Administrative Law - Smith - Spring 2003-2-4

8/20/2019 Administrative Law - Smith - Spring 2003-2-4

1/38

Corrie Westbrook Administrative Law Outline

Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200IF, WHEN, AND WHY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE USEFUL

Executive Agencies !reated b" Congress, not !reated or mentioned in the Constitution

• #nder supervision of the President

• President appoints the head of the agen!" $with advi!e and !onsent of the Senate% and has

a good amount of !ontrol over the agen!"• Purpose is the implementation of statutes passed b" Congress, through ad&udi!ation or

rulemakingIndeendent Agencies Less sub&e!t to dire!t !ontrol b" the President' he has some influen!e

but not as mu!h $!an(t hire and fire%

C!ng"essi!n#$ C!nt"!$ Congress funds agen!ies and !ontrols the budget)

%udici#"& *hree wa"s that !ourts will e+er!ise &udi!ial review over agen!ies

• APA Congress( wa" of regulating how agen!ies behave

o -efault rule on how agen!ies should behave

o -efines terms for ./ A-1

o ives !ourts a basis for reviewing an agen!" a!tion

• Organi! Statutes $the statutes that !reate the agen!"%

• Constitution

'ene(its) C!sts !( Agencies*

• 3+pertise 4 have man" people with e+pertise to work on solutions5 issues

• 6le+ibilit" 7 !an sear!h out problems to solve and not &ust wait for them to !ome to them

like &udges

• 8ndividual libert" to do what the" want to do

• Agen!" !reated ma" be an independent voi!e to de!ide an issue rather than the a!tual

parties involved de!iding the issue $-alton v) Spe!ter %

• 9igh !osts

• Politi!al a!!ountabilit" 7 !an suffer from la!k of pol) a!!)

o :ut also gives the legislature the abilit" to pass the bu!k 7 8 !reated this agen!"

to deal with the problem $let(s the legislature at least have the appearan!e ofaddressing the problem%

T+ees !( C$#ss*

• Whether agen!ies fit in our gov(t $as a ;th bran!h of gov(t>;%

• ?aval base !losures !ase 7 there were too man" and !ost too mu!h mone" so Congress

created a special commission to de!ide whi!h bases should be !losed

• Commission 7 @ members appointed b" the President with the advi!e and !onsent of theSenate

o *he -O- Se!) reports to the !ommission

o 9olds publi! hearings and prepares a report for final re!ommendation

o President then de!ides whether to approve or disapprove of the re!ommendation

in its entiret"' !annot pi!k and !hoose whi!h bases he agrees should be !losedo 8f the President approves, he submits the list to Congress for disapproval onl"'

thus, making it hard to undo what the Commission has does

=


2/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200

• .espondents sought to en&oin the Se!) of -efense from !arr"ing out the de!ision to !lose

a parti!ular baseo *he" argue that the President a!!epted pro!edurall" flawed re!ommendations

• 9olding N! -udici#$ "evie. !( /"esident0s (in#$ decisi!n1 C!u"t +e$d t+e decisi!n

.#s u$ti#te$& u t! t+e /"esident 2 t+us, ust 3e u+e$d1 T+is is #n exceti!n t!

t+e "esuti!n !( "evie.#3i$it&1o .ehnuist for ma&orit" 7 President would have the power to shut the base

an"wa" as the Commander in Chief of the militar"' !ourt should not se!ondguess the President(s de!ision regarding militar" strateg")

o Souter Con!ur 7 emphasis on what Congress has said' e+isten!e of spe!ifi!

timeline is eviden!e that !ourts should not be involved

THE C4NSTITUTI4NAL FRAMEW4R5 F4R ADMINSTRATIVE AGENCIES

DELEGATING 6LEGISLATIVE7 AUTH4RITY

What provisions of the Constitution tell us there would be other a!tors who make de!isions<

• Art) 8, B @ $Appointments Clause% President !an ask 9eads of -epartments for

suggestions' someone other than the President !an make suggestions, rules, et!)• Art) 8, B @, =@ $?e!essar" Proper Clause% Power to invest authorit" in government

or an" department or offi!er thereof

• Art) 88 $*ake Care Clause% Suggests that the President is not a!tuall" the a!tor but has

authorit" to make someone else a!t

9ow mu!h legislative or &udi!ial power !an be delegated to the agen!" b" the legislature<Agg"#ndi8eent One bran!h tries to take power from another bran!h and grant it to itself

$giving itself too mu!h power%

• 3+ Congress tries to tell !ourts how to de!ide a !ase

• 3+ /istretta

Enc"!#c+ent One bran!h tries to reserve for itself power that belongs to another bran!h

$being given too mu!h power%

• 3+ -alton 7 Congress tells the President he !an appoint someone and onl" fire him for

!ertain reasons, thus limiting the President(s power to appoint and !ontrol e+e!utiveoffi!ial

N!n9De$eg#ti!n D!ct"ine Congress !annot delegate its responsibilit" to make laws

• Constitution spe!ifi!all" delegates that DCongress shall make all lawsEF

• :5! Congress is the !loser representative of the people and there must be bi!ameralism

and presentment' Congress must make the hard de!isions

• Inte$$igi3$e /"inci$e* 8n order to delegate power to an agen!", Congress must provide

the agen!" with an intelligible prin!iple of what to do

8ndus) #nion -ept), A6L4C8O v) Am) Petroleum 8nstitute $=>@0% $:enGene%• Statute 7 dire!ting Se!) of Labor to issue rules reuiring emplo"ers to prote!t their

workers, Dto the e+tent feasible,F from harm due to to+i! substan!es in the workpla!e

• Agen!" de!ided to redu!e the allowable benGene level to almost non e+istent, but did not

determine what an a!tual safe level would beo *he level reuired e+pensive measures be taken to redu!e the e+posure to

benGene

2


3/38



• 9olding .ule stru!k down b5! the agen!" did not make all the findings reuired b" the

statuteo Stevens for pluralit" 7 agen!" had not found that the reuirements would !ure a

Dsignifi!ant riskF in the workpla!e as A!t reuired' rule is invalid b5! the" did notfind this threshold reuirement

•

Powell Con!ur 4 DfeasibleF means to do a !ost4benefit anal"sis• .ehnuist Con!ur 7 Congress did not intent for OS9A to have su!h broad authorit",

un!onstitutional delegation of authorit" b" Congress to the Se!) of Labor b5! there was norationale for what DfeasibleF means so too big a de!ision for -OL to make

• /arshall -issent 7 DfeasibleF means te!hnologi!all" feasible' no need for !ost4benefit

anal"sis

• Compare to /istretta 7 e+perts had e+perien!e with senten!ing' here, O9SA provided

less rigid guidelines for -OL to rel" on

?o dis!retion Complete -is)to agen!"' Congress to agen!"set level

Cost4:enefit *e!hnologi!all" Set Safet" Anal"sis 6easible Standards

/istretta v) #)S) $=>@>%

• Congress !reated a Senten!ing Commission to establish senten!ing guidelines for most

federal !riminal offenses b5! there was a disparit" in !riminal senten!ing

• 8ssue whether this was an un!onstitutional delegation of authorit" b" Congress to the

Commission to stru!ture the guidelines $an aggrandiGement of &udi!iar"(s power b" theSenten!ing Comm(n%

• 9olding U+e$d t+e st#tute 3)c it +#d #n Inte$$igi3$e /"inci$e t! guide t+e #genc&0sdecisi!ns1 Court will onl" override Congress if there is absen!e of standards for theagen!" to rel" on)

o 8P 7 must provide some guidelines for agen!ies to follow or Congress will be

giving up too mu!h legislative power o 9ere, the statute did not undul" strengthen &udi!iar" 7 &udi!iar" had traditionall"

been deepl" involved in !riminal senten!ing histori!al pre!edent for &udi!ial bran!h ./ and for individual &udges to perform non&udi!ial gov(t fun!tions

o 9ere, did not undul" weaken either b5! fa!t that President !ould appoint &udges to

the Comm(n and remove them for good !ause posed onl" negligible threat toimpartialit" of !ourts

• S!alia -issent 7 -isagrees on delegation point' he thinks the statute is, in essen!e,

!reating a ;th bran!h of gov(t

Whitman v) Am) *ru!king Ass(n $200=%

• 8ssues whether the Clean Air A!t delegates legislative power to the 3PA $statute

reuires 3PA to set ?AAHS as Dreuisite to prote!t publi! healthF' whether the 3PAAdministrator ma" !onsider the !osts of implementation in setting national ambient airualit" standards $?AAHS% under this A!t $!t) sa"s no%


4/38



• 9olding An #genc& t"&ing t! $iit its !.n !.e" d!es n!t s!$ve t+e de$eg#ti!n

"!3$e1 T+us, t+e st#tute +e"e is unc!nstituti!n#$ de$eg#ti!n !( $egis$#tive !.e"1

o Court fo!uses on la!k of intelligible principle set down in the statute

o Congress !annot pass the bu!k to agen!ies to make de!isions, must give some

guidelines

•

Compare to /istretta 7 in /istretta, Congress had set out fa!tors for agen!" to !onsider'here, there were no fa!tors to !onsider

• Stevens v) S!alia 7 Stevens sa"s Congress !an delegate as long as there is an 8P) S!alia

sa"s no su!h things as a legislative delegation)

Hist!"& Le#ding U t! W+it#n

• 3arliest !ases !onsistentl" upheld delegations, b" minimiGing their signifi!an!e)

o C!ntingenc& R#ti!n#$e $that !ertain !onditions e+ist that trigger legal

!onseuen!es spe!ified in a statute% *he :rig Aurora $=@=% 7 Ok for Congress to delegate to President

power to revive a previous statute granting trading privileges wheneverhe de!lared the fa!t that that !ountr" had !eased to violate the neutral

!ommer!e of the #S 6ield v) Clark $=@>2% 7 Ok for Congress to delegate to President the

power to impose retaliator" tariffs when foreign nations raised theirduties on agri!ultural produ!ts) :5! the suspension would o!!ur upon anamed !ontingen!", the A!t made the President an agent and not a poli!"maker)

o Court would !laim that the legislative had the power to !reate agen!ies to Fi$$ in

t+e Det#i$s 7 Congress must establish the general outline of a regulator" program but ma" leave to the agen!" the authorit" to Dfill up the detailsF $Wa"man v)Southard%

#S v) rimaud $=>==% 7 #pheld power of Se!) of Agri!ulture to issue

regulations, ba!ked b" !riminal penalties, governing the use and

preservation of the national forests• S+i(t t! W+et+e" t+e Legis$#tu"e +#d /"!vided Sufficient Standards t! Liit t+e

Sc!e !( Agenc& Disc"eti!n

o 1)W) 9ampton, 1r) Co) v) #S $=>2@% 7 Congress gave the President the power

to var" pri!e duties for !lasses of imports a!!ording to !hange !ir!umstan!es, totake effe!t as soon as within 0 da"s of the rule issuan!e) Court said that ifCongress had to !ontinuousl" monitor the !onditions and set the tariff a!t, the"would never get an"thing done) A e"issi3$e de$eg#ti!n ust c!nt#in #n6inte$$igi3$e "inci$e t! .+ic+ t+e #genc& ust c!n(!"17 9ere, Congress &ust needs to la" down that the rates be &ust and reasonable !onsidering theservi!e given and not dis!riminator")

• I/ Used t! St"i:e D!.n De$eg#ti!ns Du"ing Ne. De#$

o Panama .efining Co) v) ."an $=>I% $9ot Oil !ase% 7 A!t authoriGed President to

prohibit interstate shipments of !ontraband oil) Court found the statute gave thePresident no guidan!e as to the !ir!umstan!es under whi!h he should impose the prohibition and thus, stru!k down the statute as an overl" broad delegation)

.egulation also had serious pro!edural defe!t 7 had been issued without

prior noti!e or opportunit" for publi! parti!ipation) 8mportant side effe!t 7 legislation passed that reuired agen!ies to

publish de!isions in 6ederal .egister after this de!ision)

;


5/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200o ALA S!he!her Poultr" Corp) v) #S $=>I% $Si!k Chi!ken !ase% 7 Statute

authoriGed agen!" $a!ting on behalf of the President% to issue !odes of fair!ompetition for parti!ular industries if the !ode tended to effe!tuate the poli!" ofthe A!t) Court stru!k down be!ause of the la!k of both substantive and pro!edural standards)

*here was no !lear poli!" dire!tive in the legislation !ongressional

statements seem to pull in different dire!tions) Pro!edural 7 didn(t reuire trial4t"pe hearings, or provide noti!e, a right

to parti!ipate, or to &udi!ial review to interested personso Carter v) Carter Coal Co) $=>J% 7 Statute allowed an agen!" to set binding wage

and hour standards $!odes for the !oal industr" similar to those !odes of fair!ompetition in si!k !hi!ken !ase%) Stru!k down b5! overl" broad delegation andalso b5! the de!ision4making power was given to industr" representatives insteadof government offi!ials

o L#st c#se .+e"e t+e c!u"t inv#$id#ted # st#tute !n t+e 3#sis !( t+e n!n9

de$eg#ti!n "inci$e1

• M!de"n Lenienc& !( C!u"t in N!n9De$eg#ti!n C#ses

o Kakus v) #S $=>;;% 7 #pheld statute that gave Administrator power to promulgate a s"stem of wartime pri!e !ontrols that would be generall" fair andeuitable and effe!tuate the purposes of the A!t) Court said st#nd#"ds ust 3esu((icient$& de(inite #nd "ecise to enable Congress, the !ourts and the publi! toas!ertain whether the Administrator has !onformed to the standards pros!ribed b"the A!t)

o 6ahe" v) /allonee $=>;% 7 #pheld A!t that delegated sweeping authorit" to

bank regulators to provide for the reorganiGation, !onsolidation, merger, orliuidation of savings and loan asso!iations) *he !ourt emphasiGed the fa!t thatthere is exte"n#$ !nit!"ing #nd c!nt"!$ on the banking industr" and has beenfor man" "ears)

o C!nst"ucti!n t! S#ve t+e St#tute

Ment v) -ulles $=>I@% 7 .ather than invalidating the A!t, the !ourt ma"#d!t # "e$#tive$& n#""!. vie. !( #n #genc&0s !.e"s to disallow!ertain behavior b" the agen!") 9ere, the !ourt said that theAdministrator !ould not den" a passport b5! of the appli!ant(s politi!al beliefs) C$e#" St#teent Ru$e 7 Congress must make it e+pli!itl" !learit wants a !ertain meaning before the !ourt will &ust assume thatmeaning)

Amalgamated /eat Cutters v) Connall" $=>=% 7 #pheld a statute that

granted President broad authorit" to set limits on wages and pri!esthroughout the national e!onom") With various safeguards andlimitations in pla!e, the !ourt was !onvin!ed that the statute, taken as awhole, provided adeuate means b" whi!h the publi!, Congress, and

reviewing !ourts !ould !he!k the agen!"(s e+er!ise of delegation)• *hus, the delegation do!trine "e;ui"es # c!u"t t! ex#ine

.+et+e" # st#tute c!nt#ins #n I/ !n its (#ce #nd t+e t!t#$

s&ste !( c!nt"!$s, 3!t+ su3st#ntive #nd "!cedu"#$, t+#t

$iit #genc& !.e"1

*oub" v) #S $=>>=% 7 #pheld statute that gave A power to summaril"

issue a temporar" s!heduling order whi!h imposed stri!t regulator"!ontrols on newl" invented designer drugs)

I


6/38



• Court said that the limitation in the A!t on &udi!ial reviewabilit"

onl" barred &udi!ial review on preenfor!ement !hallenges tos!heduling orders, but that a person !ould still atta!k the validit"of the order as a defense to a prose!ution)

o Loving v) #S $=>>J% 7 #pheld a statute that authoriGed the President to pres!ribe

a list of aggravating fa!tors that would support !apital punishment in !ourt4martial prose!ution $for militar" !ourts4martial in imposing the death penalt"%)*he statute was merel" delegating a power to the President that he alread" has asthe !ommander4in4!hief)

• 3+amples from the handout

o Congress authoriGing 6ed) Power Comm(n to set &ust and reasonable rates for the

sale of natural gas $no defn) of &ust reasonable%) Ct) upheld)o 9ot oil !ase analog" 7 most problemati!' probabl" the O?LK one !ourt would

strike down Congress did not spe!if" what !ir!umstan!es would &ustif" the

e+er!ise of the President(s authorit")o Ct) even upheld !ongressional grant of power to 6CC to grant li!enses to radio

broad!asters when &ustified b" the Dpubli! interest, !onvenien!e, or ne!essit")F

Smith thought this one was most troubling)• T!d#&, ;uesti!n is .+#t !.e" +#s C!ng"ess de$eg#ted @J%• -ispute between !ommodities broker and his !ustomer' one !ase brought in C6*C and

other in -istri!t Court' parties agree to drop a!tion in -istri!t Court

• 8ssue whether C6*C !an ad&udi!ate both the initial !laim and the state $!ontra!t law%

!laim

• 9olding Kes) When Congress sele!ts a uasi4&udi!ial method of resolving matters that

!ould be !on!lusivel" determined b" the e+e!utive and legislative bran!hes, the danger of en!roa!hing on the &udi!ial powers is less than when private rights, whi!h are normall"within the purview of the &udi!iar", are relegated as an initial matter to administrativead&udi!ation)

• 6a!tors used in determining agen!"(s &udi!ial authorit"

o Att"i3utes !( -udici#$ !.e"

1udi!ial review of agen!" de!isions

• 6a!ts 7 review substantial eviden!e

• Law 7 review de novo

?o an!illar" powers 7 &ur" trials, habeas !orpus

?arrow sub&e!t matter' parti!ular area of law

3nfor!ement 7 agen!" doesn(t have this power' its de!isions are onl"

enfor!eable in federal !ourts

J


7/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200o 4"igins #nd i!"t#nce !( t+e "ig+t t! 3e #d-udic#ted

Publi! right< :rennan -issent 7 thinks this should be the onl" fa!tor)

• ?ot in this !ase)

8s it a Congressionall" !reated right $rather than a Constitutional right or

a !ommon4law right%<

•

?ot in this !ase) *o mitigate these, O(Connor points out thatthere is !on!urrent &urisdi!tion in federal !ourt $!ould have been brought there as well%)

o C!nce"ns t+#t d"!ve C!ng"ess t! de#"t ("! A"t1 III c!u"ts

Con!urrent &urisdi!tion

3+pertise and effi!ien!" in area of law

:urdens on federal !ourts

Counter!laim allowed in interest of &udi!ial e!onom"

• :rennan -issent 7 *hinks this de!ision is bad for the administrative state and that the

parties should not have been able to ad&udi!ate these !laims at all

DELEGATING 6E>ECUTIVE7 AUTH4RITY

*he Appointments Clause $Art) 88, B 2, 2% sets 2 tiered s"stem) *he President appoints prin!ipaloffi!ers with the advi!e and !onsent of the Senate) *hen, the Senate either !onfirms or re&e!ts thenomination) Congress !an give the power to appoint inferior offi!ers to the President, the headsof departments, or !ourts of law $Congress !an effe!tivel" !ut the President out of the loop,limiting his power%)Huestion then be!omes .+et+e" #n !((ice" is "inci#$ !" in(e"i!")

/"esident0s A!intent /!.e"

/orrison v) Olson $=>@@%

• 3thi!s of ov(t A!t authoriGes a federal !ourt of appeals to appoint a spe!ial prose!utor

$independent !ounsel% to investigate allegations of wrongdoing b" high offi!ials

• Court upheld the statute, finding the independent !ounsel an inferior offi!er who !ould be

appointed b" one of the !ourts of law rather than the President

• Ct) did not la" down a general test for identif"ing an inferior offi!er, but relied on

following fa!torso She was removable b" A for Dgood !auseF

o Limited duties, &urisdi!tion, and tenure $end at !on!lusion of !ase%

• S!alia -issent 7 this will take awa" the lo"alt" of e+e!utive offi!ers

/"esident0s Re!v#$ /!.e"

/"ers v) #S $=>2J% 7 Congress !annot limit the President(s removal power without violating Art)88

• Pres) tried to fire postmaster' Congress tried to tell him he !ouldn(t without advi!e

!onsent of Senate• Pres) needs power to fire to be able to fulfill his !onstitutional dut" to take Care the Laws

be faithfull" e+e!uted

• Congress tried to give itself the power of removal over President(s power of removal

$aggrandiGement% instead of limiting the President(s power to remove for spe!ifi! reasons9umphre"(s 3+e!utor v) #S $=>2I% 7 Ct) limited the power it has established for the Pres) in/"ers upheld the restri!tion Congress pla!ed on President(s removal power b5! here, Congresswas establishing !riteria rather than taking awa" power as in /"ers


8/38



• .oosevelt tried to fire 6*C Chairman b5! he didn(t agree with some of the ?ew -eal

programs

• Court held that the statutor" removal4for4!ause provision was a !onstitutionall" proper

limit on the President(s removal power)

• Court attempted to de!ide removal power based on whether offi!er was purel" or uasi4

e+e!utive5 legislative5 &udi!ial' but, this anal"sis was e+pli!itl" abandoned in /orrison v)Olson

Fi"st ;uesti!n is it !:#& (!" C!ng"ess t! $iit t+e /"es10s !.e" in t+#t situ#ti!n?

Sec!nd ;uesti!n is .+et+e" t+e"e is c#use t! (i"e? Assuing /"es1 +#s t+e !.e" t! (i"e,

.+en d! t+e ci"cust#nces exist .+en +e c#n?

• When he is a!ting outside of his power, e+er!ising power he does not have, this would be

an abuse of his power .+en #n !((ice" is #cting !utside !( t+e !.e" C!ng"ess

g"#nted t! +i1

• W+#t #3!ut .+en t+e !((ice" is #cting .it+in +is !.e", 3ut /"es1 d!esn0t $i:e .+#t

+e0s d!ing?

o -oes not alwa"s !onstitute !ause when the Pres) sa"s he disagrees with the

offi!er(s power)• I( d!ing s!et+ing t+#t is n!t necess#"i$& !utside +is !.e") dut&, 3ut t+#t #ct is

c"iin#$, t+is is c#use t! "e!ve1

• Fi"ing 3)c /"es1 .#nts t! "!ve # !$itic#$ !int usuall" Congress restri!ts the power

of the Pres) to fire for this reason) Still, politi!s itself ma" a!t to restrain a!tion)

• A!tuall" ver" little !ase law itself on what !onstitutes !ause)

• 3+ President would not be able to fire 6CC Chair for refuses to revoke a li!ense granted

to *N station b5! he thinks the *N station runs programs tat are depraved)

• 3+ Congress !annot interfere with President(s order to A to den" as"lum and order

deportation b5! President is worried about straining relations with .ussia) President hasthe power to do basi!all" whatever he wants in foreign affairs so President !ould

probabl" fire A here without Congress stopping him)• 3+ 8.S Comm(r !an be fired b" President at his will and Congress !annot stop him)

• Other than AG & IRS Comm’r, President typically is limited to firing for good cause or

statutes creating the agencies are silent on the issue

LEGISLATIVE C4NTR4L 4F AGENCIES

8?S v) Chadha $=>@%

• Congress had !reated the 8mmigration and ?ationalit" A!t whi!h allowed a de!ision b"

the A suspending deportation of alien to be nullified b" vote of either 9ouse ofCongress $reserving the power to itself to veto the suspension%)

• Court held that the !ne +!use vet! vi!$#tes 3ic#e"#$is #nd "esentent $Art) 8, B

of the Constitution%)o Congress took a!tion that had the purpose and effe!t of altering the legal rights,

duties, and relations of persons, in!luding A, 3+e!utive :ran!h offi!ials, andChadha, all outside the legislati!e branch)

o Congress !an delegate legislative authorit" to the Pres), but when delegates to

itself, it must have parti!ipation of the Pres)

• White -issent 7 ?ot !on!erned with order)

@


9/38



• Without legislative veto, if Congress does not like how the Pres) enfor!es the law, the"

!an either den" mone", or !hange the law) *hen, Pres) !an veto their new legislation andCongress needs 25 ma&orit" to !hange law)

Congress !annot make appointments to the agen!ies itself $:u!kle" v) Naleo%, but it !an setualifi!ations for various offi!es):owsher v) S"nar $=>@J%

• Statute re balan!ing budget) Congress sets "earl" limits and the Comptroller eneral

de!ides what to !ut) C is appointed b" the Pres) with the advi!e !onsent of theSenate, and removable onl" b" Congress)

• C!ng"ess +#s n! !.e" t! "e!ve #genc& !((ici#$s1 *he powers vested in the C

violate the Constitution 7 C is a legislative offi!er, but might be reuired to performe+e!utive fun!tions in his role under this A!t) 9e !annot !arr" out those responsibilitiesunder the threat of a !ongressional ouster)

o ramm4.udman49ollings A!t would reuire C to make a!ross the board

redu!tions in the federal budget if Congress and the Pres) !ould not agree on poli!ies that would hold federal budget defi!its down to a spe!ified target figure

o

Congress !annot remove an e+e!utive offi!ial e+!ept for impea!hable offenses)o *his holding ensured that one or more ele!ted offi!ials would ultimatel" be

a!!ountable for making the politi!al !hoi!es about how mu!h to fund various programs)

• Stevens Con!ur 7 Congress would not do this work itself and so should not delegate it to

the C, a legislative offi!ial)

• White -issent 7 the !ourt is taking the Constitution out of !onte+t) Congressional

removal power serves to make the C independent)

• :ottom line C!ng"ess c#n de$eg#te 3!und$ess disc"eti!n t! #gencies, 3ut it c#nn!t

de$eg#te $egis$#tive !.e"s t! s!e!ne !ve" .+! it exe"cises s!e c!nt"!$, even i( it

is de$eg#ting its !.n !.e"1

Clinton v) ?K $=>>@%) Line 8tem Neto)• Statute gives the Pres) the power to !arve out !ertain portions of a bill after it has been

passed with restri!tions =% -is!retionar" spending, 2% ?ew dire!t spending, % Limitedta+ benefits)

• uidan!e

o Considerations Pres) must !onsider Legislative histor"' purposes of the A!t' and

other relevant information and must determine

• -eterminations

o Will it redu!e the federal budget defi!it

o Will it impair essential gov(tal fun!tions

o Will it harm national interests

•*hen, he must transmit the spe!ial message to Congress

• 9olding 7 Court held the statute un!onstitutional) 8t does not follow the !onstitutional

framework for passing a statute) After all this, the :ill is no longer the te+t that Congressapproved)

o *his is similar to if , then make up "our mind what to do instead of if , then K

troubling b5! it transfers the true power of the legislature)

o Court !omes !lose to sa"ing it is an unlawful delegation, but limits its holding)

• Menned" Con!ur 7 SOP issue' worried about individual liberties and prote!tions)

>


10/38



• S!alia Con!ur in part -issent in part 7 6inds it as an e+e!utive fun!tion) -oes not

violate the Presentment Clause' real issue is whether Congress(s authoriGing the Pres) to!an!el an item of spending gives him a power that our traditions show must reside in thelegislative bran!h)

• :re"er -issent 7 Atta!ks the te+tual argument of the !ourt' mini4bill theor")

3+ Congress !reates a biGarre stru!ture for overseeing airports in -C) What are wa"s to atta!kthe de!ision<

• Chadha La!k of presentment'

o *he a!tion taken b" the review board must be legislative for Chadha to appl"'

*est is whether something alters the legal rights and duties of those outside thelegislative bran!h 7 this is an eas" test to satisf" $!an !hara!teriGe an"thing aslegislative%)

• /orrison Appointment problem for :oard of .eview

o Can Congress vest appointment power< *est is whether its an inferior or

prin!iple offi!ers)

• /"ers :owsher .emoval !hallenge

o Who has authorit" to remove members of the board $the statue doesn(t mentionremoval authorit"%<

o 8f Congress had the authorit" to remove offi!ers that have e+e!utive power, there

is a removal problem $violates /"ers and :owsher 7 C93CM *98S O#*%

• S!hor SOP problem b5! the" are allowed to delegate to the C6*C<

o What is the limitation on Congressional authorit" to delegate &udi!ial power<

*est is whether it is &udi!ial business being done 7 if so, then must be taken toArt) 888 !ourt)

THE E>ERCISE 4F ADMINISTRATIVE /4WER

THE FUNDAMENTAL /R4CEDURAL CATEG4RIES

.ule4making v) Ad&udi!ationLondoner v) -enver $=>0@% 7 He#"ing #& 3e c!nstituti!n#$$& "e;ui"ed (!" #genc&#d-udic#ti!n

• -enver made improvements on land and wanted to raise propert" ta+es for those who

benefited' Cit" did not provide noti!e and held no hearings for the landowners

• Ct) held that the !it" had to afford ea!h landowner a hearing4 when a small, individuall"4

identifiable group of people impa!ted) Agenc& c#n n!t d! s!et+ing t! #((ect"!e"t& .it+!ut # +e#"ing 3)c t+e& #"e n!t e$ected@ $egis$#tu"e c#n "#ise t#xes .)!

+e#"ing 3)c t+e& #"e e$ected1

:i4/etalli! 8nvestment Co) v) State :d) of 3ualiGation of Colorado $=>=I% 7 N! +e#"ingc!nstituti!n#$$& "e;ui"ed (!" #genc& RM

•

Ct) held that #c"!ss t+e 3!#"d inc"e#se in "!e"t& t#xes .#s n!t # vi!$#ti!n !( due"!cess1

• A large number of people were affe!ted' it would be too burdensome to have hearings for

ever"one) Politi!al pro!ess is the alternative)

• *his do!trine4 limiting due pro!ess rights in ./ 7 has been repeatedl" reaffirmed in

modern de!isions)

• -istinguished from Londoner4 small number of people affe!ted there' e+!eptionall"

affe!ted' on individual grounds

=0


11/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200-espite the fa!t that these !ases are e+amples of A-1 ./, the" provide little guidan!e on thedifferen!e between A-1 ./) :ut, take the two !ases together and see fa!tors that emerge thatma" help determine whether a hearing is reuired $fa!tors that we !ame up with, not laid out b"the !ourt%

• Who makes the de!ision

• Who is affe!ted b" the de!ision 7 general fa!ts about the population that de!ision is based

on v) parti!ulariGed fa!ts spe!ifi! to that person

• Prospe!tive v) .etrospe!tive 7 legislation looks to the future $rules% v) &udi!ial inuir"

looks to the past $orders%

• /aking law5poli!" v) Appl"ing law5poli!"

Agen!ies =% 8ssue .ules' 2% Ad&udi!ate Confli!tsA/A Designed t! 3e # st#tut!"& ("#e.!": (!" .+#t #gencies c#n d!

• An indi!ation to !ourts that Congress intended agen!ies to have !ertain powers

• APA distinguishes b5t ./ A-1 b" defining ./ and then, stating that ever"thing else is

A-1o -raws the distin!tion b5t whether the de!ision has prospe!tive or retroa!tive

effe!t• B II= -efinitions

o $;% Ru$e 7 the whole or a part of an agen!" statement of general or parti!ular

appli!abilit" and future effe!t designed to implement, interpret, or pres!ribe lawor poli!" or des!ribing the organiGation, pro!edure, or pra!ti!e reuirements ofan agen!" and in!ludes the approval or pres!ription for the future of rates, wages,!orporate or finan!ial stru!tures or reorganiGation thereof, pri!es, fa!ilities,applian!es, servi!es or allowan!es thereof or of valuations, !osts, or a!!ounting,or pra!ti!es bearing on an" of the foregoing'

o $I% Ru$e #:ing 7 agen!" pro!ess for formulating, amending, or repealing a

rule'o $J% 4"de" 7 the whole or a part of a final disposition, whether affirmative,

negative, in&un!tive, or de!larator" in form, of an agen!" in a matter other than./ but in!luding li!ensing'

o $% Ad-udic#ti!n 7 agen!" pro!ess for the formulation of an order

• B II In(!"#$ RM

o Sets out three reuirements of ./ =% ?oti!e 7 published in 6ederal .egister

$b%' 2% Opportunit" for interested persons to !omment5 parti!ipate $!%' %Statement from the agen!" on what the rule a!tuall" is $noti!e, this means, !rosse+amination, dis!over", impartial &udge, et!) not reuired here%

o When a statute reuires the rules to be made on the re!ord after opportunit" for

an agen!" hearing, then B IIJ B II appl" instead of this se!tion i)e), B IIJ

B II appl" to F!"#$ RM

RM AD%UDIn(!"#$ BB ?o se!tion of APA that tells "ou

what "ou get, even though thisis probabl" the most !ommont"pe of pro!edure agen!ies do'So, one possibilit" is 4t+e"St#tutes, BBB


12/38



sends &!u t+e"e=

Nermont Kankee ?u!lear Power Corp) v) ?.-C $=>@%

• T+e c!u"t c#nn!t i!se #dditi!n#$ "!cedu"es !n #n #genc& 3e&!nd t+!se in t+e

A/A, c!nstituti!n#$ c!nst"#ints, !" ext"ee$& c!e$$ing ci"cust#nces@ Congressintended that the dis!retion of agen!ies determine what additional pro!edural devi!es beemplo"ed

• Statute reuires utilit" to obtain two permits from agen!" for !onstru!tion of nu!lear

plant' Agen!" was authoriGed to use informal ./ in issuing this kind of rule, but it hadvoluntaril" held an oral hearing at whi!h witnesses were uestioned b" agen!"representatives) -C Cir!uit held agen!" violated due pro!ess b5! it did not allowsuffi!ient !ross4e+amination dis!over"' S) Ct) reversed)

• 3+!ept in e+tremel" rare !ir!umstan!es, !ourts ma" not for!e agen!ies to utiliGe ./

pro!edures be"ond those pres!ribed in the APA or other statutor" or !onstitutional provisions

o Courts still have the abilit", of !ourse, to engage in rigorous review of the

substan!e of agen!" ./ a!tivities $Dhard lookF review%

•N!te* A/A is # iniu #nd, t+us, it d!es n!t dis$#ce !t+e" st#tutes1 I( #n!t+e"st#tute "e;ui"es !"e t+#n t+e A/A, t+en #genc& ust (!$$!. t+#t !t+e" st#tute1

F4RMAL AD%UDICATI4N

.euirements of APA=) ?oti!e of the spe!ifi! !harge $B II;$b%%2) Abilit" to present eviden!e $dis!over" to some degree% $B IIJ$d%%) .ight to !ross4e+amination $B IIJ$d%%;) 8mpartial &udge $B II;$d% B IIJ$b%%I) Counsel $B III%J) Opportunit" for argument $to shape the fa!ts as best we !an% $B IIJ$d%%) On4the4re!ord $B IIJ$e%%

@) Statement of the de!ision $B II$!%%>) .eview' appeal opportunit" $B II$b%%

6*C v) Cement 8nstitute $=>;@%

• Cement !arriers a!!used of multiple basing point s"stem of pri!ing, whi!h is against fair

!ompetition' 6*C previousl" issued publi! reports and given testimon" in Congress!on!luding that this s"stem violated antitrust laws $.espondents !laim impermissible bias%

• Ct) upheld the agen!" order against 8nstitute) C!ng"ess0 ve"& u"!se +#s 3een t!

est#3$is+ #n exe"t #genc& .+ic+ c!u$d eng#ge in 3!t+ "e!"ting #nd #d-udic#tive

(uncti!ns1

• Court was also !on!erned that a rigid approa!h to disualifi!ation would mean

that no administrative tribunal would be able to ad&udi!ate the !ase Drule ofne!essit"F 7 an ad&udi!ator should not be disualified if the !ase !ould not beheard otherwise

• #nlike Art) 888 !ourts, agen!" is both the prose!utor and the de!ision4maker

Armstrong v) C6*C $=>>%

• Court held that agen!" de!ision did not !ompl" with B II$!% of APA stating that the

AL1 de!ision was Dsubstantiall" !orre!tF was insuffi!ient adoption of the opinion b" the

=2


13/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200agen!"' ambiguous affirman!e and va!ation of theor" whi!h results in the absen!e offindings

• Su#"& #((i"#ti!n !( #$$ !" #"t !( #n AL%0s !ini!n ust $e#ve n! guess.!":

"eg#"ding .+#t #genc& #d!ted1 Agen!" must either affirm AL1 de!ision !ompletel" or write its own de!ision

*he Problem of Ex /#"te C!nt#cts arise more freuentl" in agen!" pro!eedings than in !ourt

trials) One reason is that the bulk of agen!" de!isions are made through informal a!tion, orthrough publi! pro!eedings like noti!e4and4!omment ./ where e+ parte !onta!ts ma" be not &ust permissible but affirmativel" desirable)

• B II$d%$=% 7 prohibits an" interested person outside the agen!" from making, or

knowingl" !ausing, an" e+ parte !ommuni!ation relevant to the merits of the pro!eedingto an" de!ision4making offi!ial $a!ts as a signifi!ant !onstraint on politi!al interventioninto formal A-1 b" the legislative and e+e!utive bran!hes%

• Also prohibits someone from inside the agen!" from influen!ing the de!ision4maker

• When an e+ parte !ommuni!ation o!!urs, the APA reuires that it be pla!ed on the publi!

re!ord

• Professional Air *raffi! Controllers Org) v) 6L.A $=>@2% 7 !ourt found e+ parte !onta!twas illegal but did not overturn the 6L.A(s order b5! the dis!ussion of PA*CO(s situationhad been brief, the labor leader had made no threats or promises, and the !onversationhad not affe!ted the out!ome of the !ase

• Portland Audubon So!iet" v) *he 3ndangered Spe!ies Comm) $=>>% 7 !ourt remanded

!ase in whi!h e+ parte !onta!t b" White 9ouse aides had allegedl" indu!ed agen!" toallow logging b" timber !ompanies in Oregon forests, despite risks to a spe!ies of spottedowl

o 8n effe!t, the !ourt is finding that the President is sub&e!t to B II$d%$=%(s

prohibition against e+ parte !ommuni!ations

• Pillsbur" Co) v) 6*C $=>JJ% 7 6*C remanded antitrust !ase to AL1 for further hearings'

several senators were !riti!al of the ruling at a !ongressional oversight hearing shortl"

afterwards'o Chairman disualified himself when !ase returned to !ommission, but !ourt still

held that entire agen!" was disualified

o *he !ongressional pressure had so interfered with the agen!"(s pro!ess of

de!ision that the respondent !ould not get a fair hearing

o *he Pillsbur" do!trine, !odified in B II$d%, has be!ome well established

INF4RMAL RM4 the default rule' formal ./ is the e+!eption and it reuires a dis!ussion onthe re!ord with a hearing BB .euires noti!e, !omment, and a !on!ise general statement of basis purpose

• ?oti!e B II$b% 7 rules published in the 6ed) .egister $unless individual is personall"

served or has a!tual noti!e%o :efore an agen!" !onsiders giving noti!e of a rule, it must

-etermine whether a rule is needed

Colle!t data' do studies

-etermine whether the rule is feasibl" enfor!eable

-etermine whether the agen!" !an e+pe!t !omplian!e

-etermine whether there will be resistan!e to the rule

Consider politi!al !onstituen!ies

=


14/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200o $b% lists what needs to be published in the 6. $=% a statement of time and pla!e

and nature of ./ pro!eedings' $2% referen!e to the legal authorit" under whi!hthe rule is proposed' $% Deither the terms or substan!e of the proposed rule or ades!ription of the sub&e!ts and issues involvedF

$% seems to be sa"ing that the agen!" !an &ust list the sub&e!ts it is

!onsidering rather than spe!ifi! terms 7 !ourts have tended to ignore thisse!tion, sa"ing that it would be unfair to read it this wa"

• Comment B II$!% 7 opportunit" for those interested to !omment

• Con!ise eneral Statement on .ule(s :asis Purpose B III$!% 7 wh" the rule is being

promulgated' does not have to be long

• -ue Pro!ess APA allows for noti!e and !omment but does not go as far as Londoner

$no right to a hearing or dire!t noti!e%

• 3+empt from B II

o /ilitar" foreign affairs fun!tions

o /atters relating to agen!" management or personnel or to publi! propert", loans,

grants, benefits, or !ontra!tso Also, when agen!" for good !ause finds that noti!e and publi! pro!edure are

impra!ti!able, unne!essar", or !ontrar" to the publi! interest

?.-C v) 3PA $2002%

• *his was a !hallenge to the noti!e given b5! the final rule that was announ!ed did not

emerge from the noti!e that was given)

• *he !ourt found the noti!e and !omment period that the 3PA was inadeuate b5! it did

not afford interested parties the opportunit" to !omment t+e st#nd#"d (!" deciding

.+et+e" # "u$e +#d "!e" n!tice is .+et+e" inte"ested #"ties "e#s!n#3$& c!u$d

+#ve #ntici#ted t+e (in#$ RM ("! t+e d"#(t

o *he final rule must be a logi!al outgrowth of the proposed rule on whi!h the

agen!" soli!ited !omments $Cho!olate /anufa!turers Ass(n v) :lo!k 7 9O Q%

• Courts are onl" !on!erned when agen!ies adopt the e+a!t opposite of what the" give

noti!e about' if Congress does this, then it(s ok

#S v) ?ova S!otia 6ood Produ!ts Corp) $=>%

• 6-A issued rule that governed smoking of all fish' the rule was a problem for whitefish

b5! it destro"ed it to !ook it at that high a temperature

• Court found the 6-A in violation of the APA b5!

o *he re!ord was inadeuate b5! the" failed to make a ke" s!ientifi! stud"

available to potential !ommenterso Statement of basis and purpose was not adeuate b5! it did not address possible

alternatives 4 it did not deal with !ommer!ial feasibilit"' the industr" hadalternatives and it did not a!knowledge wh" the standard was the wa" it was

• '#sis (#ctu#$ #ssuti!ns unde"$&ing # "!!sed "u$e ust 3e #de #v#i$#3$e (!"

c!ent 3& inte"ested #"ties n!. # "inci$e t+#t is "eg#"ded #s i$ied 3&

BB


15/38



• W+i$e t+e #genc& need n!t discuss eve"& (#ct !" !ini!n inc$uded in c!ents, t!

#:e -udici#$ "evie. e#ning(u$ it ust en#3$e t+e "evie.ing c!u"t t! see @%

• Se!) of *ransportation issued a rule that allowed tankers subsidiGed to work in foreign

transport to be used in domesti! trade if the" repaid their subsid")

• Challenge4 rule was arbitrar" and !apri!ious

• 9olding eneral e+planation of the rule was inadeuate' rule is A5C and therefore

invalid) -id not adeuatel" address $although it does offer an e+planation%o Con!ern with national se!urit"

o Whether it leaves an Ameri!an /er!hant marine that !an bear a substantial

portion for #S !ommer!e and import5e+porto C!ncise gene"#$ st#teent ust indic#te #-!" issues !( !$ic& "#ised in

"!ceedings #nd ex$#in .+& t+e #genc& decided t! "es!nd t! issues #s it

did in light of the statutory objectives that the rule must serve

9:O v) 6CC $=>%

=I


16/38



• Court held that on!e an agen!" gives noti!e it is making a rule, then it !an no longer have

an" e+ parte !onta!ts $before the formal announ!ement of the rule, e+ parte !onta!ts areok%

• Court has since de!iated greatly from this rule to a more lenient one regarding e" parte

contacts #and in fact, encourages them$

#nited Steelworkers of Am) v) /arshall $=>@0%

• C!u"ts #"e ve"& $enient in e"itting #genc& +e#ds t! c!nsu$t ("ee$& .it+ t+ei" !.n

st#((s

• Conta!ts were between OS9A and some !onsultants it hired to anal"Ge the re!ord of a

./ pro!eeding establishing permissible levels of worker e+posure to airborne leado ?othing bars staff advo!ate from advising the de!ision4maker in setting a final

rule $also NK militated against additional pro!edural reuirements%

o 9eld !onsultants as the fun!tional euivalent of agen!" staff, even though the

!onsultants had earlier appeared as witnesses in the pro!eeding

Sierra Club v) Costle $=>@=%

• Ex #"te c!nt#cts du"ing in(!"#$ RM #"e n!t !n$& e"issi3$e, 3ut #((i"#tive$&desi"#3$e

o *hus, the President meddle in and have an influen!e in informal ./

o Agen!" still has to &ustif" its de!ision on the basis of the !omments made and it

has to respond to signifi!ant !on!erns raised b" the !ommenters

• Conta!ts were between 3PA and !oal4fired power plant industr" representatives regarding

rules governing air pollutiono ?o risk that agen!" will be influen!ed b" undis!losed information b5! the

underl"ing statute reuired 3PA to &ustif" its rule on the basis of a publi!l"available administrative re!ord

EVEN9M4RE9INF4RMAL RM

Gene"#$ st#teents !( !$ic&4 speaks prospe!tivel" about how an agen!" plans to pro!eed in thefuture' gives possible options of how it might pro!eed in light of new interpretations' do not havethe for!e of law

• *hese are distin!t from substantive rules5legislative rules b5! reuire noti!e and !omment

but interpretive rules do not

• Su3st#ntive "u$es has the for!e and effe!t of law' people have to follow it' if it were

offered in litigation against "ou, it would be !learl" binding on "ou

• Inte""etive "u$es is fairl" en!ompassed in set statute or rule itself' if it is offered

during litigation to prove "ou(ve done something wrong, "ou ma" or ma" not be helda!!ountable b5! does not have the for!e of law

• 9andout Q @ 3+ W#s t+e #genc& .#s "e;ui"ed t! g! t+"!ug+ t+e n!tice #nd c!ent

e"i!d?o What t"pe of effe!t does the new rule' letter' statement have on the people

targeted b" the rule 7 does it impose new rights duties< 3 v) 3PA 7 if reasonable person would !on!lude it is legall" binding

$has the for!e of law%, then it !an be interpreted as a new rule 8f "ou are !hanging, modif"ing, et!) on a pre4e+isting poli!", "ou have to

go through noti!e !omment' but if new interpretation is merel" providing guidan!e for an old rule, "ou !an probabl" &ust do it

=J


17/38



• 3+ A*AA v) 6AA 7 DWhitlowF letter was 6AA(s interpretation

of its own regulation does not impose Dnew rights or dutiesFand, therefore, does not reuire noti!e and !omment period

o 9ow does the agen!" interpret it(s own rule $as binding or not%<

And, if agen!"(s own view of what the" issue is that it has binding effe!t,

then this is important in determining whether a !ourt will see it as binding on an individual' thus, reuiring noti!e !ommento -oes the rule seem to give broad dis!retion to the agen!" to enfor!e5 !arr" out its

ob&e!tives< 8f so, the !ourt will more likel" read it as being towards the substantive

end of the spe!trum $e+ if language reads agen!" ma" Dreasonabl"reuireF 7 there is broad dis!retion for agen!" to determine what isreasonabl" reuired%

o -id the agen!" invoke the g!!d c#use exceti!n<

Agen!" !an onl" invoke this as &ustifi!ation for no noti!e and !omment

period $=% where it would be impra!ti!able' $2% against publi! interest'or $% unne!essar")

3+ :ab" -oe !ase $parents refused to !onsent to surger" and bab" died'agen!" issued final rule w5o noti!e !omment that .ehabilitation A!treuired hospitals not to dis!riminatel" !are for handi!apped infants% 7!ourt eventuall" found the e+!eption does ?O* appl"

• One problem was that gov(t first tried to argue that the Dinterim

final ruleF did not have the for!e of law' then tried to argue thatit did, but that good !ause e+!eption applied b5! babies wered"ing

8n pra!ti!e, when a !ourt upholds an agen!" rule under good !ause

e+!eption, it will often state that rule only e"ists as long as emergency situation e"ists and then re%uire notice & comment period afterards

F4RMAL RULEMA5ING

#S v) 6la) 3ast Coast .w") Co) $=>% 7 c"e#ted # st"!ng "esuti!n in (#v!" !( in(!"#$"u$e#:ing 4 limiting due pro!ess rights in rulemaking b" finding evidentiar" hearingsunne!essar" in 8CC pro!eeding to set uniform nationwide rail !harges

• 6a!ts 8nterstate Commer!e Commission gathered data, presented it to Congress in a

hearing, and then issued an interim report on its plan to adopt in!entive per diem !hargeson standard bo+!ars' 2 .. Cos) reuested hearings and were denied

• 8ssue Whether the words Dma", after hearingF in the 8CA trigger a hearing reuirement

sub&e!t to B IIJ I of APA, or is it &ust sub&e!t to B II<

• 9olding 9earing not reuired b5! the language of 8CA whi!h reads Dafter hearingF does

not rise to level of B IIJ I hearing reuirement, but is instead governed b" B IIo *hus, noti!e and !omment will suffi!e, but a statute does not have to tra!k

verbatim the language of the APA, Don the re!ord after opportunit" for an agen!"hearingF

A!tual words of Don the re!ordF and DafterEhearingF are ?O* terms of

art' thus, the" do not automati!all" trigger a hearing reuiremento A c$e#" ex"essi!n !( c!ng"essi!n#$ intent is necess#"&

• 3+ 9andout > After 6la) 3ast Coast .w"), whi!h of the following trigger formal ./

pro!edures<

=


18/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200o Pre!ise B II$!% language, Don the re!ord after opportunit" for an agen!"

hearingF Kes

o Pre!ise B II$!% language or something similar probabl" but not ne!essaril"'

depends on what the reg) a!tuall" doeso Congress intends that rules for an agen!" should be made a!!ording to APA(s

formal ./ pro!edures

/L*? :ut, B IIJ$d% still provides the out 7 if written submissions do not

pre&udi!e the part", the agen!" ma" adopt pro!edures for all or part of theeviden!e to be submitted in written form

o Congress b" statute grants agen!" ./ powers !on!erning sub&e!ts for whi!h

formal hearings would be useful fair, and provides agen!" must hold a hearing not ne!essaril"' depends on what the regulation does

o Congress b" statute grants ./ powers !on!erning sub&e!ts for whi!h formal

hearings would be useful fair definitel" not' does not matter that hearings

would be useful fair, if Congress does not reuire a hearing in the language,then !ourts will not reuire one

INF4RMAL AD%UDICATI4N

Sea!oast Anti4Pollution League v) Costle $=>@%

• 6a!ts ?9 Publi! Serv) Co) wanted a permit e+empting them from 3PA standard whi!h,

under 6WPCA, is granted if Co) !an demonstrate after a hearing that 3PA standards aretoo stri!t

• 8ssue whether formal A-1 reuirements of APA $B IIJ I% are triggered for

pro!eedings held pursuant to 6WPCA even though both statutes provide for a publi!hearing but do not state that the" must be on the re!ord

o ?ote B II; applies here and not B II b5! this is not a rule that is being

promulgated but an agen!" pro!ess for formulating an order' 6WPCA B =J isa li!ensing under B II=$J%, triggering B II;

• 9olding Agen!" must hold hearings even though the e+a!t words Don the re!ordF were

not in the statute) *his is e+a!tl" the t"pe of uasi4&udi!ial pro!eeding for whi!h the A-1 pro!edures of the APA were intended b5! onl" t+e "ig+ts !( t+e seci(ic #$ic#nt .i$$3e #((ected #nd it is n!t gene"#$ !$ic& #:ing)

o Administrator !an soli!it and rel" on eviden!e provided from outside the re!ord

of de!ision, but t+e !!"tunit& t! su3it ."itten d!cuents d!es n!tc!nstitute # +e#"ing

o BB


19/38



Chemi!al Waste /anagement, 8n!) v) 3PA $=>@>%

• #se of a Dpubli! hearingF reuires a formal APA A-1 onl" if the hearings in uestion

!ould lead to a !ivil penalt" or interferen!e with the right to !ontinue operations

• 9olding n! $!nge" # "esuti!n !( (!"#$ (!" AD%' must do Chevron anal"sis $give

deferen!e to agen!" and determine if agen!" interpretation of statute is reasonable% 7!ourt !on!ludes here that it is

o *his means that informal A-1 will take pla!e if the agen!" de!ides it should 7

t+e #genc& gets t! s#& .+#t 6#(te" # +e#"ing7 e#ns #nd .+en it t"igge"s

(!"#$ AD% s! $!ng #s C!ng"ess +#s n!t "!vided (!" it ex$icit$&

Pension :enefit uarant" Corp) v) L*N Corp) $=>>0%

• *his !ase sa"s the same thing for A-1 as NK did for ./ 7 if "ou are on the informal side

of the !hart, the !ourt !annot &ust make up reuirements for agen!ies be"ond the APA

• 8ssue whether APA reuires the same pro!edures for informal A-1 as it does for formal

• 9olding N!, #s $!ng #s #genc& (!$$!.s ini#$ "e;ui"eents !( BBB, t+e c!u"t

c#nn!t i!se #dditi!n#$ "e;ui"eents@ VY0s #"!#c+ t! t+e A/A #$ies t! c#ses

!( in(!"#$ AD%

CH4ICE 4F /4LICY9MA5ING M4DE

• APA does not tell agen!" whether to implement rules5regs) b" ./ or A-1) 8n !hoosing the

most sensible wa" for agen!ies to pro!eed, agen!ies will look at a few different fa!torsfairness, effi!ien!", ualit", and politi!al a!!ountabilit"

RM AD%

F#i"ness Seems more fair' Countervailing argument/a" not be as fair to smaller number ofindividuals who are most adversel"

affe!ted' Also, making a rule as a slap onthe wrist for the person violating it ma" not be punishment enough for what the" did'RProvides affe!ted parties with !learernoti!e of what !ondu!t is permissible'avoids the widel" disparate temporal impa!tof agen!" poli!" de!isions made through adho! ad&udi!ation' allows all potentiall"affe!ted segments of the publi! to parti!ipate in the pro!ess of determining therules that will affe!t their lives

/ore unfair $but !ould argue the"should have known through initialrun in with agen!" what agen!"

wanted%'Countervailing argument /a" &ust be better to have an ad&udi!ation insome situations b5! small number of persons involved ma" demand anad&)

E((icienc& Seems more effi!ient b5! "ou don(t have to

relitigate ever" time "ou bring anenfor!ement a!tion against someone'Countervailing argument /a" be morediffi!ult to a!tuall" set the rule b5! have togo through !ertain steps and pro!edure toset up rule'RAvoids needless !ost and dela" of findinglegislative fa!ts through trial4t"pe pro!edures' eliminates the need to relitigate

/a"be less effi!ient b5! ea!h time,

!ar manufa!turer !an sa" the" didn(tsee that as the rule' Countervailingargument /a" be easier to set a ruleor poli!" through ad&udi!ation $b"taking a relativel" small a!tion toestablish a poli!"%

=>


20/38



poli!" issues in the !onte+t of disputes withno material differen!es in ad&udi!ative fa!ts'"ields mu!h !learer rules that !an bee+tra!ted from a de!ision resolving aspe!ifi! dispute

Ku#$it&)

/!$ic&

6o!us on true reason and meaning behind poli!" makes for better ualit"'Countervailing argument :ut might get aworse rule b5! perhaps the agen!" is!aptured b" the individuals affe!ted b" the bill $e)g), auto manufa!turers% who set therule their wa"'R8nvites broad parti!ipation in the pro!ess b" all affe!ted entities and groups andfor!es agen!" to fo!us on broad effe!ts ofits poli!" rather than idios"n!rati!ad&udi!ative fa!ts, p) IJI

Sometimes fa!t spe!ifi! nature of itma" mean that poli!" $meaning ofthe poli!" and reason for it% isdetra!ted from b" fo!us on spe!ifi!fa!ts'Countervailing argument Sometimeshaving fa!t spe!ifi! inuir" makes it better b5! "ou see how rule respondsto spe!ifi! individual situations$more nuan!ed ma" be better ualit"%

/!$itic#$

Acc!unt9

#3i$it&

Congress Pres) !an bull" AL1 all the"want, in !onte+t of e+ parte !onta!ts but

the point of this is to enhan!e politi!ala!!ountabilit" b5! we !an de!ide to vote forCongress or Pres) on basis of how the"for!e agen!ies to make poli!" de!isions' ?oti!e to world at large and opportunit" forever"one to !omment and to e+tent we have politi!al a!tors, the" are the ones we votefor

3asier to bur" a poli!" &mt) in anad&udi!ation b5! "ou !an alwa"s sa"that "ou are onl" de!iding the !aseon the fa!ts given and not setting poli!", although all !armanufa!turers are sent a message' Of !ourse, hauling a biggie into !ourtwill be in the news media andin!rease publi! attention, so will bemade a!!ountable

TT Kuesti!n (!" t+e c!u"ts is !(ten .+et+e" t+e #genc& +#s # c+!ice in +!. t! "!ceed, 3utc!u"ts d! n!t decide +!. t+e #genc& s+!u$d "!ceed1

Some basi!s

• Poli!" 7 ./ if issue affe!ts an entire industr"' A-1 if the fa!ts are going to !hange over

time

• 3ffi!ien!" 7 ./ if there are going to be multiple !hallenges to it' A-1 if more !hallenges

seem unlikel" b5! it is pre!edent setting

• Politi!al A!!ountabilit" 7 ./ gets more attention of the legislator if its bungled, but A-1

gets more attention of the legislator in general

• 6airness 7 ./ if it is eual a!ross the board' A-1 if it applies retroa!tivel"

S3C v) Chener" Corp) $=>;% 7 # "evie.ing c!u"t #& !n$& #((i" !n t+e 3#sis given 3& t+e#genc& (!" t+e "u$e 3)c !n$& t+e #genc& +#s #ut+!"it& t! #:e disc"eti!n#"& dete"in#ti!ns

t+#t C!ng"ess +#s de$eg#ted t! it' #genc& ust decide .+et+e" t! "!ceed 3& RM !" AD%• Chener" 8 7 S) Ct) remanded an S3C order disapproving a !orporate reorganiGation plan

b5! the S3C had reasoned from an in!orre!t legal premises

o Ct) indi!ated it might uphold S3C(s position if the S3C &ustified it on a lawful

basis

• Chener" 88 7 S3C issued a revised opinion and S)Ct) upheld it' #genc& ust c!nst"ue

.+#t t+e st#tute e#ns #nd c!u"ts c#n !n$& "evie. t! #ssu"e t+e #genc& c!nst"ued it

c!nstituti!n#$$&

20


21/38



:ell Aerospa!e Co) v) ?L.: $=>%

• 6a!ts agen!" !ertified a bargaining unit of :ell(s bu"ers, who under previous :oard

poli!" would have been regarded as Dmanagerial emplo"eeF who !ould not be given su!hrights' !o) !hallenged this as going against pre!edent and so, the" should have done itthrough ./ rather than A-1

• 9olding reaffirmed Chener" and stated that t+e '!#"d0s "e(e"ence (!" AD% dese"ved

6g"e#t .eig+t7

o .eversed Ct) App) whi!h was !on!erned with pre!edent

o Also dis!ussed ?L.: v) W"man4ordon Co)

6a!ts ?L.: ordered W4 to provide union organiGers with a list of

names eligible to vote to sele!t a !olle!tive bargaining rep)' W4 arguedit was euivalent to a rule and invalid b5! it had not been adopted ina!!ordan!e with APA ./ pro!edures

9olding !riti!iGed ?L.: for not using ./, but still u+e$d t+ei"

#cti!n 3)c #genc& +#d !"de"ed W9G t! "!duce t+e $ist du"ing # v#$id

AD% "!ceeding, sa"ing agen!" was free to rel" on a prior de!ision as

pre!edent while litigating against subseuent emplo"ees An agen!" ma" develop new poli!ies through A-1, so long as ea!h

person to whom those poli!ies are applied is given an individual right to be heard on the uestion of whether the ?L.: should modif" orabandon its !ase4law DruleF

/RIVATE /ARTIES 2 THE SHA/E 4F THE ADMINISTRATIVE /R4CESS

Considering those the ./ does not name as parties, but who are affe!ted nonetheless

Offi!e of the Communi!ation of the #nited Chur!h of Christ v) 6CC $=>JJ%

• 6a!ts *N station applied for renewal of li!ense' #CC intervened to oppose b5! of ra!ist

!ontent and were dismissed w5o a hearing 7 said that statute dire!ted 6*C to prote!t the

publi! interest and it was not listening to the publi!• 9olding #"ties s+!u$d 3e #$$!.ed t! inte"vene, 3ut c!u"t d!es n!t t"& t! te$$ t+e

#genc& .+ic+ #"ties s+!u$d 3e #$$!.ed t! inte"vene' 6*C must allow standing tomore reps) than the" did

• Sin!e this holding, !ourts have dramati!all" narrowed the rea!h of its holding and, thus,

agen!ies have tremendous dis!retion whether to let groups intervene

9e!kler v) Chane" $=>@I%

• 6a!ts !onvi!ted !riminals on death row petitioned 6-A to review drugs used in human

e+e!utions' 6-A refused !iting &urisdi!tion grounds' petitioners !hallenge the 6-A(sde!ision not to a!t b5! it is supposed to approve drugs onl" if the" are safe and effe!tivefor their intended use

• 8ssue to what e+tent is an agen!"(s de!ision not to undertake !ertain enfor!ement a!tions

sub&e!t to &udi!ial review<

• 9olding "esuti!n !( n!n9"evie.#3i$it& in #genc& n!n9#cti!n


22/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200dis!retion' also, pra!ti!al diffi!ulties that &udi!ial review of nonenfor!ementde!isions !an entail

o When Congress la"s down spe!ifi! guidelines !abining an agen!"(s enfor!ement

dis!retion, the !ourt !an reuire the agen!" to respe!t its legislative mandate

• :rennan Con!ur 7 possible situations when agen!" non4a!tion ma" be reviewable

o Agen!" !laim of no statutor" &urisdi!tion to rea!h !ertain !ondu!t

o Agen!" engages in pattern of non4enfor!ement of !lear statutor" language

o Agen!" refused to enfor!e regulations lawfull" promulgated and in effe!t

o Agen!" non4a!tion violates !onstitutional rights

• /arshall Con!ur 7 Agen!" non4a!tion is reviewable in the absen!e of !lear and

!onvin!ing !ongressional intent to the !ontrar", but agen!" warrants dis!retion whenthere is nothing to suggest an abuse of dis!retion

6armworker 1usti!e 6und, 8n!) v) :ro!k $=>@%

• 6a!ts attempt to get basi! sanitation for farm workers' agen!" de!lared it a low priorit",

eventuall" promulgated rules but then put it on hold' agen!" gives reasons for non4issuan!e

o States are more euipped to regulate their agri!ultural workers Ct) disagrees Congress intended fed) gov(t to take the lead

o 6ed) prohibition regulating farms with less than =0 workers' states !an regulated

small farms so let them do it Ct) wh" would states do it if fed) gov(t won(t< tr"ing to get around what

Congress orderedo States will soon !ome up wit a rule so pre!ludes need for fed) a!tion

Ct) histor" of rule shows that states have not taken a!tion and there is no

reason to think this will !hange

• 9olding Courts !an review la!k of a!tion in this !ase b5! reasons were given' !an look

for abuse of dis!retion 7 this was a !lear statutor" obligation and not dis!retionar"

%UDICIAL REVIEW 4F THE SU'STANCE 4F ADMINISTRATIVE ACTI4N

7 Court !an review $find unlawful set aside% agen!" a!tion, findings, and !on!lusionsthat are

• Arbitrar", !apri!ious, an abuse of dis!retion, or otherwise not in a!!ordan!e with law'

• Contrar" to !onstitutional right, power, privilege, or immunit"'

• 8n !onfli!t with a statute'

• Niolates due pro!ess of law'

• #nsupported b" substantial eviden!e in a !ase sub&e!t to B IIJ I $or otherwise made

formal b" statute%'• #nwarranted b" the fa!ts to the e+tent that the fa!ts are sub&e!t to trial de novo

8n making these determinations, court shall re!ie the hole record or those parts of it !ited b" a part"E

REVIEW 4F FACTUAL DETERMINATI4NS

TT When an agen!"(s legal premises survive &udi!ial s!rutin", the reviewing !ourt must go on to!onsider whether to sustain the agen!"(s fa!tual findings)

22


23/38



#niversal Camera Corp) v) ?L.: $=>I=% 7 su3st#nti#$ evidence "evie. is used i( #genc&decisi!n .#s #de #(te" # t"i#$9t&e, !n9t+e9"ec!"d +e#"ing @;% 7#"3it"#"& 2 c#"ici!us test v1 su3st#nti#$ evidence test

• S!alia observes that differen!e b5t two tests is that in substantial eviden!e review, the

!ourt seeks support for fa!tual findings in the re!ord of a formal hearing, while inarbitrariness review it does not

o *his does not mean that an agen!" needs more fa!tual support to pass one test

than to pass the other

2


24/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200o :ut both tests reall" !ontemplate a standard of reasonableness whi!h no one !an

define with pre!ision

• A"3it"#"& 2 c#"ici!us st#nd#"d 9 #$ies t! RM 3ut #s:s c!u"t t! d! s#e t+ing #s

su3st#nti#$ evidence test t! dete"ine .+et+e" t+e"e is # "e#s!n#3$e 3#sis in t+e

"ec!"d t! sust#in t+e #genc&0s c!nc$usi!n

8n pra!ti!e

• What !onstitutes re!ord of how de!ision4maker makes his de!ision<

o A-1 7 onl" on information offered at the hearing

o ./ 7 own e+pertise, all the !omment submitted, an" thoughts agen!" emplo"ees

had about those !omments $!olle!tive wisdom%, and !an rel" on things notsubmitted to publi! re!ord

• 9ow do "ou &ustif" ea!h wa" of finding<

o A-1 7 all reasons for de!isions are on the re!ord

o ./ 7 re!ord !an in!lude all sorts of things so !ourts will have to be a little more

deferential in ./ b5! have to assume agen!ies are doing things in good faith

'EY4ND THE FACTS* THE 4LD A//R4ACH

?L.: v) 9earst Publi!ations $=>;;% 7 ixed (#ctu#$ 2 $eg#$ dete"in#ti!n

• 8ssue whether newsbo"s were emplo"ees under the ?L. A!t' ?L.: said that the" were

Demplo"eesF

• 9olding S)Ct) agreed, stating that its fun!tion as a reviewing !ourt was limited, b5! the

uestion was one of spe!ifi! appli!ation of a broad statutor" term 7 thus, finding this wasa one of spe!ifi! appli!ation of fa!ts to law and so, for the agen!" to de!ide' #:ingin(e"ences ("! (#cts is t#s: !( t+e #genc& #nd t+e st#nd#"d !( "evie. is !ne !(

"#ti!n#$it& !" "e#s!n#3$eness

Skidmore v) Swift Co) $=>;;% 7 C+ev"!n #$ies t! exe"cises !( $#.#:ing #ut+!"it&


25/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200CitiGens to Preserve Overton Park v) Nolpe $=>=%

• 6a!ts Se!) of *ransportation authoriGed funding for the !onstru!tion of a hw") through a

publi! park' petitioners argued that this violated the 6ed) Aid 9w") A!t whi!h prohibited pro&e!ts reuiring use of parks unless there is Dno feasible and prudent alternativeF$substantive !hallenge% b5! the Se!) failed to make the reuired findings of fa!t thatwould minimiGe harm to the park $pro!edural !hallenge%

• 9oldings

o .eviewabilit" 7 de!ides that petitioners have standing under B 02' presumption

in favor of reviewabilit"

o 6indings 7 when are the" reuired<

• 8nformal ./ 7 some reuirement of making findings

• 6ormal A-1 7 ALWAKS, if de!ision on the re!ord, must give findings

• 6ormal ./ 7 ALWAKS, same as above

• 8nformal A-1 7 reuirement an"time the agen!" denies a petition, must

give statement of reasons $here no denial, so not reuired to give stmt)%

o Standard of review7 !ourt holds that formal findings are reuired here +e$d

t+#t #n in(!"#$ #cti!n, suc+ #s t+e Sec1 !( T"#ns!"t#ti!n0s +.&1 (unding

decisi!n, ust 3e "evie.ed (!" abuse of discretion unde"


26/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200/otor Nehi!le /anufa!turers Ass(n v) State 6arm /utual Auto 8ns) Co) $=>@% 7 #"3it"#"& 2c#"ici!us #nd 6+#"d $!!:7 "evie.

• 6a!ts -O* res!inded rule reuiring the installation of passive restraints in automobiles

and did so b5! industr"(s favored method or meeting the reuirement would notne!essaril" promote safet"

• 9olding Agen!" abused its dis!retion b5! it failed to !onsider the important fa!t that

people who would not bother to fasten their seatbelts might leave self4fastening belts in pla!e and, even if those belts were ineffe!tive, the agen!" did not e+plain wh" it had not!onsidered other alternatives $airbags or nondeta!hable belts% that were both foundeffe!tive b" the agen!" at an earlier date

o An agen!"(s a!tion is not arbitrar" &ust b5! there is no dire!t eviden!e in support

of its !on!lusion, but the #genc& ust ex$#in t+e evidence t+#t is #v#i$#3$e#nd "!vide # "#ti!n#$ c!nnecti!n 3)t t+e (#cts (!und #nd t+e c+!ice #de

o 8n performing Dhard lookF review, the !ourt will find an agen!"(s de!ision

arbitrar" !apri!ious if the agen!" .elied on fa!tors whi!h Congress did not intend for it to !onsider'

3ntirel" failed to !onsider an important aspe!t of the problem'

Offered an e+planation for its de!ision that runs !ounter to the eviden!e before the agen!"'

8s so implausible that it !ould not be as!ribed to a differen!e in view or

the produ!t of agen!" e+pertise

• *his is not reall" like an agen!"(s de!ision not to a!t, b5! to repeal a law does affe!t

individuals' 3!t+ "ee#$ 2 "!u$g#ti!n #"e tested #cc!"ding t! #"3it"#"& 2c#"ici!us st#nd#"d

Chevron v) ?atural .esour!es -efense Counsel $=>@;%

• -ealt with emissions from smoke sta!ks and whether the measure of emissions !ould be

done b" a bubble or if have to measure emissions b" ea!h smoke sta!k' the statutereuired a permit if the emission level went above an a!!eptable amount' 3PA needed to

interpret this• 9olding Court upheld, pres!ribing two inuiries that a reviewing an agen!"(s

!onstru!tion of a statuteo 1 H#s C!ng"ess di"ect$& #dd"essed t+e "ecise ;uesti!n #t issue? I( &es, t+e

c!u"t .!u$d +#ve t! give e((ect t! t+e un#3igu!us$& ex"essed intent !(

C!ng"ess1

On!e !ourt de!ides answer to step =, must still de!ide how mu!h

deferen!e the agen!"(s view deserves pursuant to Chevron 7 !an rel" on plain language of statute to invalidate rule' !an also look at overallstru!ture of statute, related provisions, legislative histor", and underl"ing purpose of statute' !ourts also draw on traditional ma+ims of!onstru!tion

o 1 I( n!t


27/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200 Sometimes even if !lear the answer to step = is no, !ourts will still find

agen!" !learl" negle!ted its statutor" mandate at step =

• 3+ -id the agen!" appl" the legall" permissible fa!tors $listed

b" Congress in the statute%<

• 3+ 3ven if vague in some respe!ts, term ma" still !ontain

enough spe!ifi!it" to !onvin!e a !ourt that a statutor" term!annot possibl" mean what the agen!" !laims it means 'ut, "#ctic#$$& se#:ing, C!ng"ess "#"e$& se#:s .it+ c!$ete

c$#"it& #nd t+us, c!u"ts !(ten "e#c+ ste #nd give #genc&

de(e"ence #s $!ng #s it is "e#s!n#3$e

• Poli!ies supporting the Dgive deferen!e to agen!iesF holding

o Agen!" is familiar with statutes it administers 4 e+pertise

o As unforeseen problems develop in the administration of a !omple+ regulator"

s!heme, the agen!" needs fle+ibilit" if it is to fun!tion effe!tivel"o An agen!" is politi!all" a!!ountable for its !hoi!es the wa" that a !ourt !annot be

be!ause it has ties to the in!umbent administrationo -eferen!e promotes uniformit" in the law

o SOP 7 poli!" de!isions should be made b" politi!al a!tors and so, it is not our &obto make these kinds of de!isions' better to invest in someone who should makethese de!isions

• Wh" is Chevron not in!onsistent with B 0J $whi!h sa"s that a reviewing !ourt will

interpret !onstitutional and statutor" provisions%<o Congress !an alwa"s !hange the APA b" a spe!ifi! statute, so it left this uestion

open for !ourts to de!ide when it should agen!" deferen!e

.ust v) Sullivan $=>>=%

• 6a!ts =>> statute designed to provide federal funding for famil" planning purposes

gave the Se!) authorit" to promulgate regulations to e+e!ute the program and stated thatDnone of the fundsEshall be used in programs where abortion is a method of famil" planningF

o Change from =>@= .egs) whi!h reuired famil" planning programs to dis!uss

abortion' and =>@@ .egs) whi!h disallowed dis!ussion of abortion as an option

• 9olding /a&orit" held that the st#tute is #3igu!us #nd t+us, ust de(e" t! #genc&

#t C+ev"!n ste #nd g! t! ste is #genc& inte""et#ti!n "e#s!n#3$e? Yes1

• Stevens -issent 7 thought it should be resolved at step = as unambiguous 7 prohibition is

plainl" dire!ted at !ondu!t, rather than the dissemination of information or advi!e and so!ounseling and giving information is not prohibited

• O(Connor -issent 7 c#n!n !( #v!id#nce #"guent $if interpreting a statute in one wa"

will !ause a !onstitutional issue, then it should not be interpreted in that wa"% 4 does findthe statute ambiguous, but believes the !ourt should ?O* defer to agen!" regulations b5!

of the important !onstitutional uestions that have been raised b" this administrativeinterpretation of a statute that doesn(t itself raise !onstitutional uestions

• *his de!ision gave subseuent administrations more fle+ibilit" b5! the agen!" retains the

authorit" to !hange its interpretation as long as the interpretation is reasonableo *hus, when Clinton !ame into offi!e, his first order of business was to repeal the

ag .ule on the basis of the good !ause e+!eption $women(s lives werethreatened%

2


28/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200TT State 6arm, Chevron, and .ust an"time an agen!"(s de!ision turns on eviden!e that the

agen!" relied on in their de!ision, S6 Chevron both appl"' Chevron applies when debate isover the interpretation of the statute' S6 looks at the !ourse of reasoning and the method that theagen!" used to &ustif" its de!ision $the suffi!ien!" of the &ustifi!ation that agen!" gives for itsde!ision5 failure to e+plain wh" alternatives are not the legitimate approa!hes to take%

OO I( #3iguit&, c!u"t .i$$ de(e" t! #genc& inte""et#ti!n #s $!ng #s it0s "e#s!n#3$e


29/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200o So, deferen!e definitel" for formal A-1 and when Congress gives agen!ies the

abilit" to have a noti!e and !omment periodo :ut, informal de!isions, interpretive rules, and off4the4!uff de!isions are not

entitled to the same amount of deferen!e do not get Chevron deferen!e under

/ead b5! the" do not generall" have the for!e of law

•

Poli!" reasons wh" deferen!e should onl" be given to formal ./ $not to interpretiverules%o ives agen!ies an in!entive to go through ./ 7 now agen!ies !an no longer

issue an interpretive rule and rel" on ito Lower !ourts have trouble following S)Ct) deferen!e standard

• S!alia dissent 7 will undermine agen!"(s !hoi!e to use A-1 instead of ./

• A rule promulgated after /ead will get a noti!e !omment period

• #nder Chevron deferen!e, an agen!" is alwa"s allowed to !hange their interpretation

unless it is unreasonable' but under /ead, the !ourt(s interpretation of what agen!"de!ided is binding unless Congress sa"s otherwise b5! it is froGen after A-1

/!st9Me#d C+ev"!n #n#$&sis*1 Ste * H#s C!ng"ess s!:en !n t+e su3st#ntive issue?

1 I( n!, #s:P

#1 Did C!ng"ess de$eg#te t! t+e #genc& t+e !.e" t! #:e !$ic& t+#t +#s

t+e (!"ce !( $#.?

i1 I( &es, g! t!

%udici#$ Revie. !( Agenc& Acti!n Su#"&

*he !ourt shall aside agen!" a!tion if

• Pro!edure $Nermont Kankee prin!iple 7 if "ou want to impose a pro!edural pro!ess on

an agen!", "ou have to be able to find it somewhere, in Constit)%o Statutes $APA, Organi!% 7 e)g), doesn(t follow something set out in one of these

o Constitution 7 t"pi!all" onl" for informal A-1)

• Agen!"(s determination of fa!t

o Substantial eviden!e test 7 B 0J sa"s applies an" time de!ision b" agen!" is

reuired to be formal Looks something like the reasonable &ur" test 7 in light of the eviden!e

presented to the agen!", !ould a reasonable fa!t finder rea!h the verdi!tthat it did $#niversal Camera !ase 7 tells us spe!ifi!all" what to dowhen the AL1 rea!hes a different !on!lusion of fa!t than the agen!" didwhen rea!hing a de!ision%

o Arbitrar" Capri!ious standard in informal ./

A-PSO !ase 7 but this is also the reasonable &ur" standard $same as

standard for substantial eviden!e test%o Still the re!ord looks ver" different when "ou(re engaged in formal v) informal

./

• ?onfa!tual determinations5 matters of interpretation $legal distin!tion broke down%

involves either how the law should appl" or what the law iso 9earst standard is no longer the governing standard

o =) 9ave to determine whether law is ambiguous or not $Chevron Step =% 7 !t)

alwa"s asks is the statute !lear $in!onsistent with the !learl" e+pressed view ofCongress%< 8f the answer is "es, then however Congress resolved the uestionis the law

o 2) 8f answer is no $/ead% if ambiguit" and the agen!" de!ision !arries the

for!e of law $made pursuant to authorit" of Congress to produ!e su!h law%, thenonl" set aside if it(s unreasonable

8f ambiguit" but does not !arr" the for!e of law, then !t) will de!ide it(s

own interpretation or set asideo Substantive Dhard lookF .eview assuming it !an pass Chevron and /ead,

then what !an set aside agen!" a!tion< State 6arm review 7 !t) shall aside as

arbitrar" !apri!ious ifEagen!" did not engage in reasoned de!ision4making pro!ess, e)g), failed to arti!ulate wh" it did something, failed to take into!onsideration obviousl relevant matter


30/38



ACCESS T4 %UDICIAL REVIEW

'ASES F4R 4'TAINING %UDICIAL REVIEW

Spe!ial statutor" review 7 authoriGed b" the parti!ular organi! statute$s% under whi!h the agen!"is a!ting $B 0%)eneral statutor" review 7 authoriGed b" the APA $B 0;%) ?onstatutor" review 7 authoriGed b" !ommon4law and euit" forms of a!tion, but also b" statutesother than the agen!"(s organi! statute or the APA)

A/A*

Revie.#3i$it& =%?o review if statute sa"s no &udi!ial review' 2% !ommitted to agen!"dis!retion b" law St#nding

Sovereign 8mmunit" 7 !an(t sue the gov(t unless the" !onsent to being sued' Congress has waivedimmunit" in most suits involving agen!" a!tion as long as "ou don(t seek V %u"isdicti!n@ Venue@ F!"s (!" c#use !( #cti!n

0


31/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200 Revie.#3i$it& 2 Tiing

ART1 III @;% 7 c!u"t (!und n! st#nding


32/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200merits would be likel" to redress the !laimed in&ur", for the hospitals might !ontinue towithhold !are for indigents even w5o the ta+ in!entive

Sierra Club v) /orton $=>2%

• 6a!ts /ineral Ming Nalle" was a prote!ted area but the 6orest Servi!e de!ided to allow

-isne" to build a resort' Sierra Club filed suit arguing that the pro&e!t violated variousfederal laws and regulations that state that the area should be preserved)

• 9olding ?O standing' threats to aestheti!, re!reational, and environmental interests

!ould !onstitute suffi!ient in&ur" in fa!t to satisf" standing reuirement, but Sierra Club(s pleadings were inadeuate b5! the" failed to allege that an" of its members a!tuall" usedthe wilderness area that would be affe!ted b" the resort development $&ust relied on itsstatus as a responsible environmentalist organiGation%

o T! s#tis(& t+e A/A, #n !"g#ni8#ti!n +#d t! de!nst"#te t+e g!v0t .#s

c#using seci(ic in-u"& t! it !" its e3e"s' a mere Dinterest in the problemFwould not entitle it to suit

o Court notes that Sanders and S!ripps49oward established a dual proposition the

fa!t of economic in(ury is what gives a person standing, but on!e review is

properl" invoked, that person ma" argue the publi! interest in support of his!laim that agen!" has failed to !ompl" with statutor" mandate in this latter

sense that the standing of the !omplainant e+isted onl" as a representative of the publi! interest

o 8t is !lear that #n !"g#ni8#ti!n .+!se e3e"s #"e in-u"ed #& "e"esent

t+!se e3e"s in # "!ceeding (!" -udici#$ "evie.@ 3ut # e"e inte"est in t+e

"!3$e, no matter how longstanding the interest or ualified the organiGation, isnot suffi!ient b" itself to render the org) adversel" affe!ted or aggrieved withinAPA(s meaning

Lu&an v) -efenders of Wildlife $=>>2% 7 ust "!vide seci(ic (#ctu#$ su!"t (!" #n #sse"tedin-u"& in (#ct

•6a!ts 3ndangered Spe!ies A!t reuirement that a federal agen!" must !onsult with theSe!) of 8nterior before funding or !arr"ing out a!tivities that might &eopardiGe anendangered spe!ies' -efenders brought suit to establish !onsultation e+tended to pro&e!tsthat the federal gov(t funds in foreign !ountries' 2 members filed affidavits about theirtravels to these lands to stud" !ertain animals

• 9olding ?ot suffi!ient to establish standing 7 affiants did not mention an" definite plans

to return to the !ontested sites and thus had not established that the" fa!ed #n #ctu#$ !"iinent in-u"&

o Ct) !onsidered D!itiGen suitF provision irrelevant b5! implementation of laws is

the provin!e of e+e!utive bran!h' Congress !ould not empower !ourt to take over that fun!tion b" intervening in the absen!e of a !ase or !ontrovers"

o .e&e!ted other ne+us theories $e!os"stem, animal, and vo!ational ne+us% 7 value

laden de!ision b" the !ourt !on!erning these theories• Menned" !on!ur 7 might be a basis for standing but not in this !ase

• :la!kmun dissent 7 should have survived summar" &udgment stage'

o .esponse to D!itiGen suitF SOP argument 7 if !an(t !hallenge here, !an(t

!hallenge at all' ok for !ongress to legislate pro!edures, should be able to enfor!ethem 7 should be able to strengthen the pro!edures it has pro!edurall" mandated$!ourt is &ust enfor!ing Congress( instru!tions%

2


33/38


Professor Smith, Spring Semester 200/RUDENTIAL STANDING

6CC v) Sanders :ros) .adio Station $=>;0% 7 #gg"ieved e"s!n test

• 9olding the statutor" language granting &udi!ial review to Dpersons aggrievedF b" an

6CC li!ense de!ision was broad enough to in!lude !ompetitors of a su!!essful appli!ant,even though the substantive provisions of the Communi!ations A!t were intended to prote!t the publi! interest, not the e!onomi! interests of !ompetitors su!h as the petitioner

• *est of an aggrieved person is not limited to the assertion of a personal legal wrong

• G#ve "ise t! # se"ies !( c#ses in .+ic+ "iv#te #"ties .e"e g"#nted st#nding unde"

v#"i!us st#tut!"& "evie. "!visi!ns, !n t+e #ssuti!n t+#t C!ng"ess +#d vie.ed

t+e #s 6"iv#te #tt!"ne& gene"#$s7 t! en(!"ce st#tut!"& "e;ui"eents

• S!ripps49oward .adio v) 6CC 7 elaborated on this t+e "iv#te $itig#nts +#ve st#nding

!n$& #s "e"esent#tives !( t+e u3$ic inte"est

Ass(n of -ata Pro!essing Serv) Org) v) Camp $=>0%

• 6a!ts Comptroller of the Curren!" authoriGed banks to provide data pro!essing servi!es'

!hallenged b" data pro!essors who did not want !ompetition

• Test*o H#s t+e c!$#in#nt #$$eged 6in-u"& in (#ct7?

o Is t+e inte"est s!ug+t t! 3e "!tected 3& t+e c!$#in#nt 6#"gu#3$& .it+in

t+e 8!ne !( inte"ests t! 3e "!tected !" "egu$#ted 3& t+e st#tute !"

c!nstituti!n#$ gu#"#ntee in ;uesti!n7? not a ver" demanding standard and

prevents standing onl" when the plaintiff(s interests are so marginall" related toor in!onsistent with the purposes impli!it in the statute that it !annot reasonabl" be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit

• 9olding Standing b5! Comptroller(s ruling $=% would !ause the data pro!essors

e!onomi! harm' $2% federal banking legislation Darguabl"F suggested that Congressdesired to prote!t !ompanies from having to !ompete with banks for nonbanking business

63C v) Akins $=>>@%

• 6a!ts 63C determined that Am) 8srael Publi! Affairs Comm) is not a Dpoliti!al !omm)F

within meaning of 63C A!t and thus, the" do not have to dis!lose its membership,!ontributions and e+penditures' group of voters with view opposing A8PAC bring suit

• 9olding

o /"udenti#$ St#nding* roup of voters have standing' statute sa"s an" part"

aggrieved !an bring suit' word DaggrievedF in!ludes those be"ond !ommon4lawinterests and substantive statutor" rights' and prudential standing is satisfied b"Gone of interests test $in&ur" 7 failure to obtain relevant information 7 is of a kind63CA seeks to address%

o A"t1 III St#nding* in&ur" in fa!t is inabilit" to get information

Gene"#$i8ed g"iev#nces #"e gene"#$$& (!und n!t t! c!n(e" st#nding $!laim that gen) grievan!e here is widel" shared% 7 Ct) sa"s that usuall"those !ases are where $=% harm is widel" shared, but also $2% the harm isof an abstra!t and indefinite nature $e)g), harm to the !ommon !on!ernfor obedien!e to law% whi!h deprives the !ase of the !on!rete spe!ifi!it"tha

Administrative Law - Smith - Spring 2003-2-4

Documents