Admin Law Cases & Definitions

Preclusion of Judicial Review

(*presumption of reviewability unless preclusion exists) See 5 USC 701(a): (1) by statute or (2) through agency action committed to agency discretion by law ->Preclusion deals with the subject matter not the parties of the action

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967)

(1) In determining whether a case or controversy is ripe for adjudication, a court must evaluate the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration. (2) Judicial review of a final agency action by an aggrieved person will not be cut off unless Congress clearly intended to prevent such review. *Courts favor judicial review

3 "Records" of Agency Rulemaking

(1) Record for participation (materials available to be used for public commenting), (2) Record for decision (mass of materials showing decision making process), and (3) record for judicial review (documentary collection for specific review)

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

(1) Reviewing courts are generally not allowed to impose additional procedural requirements on administrative agencies' rulemaking processes. (2) Individuals and entities intervening into the decisionmaking process related to a major federal action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act must provide structured and detailed energy-conservation alternatives for the agency to review and consider prior to issuing an Environmental Impact Statement.

Types of Agency Action Reviews (5 USC 703)

(1) Special statutory review: review authorieed by the particular orgaic statute(s) under which the agency is acting (ex. 29 USC 160(f)) (2) General statutory review: review authorized by the APA (3)"Nonstatutory Review": originally common law but now includes actions authorized by statutes other than the agency's organic statute or the APA

Reviewability

(1) Standing (injury, causation, redressability) (2) Jurisdiction (which court is available and proper venue) (3) Ripeness (statute of limitation, mootness, look to the injury)

Incompatibility/ineligibility Clause

(art. I, § 6, cl. 2): "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

Public v. Private Rights

-> Classic Public Rights Federal Reg. Schemed, Gov't actions that impact the rights of a citizens -> Classic Private Rights Individual vs. Individual Common law or civil matters

Chevron Test

1. Has congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue? -clear in the mandate, then do what this says - the agency can't interpret it - figure this out through statutory interpretation 2. If the statute is silent or ambiguous, does not speak clearly to the question at issue, then the question becomes: Is the agency interpretation reasonable/permissible? -doesn't have to be the only possible conclusion or even be the one that the judge would have chosen -have they accommodated conflicting policies, is the interpretation consistent with the mandate's purpose, is this the product of agency expertise

Standing

1. Injury in fact (a) actual or imminent and (b) concrete and particularized 2. Fairly traceable to the defendant and the result of the agency/defendant 3. Must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision"

Mathews Factors Test (due process) See Latif v. Holder

1. Private interest affected by agency actions 2. Risk error inherent in the agency's existing procedures 3. Government's interest in maintaining the existing procedures weighed in terms of both fiscal and administrative burdens that might be encountered if new procedures were mandated (Urgent interest- National Security)

Goldberg v. Kelly

14th amendment (due process) requires welfare recipients to have a notice/hearing before state can stop benefits. Entitled to pre-termination.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)

A President may not be restricted in his ability to remove a principal officer, who is in turn restricted in his ability to remove an inferior officer, because such multi-level protection from removal prevents the President from fulfilling his Article II duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

United States v. Dean

A federal agency may bypass the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment provisions. Not only in emergency situations but when the AG has good cause to believe that the delay would result in serious/real harm.

Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp

A plaintiff has standing to challenge an agency ruling when the challenged action has caused him injury-in-fact and the interest sought to be protected is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question.

Sackett v. EPA

A private citizen may file a civil action in federal court under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking judicial review of an Environmental Protection Agency compliance action issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act. **Reviewable because the statute gives ability even if under separate act than the agency is enabled under.

Perry v. Sindermann

A state college teacher is entitled to procedural due process prior to termination if the teacher has a property interest in continued employment.

APA adjudicatory requirements

Administrative Procedure Act's reasoned explanation requirement serves several important interests: first, it enables appellate courts to engage in meaningful judicial review; in addition, an adequate statement of reasons or findings also helps avoid judicial usurpation of administrative functions, assures more careful administrative consideration, and helps the parties plan their cases for judicial review. 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(c)(3)(A).

SEC v. Chenery Corp.

Agencies may adopt new standards through individual orders based on an adjudication of a particular situation, in addition to issuing prospective rules.

General Statutory Review

Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review. 5 USC 704

Interim Final Rulemaking

Agency adopts a rule without public comment, it becomes effective immediately. Seeks comments after rule is taken into effect. Good cause is required to address bypass.

Direct Final Rulemaking

Agency predicts the proposed rule is unlikely to generate a significant number of adverse comments (vast majority)

Whitman v. American Trucking Associations (2001)

Allows Congress to delegate broad authority to regulatory agencies.

Skidmore v. Swift & Co.

Although a federal administrative agency's rulings, interpretations, and opinions are not controlling on courts, they are entitled to respect and may be used for guidance by courts and litigants.

limitation riders

Amendments, attached to appropriations bills, which forbid an agency to spend any of the money appropriated on activities specified by Congress.

C&W Fish Co. v. Fox

An administrator may not be disqualified from rulemaking simply because the administrator has publicly expressed an opinion on the rule at issue. Must show "bad faith" to justify further inquiry

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. AT&T Co.

An agency's interpretation of a statute is not entitled to deference when it goes beyond the meaning that the statute can bear.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJs)

An official who presides over an administrative-type bench trial to resolve a dispute between a government agency and an individual. (Inferior officer so may be appointed by Congress)

Appointment Clause

Article II, Section II of Constitution. Article in the Constitution where the President's expressed power to appoint department heads, ambassadors, Federal Judges, and Supreme Court Justices is described

NATIONAL SMALL SHIPMENTS TRAFFIC CONFERENCE, INC. v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

Choice of proceeding by individual adjudication or general rule making lies largely within agency's discretion.

Morrison v. Olson (1988)

Congress can, through statute, vest the power of appointment of inferior officers (here, the independent counsel) to heads of departments (here, the attorney general

Intelligible Principle

Congress must specify the agency that is supposed to perform tasks (+ how), the public policy it will be working on (the what), and boundaries and limitations on what it can do (when an agency acts it must stay within the boundaries given by congress)

Enabling Act

Congressional legislation that forms an administrative agency that directs what they want the agency to do in conjunction with the intelligible principle.

Appropriations Riders

Congressional tool for directing regulatory outcomes and the mechanisms it uses to do so.

Ex Parte Contacts

Contact in which only one party is heard. ex: Claimant is contacted by adjuster without the knowledge of the claimant's representation. (see HBO v. FCC)

ALJ Hearing Takeaways

Details matter! Question everything

Distinguish Policy Statements from Substantive Rules

Does the agency action: 1) "imposes any rights and obligations" AND 2) "genuinely leaves the agency and its decisionmakers free to exercise discretion"?

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath

Even if a government action does not directly deprive someone of life, liberty, or property, the person may still be entitled to due process protections if the action causes other grievous harm.

Sangamon Valley Television Corp. v. United States

Ex parte communications in a notice-and-comment rulemaking can invalidate the proceeding if the proceeding resolves conflicting private claims similarly to an adjudication.

Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC (1977)

Ex parte communications with an agency prior to the issuance of a formal notice of rulemaking must be disclosed to the public in some form if such communications form the basis for an agency action.

553 Notice and Comment (EXCEPTIONS)

Exceptions: -Good Cause Public Benefit Possibility of Harm at Stake -Statutes Congress giveth APA requirements Congress can taketh away requirements (through specific law or within enabling act requirements) -Foreign or Military Affairs

To challenge administrative action plaintiff must show:

Exhausted administrative remedies (if applicable), case is ripe, and agency action is final.

Timing of Review

Exhaustion - is there internal procedure to be used first? Finality - action complete and authoritative? Exception if no other adequate remedy available (sackett v. epa) Inaction is not reviewable! Ripeness - fit for judicial examination and not based on a future event occurring

Allen v. Wright (Standing)

Facts: Parents of Black children bring class action against IRS claimed IRS gave tax breaks to private schools that discriminated based on race Rule: An asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with the law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction in a federal court Issue: Did Respondents suffer sufficient injury to bring class action Holding: Respondents lacked standing; must be distinct and palpable Brennan Dissent: Elementary economics show that it is fairly traceable

Crowell v. Benson

Federal judiciary courts may make de novo rulings on jurisdictional facts even if Congress has given an administrative court the power to make factual findings.

Policy Statements

General statements about directions of agency regarding rule-making or enforcement activities; no binding impact; do not directly affect legal rights/responsibilities. (Broader guidelines, behind the scenes than interpretive rules).

Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA

Guidelines issued by an administrative agency that are nothing more than general policy statements with no legal force are not subject to the requirements of notice-and-comment rulemaking. (See substantive rule v. policy statements test)

Holman Rule

House Rule XXI that allows for spending "retrenchments".

Texas v. United States

If an administrative agency's purported general policy statement is applied by the agency in a way that indicates that it is a binding rule, the rule requires notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Darby v. Cisneros

In cases governed by the APA, federal courts do not have the authority to require a plaintiff to exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review, unless the relevant statute or agency rule specifically mandates exhaustion as a prerequisite to judicial review.

Latif v. Holder

In determining whether procedural protections afforded in connection with a deprivation of a liberty interest were constitutionally sufficient, courts analyze the private interest at stake, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government interest at stake.

Gunderson v. USDL

In general, the formulation of administrative procedures is a matter left to the discretion of the administrative agency; this discretion includes the power to make reasonable, nonarbitrary decisions regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence.

Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB

Judicial review extends to the whole record by substantial evidence. Cannot fact-find but can determine that the evidence given is not substantial. Examiner testimony is taken as a valid fact-finder since most privy to the information/nucleus of the issue. The Board only has the power to reverse an examiner's findings only when they are "clearly erroneous" since based on same evidence recommendations should be aligned so long as not procedural issues.

Procedural Claims

Look to see if agency's actions were final and if there was a consistent process that is clear

Informal Adjudication

Means either: 1) Congress has not created any procedural requirements or 2) Congress requires a few procedures. Even when not specified, constitutional due process must be provided.

S.O.N.A.R.

Minnesota APA: statement of need and reasonableness.

Legislative Riders

Modifies existing law by amending an existing statute, changing existing common law, or directing a federal agency to take an affirmative action (thereby rendering lawful administrative action that might otherwise be unlawful).

Appropriations

Money granted by Congress or to a state legislature for a specific purpose

N.P.R.M.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Contingency Rationale

President can act within any power that was delegated/given to him by congress.

Impoundment

Presidential refusal to allow an agency to spend funds that Congress authorized and appropriated.

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth

Procedural-due-process protections apply to a person's property interest in a benefit if the person has a legitimate claim of entitlement to the benefit and not merely an abstract need or desire for the benefit.

Formal Adjudication

Procedures which are nearly identical to those used in a civil trial. Losing party can typically appeal to commission or administrator. Appeal process resembles appellate procedure; no new trial is held.

Types of Judicial Review

Review of Facts, Review of Policy, and Review of Law

Massachusetts v. EPA (2009)

Rule of Law (1) For standing to be appropriate, an actual case or controversy must be present, which is characterized by a truly adversarial relationship. (2) The Clean Air Act provides the Environmental Protection Agency with the statutory authority to regulate new motor-vehicle-emissions greenhouse gases as an "air pollutant."

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp.

Rule of Law 1. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation may restore a terminated pension plan if restoration is consistent with its duties under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. 2. In the absence of due-process issues or specific statutory mandates, a court may not impose any procedural requirements on a federal agency that are not found in the Administrative Procedure Act.

Heckler v. Chaney

Section 701(a)(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) bars judicial review of agency action where such action is "committed to agency discretion by law." - The case presented the question of the extent to which a decision of an administrative agency, here the Food and Drug Administration, to exercise its discretion not to undertake certain enforcement actions is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. - First, agency decisions whether to initiate enforcement actions are usually based on a complicated balancing of multiple factors, such as efficient allocation of limited resources, likelihood of success, and the relationship of the potential action to the overall enforcement strategy of the agency. The courts are ill-suited to performing such an analysis. - Secondly, the court noted when an agency chooses not to act, they are not exercising any coercive power over others that might be worthy of heightened judicial protection. - - - Third, the Court found an agency's discretion not to seek enforcement as being analogous to exercises of prosecutorial discretion that courts have traditionally been unwilling to review.

Arbitrary and Capricious Test

The APA gives courts power to hold agencies' actions "arbitrary and capricious" if they are not in compliance with constitutional due process. (Examples: failed to provide rational explanation, changes without justification, legally inappropriate standard/failed to consider relevant standard, rendered decision contrary to evidence)

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)

The APA prohibits ex parte communications to or from interested parties in formal agency adjudications. (APA section 557(d))

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

The Administrative Procedure Act generally does not require an agency to show that its new policy is preferable to the existing policy it replaces.

Olivares v. Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

The Administrative Procedure Act requires an agency denying an application to provide a brief statement of the grounds for denial. (when? During notice)

US v. Windsor

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, states that, for the purposes of federal law, the words "marriage" and "spouse" refer to legal unions between one man and one woman. Since that time, some states have authorized same-sex marriage. In other cases regarding the DOMA, federal courts have ruled it unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, but the courts have disagreed on the rationale

United States House of Representatives v. Burwell

The House of Representatives has standing to sue the executive branch to enforce Congress's constitutional power of appropriating federal money.

Portland Audubon Soc'y v. Endangered Species Committee

The President and his staff may not attempt to influence the decision of an administrative agency committee through ex parte communications with the committee.

Raines v. Byrd

The President has the ability to cut out lines of legislation prior to approving a bill (line item veto). Only a state that suffers an injury due to the lines cut would have standing

Notice--§553(c)

The agency must issue a 'concise general statement' of the rule's 'basis and purpose' along with the final rule.

General Electric Company v. EPA

The constitutional guarantee of due process requires that an agency provide a regulated party with fair notice of its regulatory interpretations before depriving such a party of its property. (See substantive rule v. policy statement test)

Good Cause Exception

The exception permits agencies to forgo Section 553's notice and comment requirement if "the agency for good cause finds" that compliance would be "impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest" and bypass its 30-day publication requirement if good cause exists.

Notice--§553(b)

The notice before issuing a rule must include 'the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved'.

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014)

The president of the United States may invoke the Recess Appointments Clause to fill a vacancy that exists during any sufficiently long Senate recess.

Clinton v. City of New York (1998)

The presidential line-item veto is unconstitutional because it interferes with Article I section 7's bicameral and presentment requirements.

Chevron Deference

The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court that courts must defer to agency interpretations of their own laws.

Nondelegation Doctrine

The principle in administrative law that congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to agencies. Rather, when it instructs agencies to regulate, it must give them an "intelligible principle" on which to base their regulations.

"Paper Hearing" cases Vermont Yankee and Nova Scotia

The requirement of reasoned elaboration

Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians

The strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action may be overcome if a congressional intent to preclude review is: (1) explicitly shown by statutory language or (2) implied by the overall statutory scheme or legislative history (clearly).

Interpretive Rules

These do not change the law; they define or apply the laws to new situations. (Do not need Due Process piece like notice and comment because usually internal) (more specified guidelines)

Rule making challenges: Decision Making Bias

To challenge the rulemaking authority need to prove under a clear and convincing evidence standard and the Department member has an unalterably closed mind on matters critical to the disposition of the proceeding. OR Arbitrary and Capricious

Spokeo Inc. v. Robins (Injury-In-Fact)

To demonstrate an injury in fact for purposes of establishing standing, a plaintiff must show that the injury is particularized and concrete.

INS v. Chadha (1983)

U.S. Supreme Court case striking down the legislative veto on account of its violation of the separation of powers. Any congressional disapproval must come via a joint resolution (passed by both houses and presented to the president Article 1 sections 7 & 8 US Constitution).

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (Standing)

Under Article III of the Constitution, a party does not have standing to litigate a generalized grievance against the government in federal court if she suffered no personal injury other than the harm suffered by all citizens.

Dominion Energy Brayton Point, LLC v. Johnson

Under Chevron deference in administrative law, courts must defer to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of a statutory public-hearing requirement in the absence of a clear expression of congressional intent.

Pilsbury Co. v. FTC

Under administrative law, a federal agency may not issue an adjudicatory order that is influenced by forceful input from congress.

Action for Children's Television v. Federal Communications Commission

Under administrative law, a federal agency's ex parte communication with an interested party does not necessarily invalidate the agency's informal rulemaking.

City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission

Under administrative law, federal courts must give Chevron deference to a federal agency's interpretation of a statutory provision that is ambiguous regarding the scope of the agency's regulatory authority.

Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. United States

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency conducting an adjudication must provide a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker and allow each party an opportunity to present its case, submit rebuttal evidence, and conduct any witness examination necessary to ensure disclosure of all relevant facts.

Removal Power

Unless removal is limited by statute, the President may fire any executive branch official. Congress may limit by statute only when: 1) It is an office where independence from the President is desirable 2) Removal is limited to good cause shown. Congress cannot prohibit removal entirely. CANNOT remove federal judges.

Substantive Claim

Was there an actionable violation/breaking of the law

"Nonstatutory Review"

When APA-baed review does not serve the relief that is being sought. See Youngstown, Marbury v. Madison, etc

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

When an agency rescinds a regulation, it must explain the evidence underlying its decision, and offer a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.

National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst

When reviewing an agency decision involving a mixed question of law and fact, courts review (1) the facts found by the agency to determine whether the agency's conclusion has "warrant in the record" and (2) the agency's explanation of its decision to determine whether the decision has a reasonable basis in law.

Block v. Community Nutrition Institute

Whether and to what extent a particular statute precludes judicial review of an agency action is not only based on the express language of the statute, but also on the structure of the statutory scheme, its objectives, its legislative history, and the nature of the administrative action involved.