Nebraska Supreme Court Clarifies Due Process Requirements and Appealability of Political Subdivision Decisions

Hauxwell v. Middle Republican Nat. Resources Dist. 319 Neb. 1 (2025) and Hauxwell v. Middle Republican Nat. Resources Dist., 319 Neb. 28 (2025).

The Nebraska Supreme Court recently clarified procedural requirements in contested cases before a Nebraska political subdivision.  The court issued two decisions involving the same parties.  In the first, the Court held proper subsequent hearings could remedy previous due process violations in administrative proceedings.    In the second, the Court refused to broaden the scope of appealable orders by following strict statutory analysis.

In 2020, the Middle Republican Natural Resources District (“NRD”) sanctioned Bryan and Ami Hauxwell for groundwater use in violation of NRD regulations.  The NRD’s general manager and legal counsel, who had acted as prosecutors, participated in the board’s deliberations. 

The court previously held the NRD’s actions violated the plaintiffs’ due process rights.  See Uhrich & Brown LP v. Middle Republican Nat. Resources Dist., 315 Neb. 596 (2023).  The district court vacated the penalties and ordered a remand.

The NRD initiated new enforcement proceedings and held hearings in 2021 and 2022 that excluded NRD’s general manager and legal counsel from deliberations.  The board decided to still impose penalties in 2022.   Hauxwell again appealed.  The appeal claimed the earlier due process violation tainted the later proceedings.  The district court agreed and vacated the 2022 penalties.

 The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court order.  While the 2020 hearing violated due process, the court held the subsequent hearings cured the defect.

Due process does not require complete separation of personnel across proceedings, only that the operative proceedings be fair and impartial.  The court did not find any evidence of improper influence in the 2021 and 2022 hearings.  Thus, the court reaffirmed the presumption of integrity afforded to administrative bodies.

 The second opinion also stems from the dispute between the NRD and Hauxwell.  During the due process dispute with the NRD, Hauxwell submitted a request to pool ground water from several registered wells.  The NRD denied the request by letter without a hearing or board vote.   Hauxwell filed a petition for review under the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 

The district court dismissed the petition for lack of a final, reviewable “order.”  The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

The court held the letter was not an “order” under the  Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act because the NRD did not issue the letter pursuant to a statutory requirement, rule or board decision at a public meeting.  Not all agency communications are reviewable, and the right to appeal exists only when a statute expressly provides it.

 Together, these opinions clarify that:(1) entities can rectify due process violations in administrative proceedings through subsequent hearings and (2) only formal agency actions, e.g., those mandated by statute or rule, constitute appealable orders under the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act.

Attorneys at Baird Holm LLP specialize in various subject matter areas including administrative, water and land use law.  Please contact us if you have any questions about this or a related matter.

Hannes D. Zetzsche
Laura P. Genett, Summer Associate