212 A.3d 841
D.C.2019Background
- Gerren Price, Deputy Director at D.C. Office of Youth Programs, was found by the D.C. Board of Ethics and Government Accountability to have advanced his sister‑in‑law's application and failed to recuse, violating D.C. Code of Conduct §§ 1806.3 and 1806.6. The Board imposed a $3,000 civil penalty and $26,182.10 restitution.
- Price filed a petition for review in the D.C. Court of Appeals, but the Ethics Act directs appeals from the Ethics Board to the Superior Court.
- The question presented is whether the Court of Appeals has direct review jurisdiction over Ethics Board contested cases under the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act (DCAPA), or whether the Ethics Act vested initial review in the Superior Court.
- The DCAPA ordinarily vests exclusive review of agency "contested cases" in the Court of Appeals. The Ethics Act requires contested‑case procedures for Ethics Board hearings but prescribes appeal to the Superior Court.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the D.C. Council intended to except Ethics Board proceedings from the DCAPA contested‑case scheme and therefore dismissed Price’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, but granted Price 20 days to file in Superior Court given prior uncertainty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Price) | Defendant's Argument (Ethics Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court of Appeals has direct review of Ethics Board contested cases | DCAPA § 2‑510(a) grants Court of Appeals exclusive jurisdiction over contested cases; § 1‑1162.17 is invalid as violating the Home Rule Act | Ethics Act validly vests initial review in Superior Court by impliedly excepting Ethics Board proceedings from DCAPA contested‑case definition | Held: Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction; Ethics Act validly vests initial review in Superior Court (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction) |
| Whether the D.C. Council exceeded Home Rule Act limits by directing appeals to Superior Court | § 1‑206.02(a)(4) prohibits Council from legislating with respect to Title 11 (court jurisdiction), so directing appeals here is invalid | Sullivan and related precedent permit Council to create exceptions to DCAPA and vest initial review in Superior Court | Held: Majority rejects Home Rule challenge; Council may create exceptions and vest initial Superior Court review |
| Whether the Ethics Act impliedly amended DCAPA’s contested‑case definition | Price: Failure to amend DCAPA itself means no valid exception; Council cannot bypass DCAPA scheme | Ethics Board: Ethics Act’s combination of requiring DCAPA procedures and specifying Superior Court review shows clear legislative intent to except these cases | Held: The Court finds clear legislative intent; Ethics Board proceedings excluded from DCAPA contested‑case review by implication |
| Relief for filing in wrong court and timeliness risk | Price contends prior Superior Court decisions made filing in Court of Appeals reasonable | Ethics Board argues Superior Court is proper forum | Held: Petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Court grants 20 days from opinion issuance to file in Superior Court to protect appeal given prior confusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Euclid St., LLC v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Auth., 41 A.3d 453 (D.C. 2012) (DCAPA vests Court of Appeals with exclusive review of agency contested cases)
- District of Columbia v. Sullivan, 436 A.2d 364 (D.C. 1981) (Council may create exceptions to DCAPA contested‑case review and vest initial review in Superior Court)
- Woodroof v. Cunningham, 147 A.3d 777 (D.C. 2016) (construing Home Rule Act limits on Council authority over court jurisdiction)
- Capitol Hill Restoration Society, Inc. v. Moore, 410 A.2d 184 (D.C. 1979) (Home Rule Act prohibits Council from altering Court of Appeals' direct review jurisdiction of agency cases)
- Dupree v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections, 132 A.3d 150 (D.C. 2016) (standard and scope of this court’s review of agency decisions on appeal from Superior Court are the same as direct appeals)