct a performing arts center. Due to financing complications, the City formed two non-profit corporations to take advantage of a federal tax credit. In 2020, NPAC Corp., a private, for-profit corporation, was formed to aid in the tax credit process. NPAC is wholly owned by one of the non-profits, which is owned by the City. Laurie Ortolano requested NPAC's public records related to the center, but NPAC claimed it was not subject to the Right-to-Know Law (RSA chapter 91-A). Ortolano then filed a complaint seeking access to these records.The Superior Court dismissed Ortolano's complaint, agreeing with NPAC that it was not a public entity subject to RSA chapter 91-A. The court also dismissed the claims against the City, reasoning that the relief sought was derivative of the claim against NPAC. Additionally, the court denied Ortolano's motion to amend her complaint to allege constitutional violations because she failed to attach a proposed amended complaint.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the City, finding that Ortolano's complaint did not state an independent claim against the City. However, the court vacated the dismissal of the claims against NPAC, ruling that the trial court erred by not applying the "government function" test to determine if NPAC was a "public body" under RSA chapter 91-A. The court also upheld the trial court's denial of Ortolano's motion to amend her complaint, as the proposed amendment did not cure the defect in the original pleading.The case was remanded for the trial court to apply the "government function" test to determine whether NPAC is subject to the Right-to-Know Law. View "Ortolano v. City of Nashua" on Justia Law

The case involves two charitable organizations, Catholic Medical Mission Board, Inc. (CMMB) and Food for the Poor, Inc. (FFP), which were issued cease and desist orders and civil penalties by the Attorney General of California for allegedly making false or misleading statements in their charitable solicitations. The Attorney General found that both organizations overvalued in-kind donations and misrepresented their program efficiency ratios, leading to misleading donor solicitations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case and found that the challenged statutory provisions, sections 12591.1(b) and 12599.6(f)(2) of the Government Code, were unconstitutional under the First Amendment as they constituted prior restraints on speech. The court vacated the civil penalties and issued permanent injunctions against the Attorney General, preventing the enforcement of these provisions. The court also reformed section 12591.1(b) to exclude violations of section 12599.6 from the Attorney General’s cease and desist authority.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s constitutional rulings but vacated the permanent injunctions, stating that the trial court abused its discretion by granting them without requiring the plaintiffs to plead and prove entitlement to such relief. The appellate court remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaints to seek injunctive relief and to prove they are entitled to it. The court also affirmed the trial court’s reformation of section 12591.1(b) and vacated the postjudgment orders awarding attorney fees, directing the trial court to reconsider the fees in light of the appellate court’s rulings. View "Catholic Medical Mission Board, Inc. v. Bonta" on Justia Law