Administrative Law Final
Section 1983
actions permit an individual to sue a municipality and local government officials to recover damages for violation of a constitutionally protected right. actions originated with the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which was originally enacted to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. States may not be sued under this section bc both because of the definition of "person," and also because the Eleventh Amendment shield states from liability in federal courts under section 1983.
Under the discretionary function doctrine
an act is discretionary if it involves making a choice from a variety of options. Discretionary acts involve judgment, planning, and policy decisions. There is no liability for the performance or nonperformance of discretionary acts.
de novo
anew
punitive damages
are awarded in extreme cases when it is determined that a defendant should be punished or there is a need to deter that defendant or others from engaging in similar future conduct.
nominal damages
are awarded when there has been a violation, but no actual damages have been proven.
Actual or compensatory damages
are intended to compensate plaintiffs for their injuries. Actual damages are of two types.
formal rulemaking and formal adjunctions
are typically reviewed under the substantial evidence standard of review.
public duty doctrine
immunizes both governments and their officials for acts that are owed to the public generally, and no specific duty is owed to an individual. no duty to an individual exists unless a special relationship exists or the government employee increases the danger of victimization to an individual. (E.g., Kirk v. City of Shawnee.)
Bowers v. City of Chattanooga
is an example of a case involving the discretionary function doctrine. In Bowers, the court adopted a new formulation of the discretionary-ministerial test, which it called the "planning-operational" test. , the court decided that because there was a clear plan and policy of the state and city to provide safe passage to schoolchildren, the decision left to a school bus driver on where to stop at a particular intersection was operational. Therefore, the bus driver and the government entities could be held liable for negligence in that decision.
ripeness
is concerned with whether a case is sufficiently mature to be heard by a court. The ripeness requirement of the APA (§ 704) provides for judicial review of "final agency action." An administrative order (such as an EPA compliance order under the Clean Water Act) may be held to constitute final agency action even though the agency has not sought to enforce the order in court. (E.g, Sackett v. EPA)
Res Judicata
is defined as "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided." The doctrine is also called claim preclusion, prevents the same claim from being filed and litigated more than once. In other words, the doctrine prevents the relitigation of a claim decided in a prior case
Collateral Estoppel
is similar to res judicata. Whereas res judicata prevents the relitigation of claims, collateral estoppel prevents the relitigation of issues decided in a prior case. Collateral estoppel is also known as issue preclusion
A Qui Tam action
is specifically authorized by statute (32 U.S.C. § 3730), is a lawsuit brought by a citizen against another citizen who has defrauded the government. The citizen who brings a Qui Tam action is entitled to keep a portion of the proceeds of the lawsuit.
Article III, § 2 of the Constitution
limits jurisdiction of the federal courts to "cases" or "controversies." This means that an actual dispute must exist before a federal court can exercise jurisdiction. Theoretical and hypothetical disputes may not be decided by a federal court.
special damages
may be awarded for medical expenses, damage to property, loss of income and other similar injuries in the form of out-of-pocket expenses or economic losses.
general damages
may be awarded for pain and suffering, emotional distress, humiliation and other similar noneconomic injuries.
Pendent jurisdiction
may be exercised by a federal court over state claims that arise out of the same set of facts as a valid section 1983 claim. Pendent jurisdiction refers generally to the power of the federal court to hear state law claims related to an underlying federal law claim.
Equitable Estoppel
prevents parties from raising issues or asserting certain arguments. Generally, if one person makes a representation to another, and that representation is reasonably relied upon, the party who made the representation is estopped from arguing the contrary
under standing law
prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, standing required a showing of violation of a legally protected interest or right
Parens patriae
refers to the situation in which a state government sues on behalf of an individual or a class of individuals. States may not sue under section 1983, except under a parens patriae theory.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction
requires that a court refer a case to an agency for an initial decision when the issues involved therein are within the agency's jurisdiction. doctrine is applied only to closely regulated industries. The doctrine may be applied even if the administrative agency lacks power to grant the desired remedy (such as damages).
substatial evidence standard
reviewing courts may examine the facts found and the conclusions reached by an agency, but the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. The reviewing court must affirm the agency's decision if that decision is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence exists if, after reviewing the entire record, the court concludes that a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion as the agency did.
sources of review authority
statutory
The standing doctrine is
stems from the case or controversy limitation of the Constitution. Standing concerns the issue of who may sue. The standing doctrine requires that the person bringing a lawsuit has a personal interest in the case
The APA judicial review provision (§ 702) provides that
"[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof"
sources of review authority - statutory (congress)
Congress can restrict or preclude review by statute, but a statute precluding constitutional claims would likely be invalidated by the Supreme Court.
more on qui tam action (congress)
Congress may provide for standing where it otherwise does not exist. An example is so-called private attorney general cases, in which private individuals may be authorized by Congress to challenge agency action or otherwise act on behalf of the public.
sources of review authority - statutory
Most judicial authority to review agency actions is derived from statutes, but the Constitution and common law may also provide for judicial review. When a statute provides for review, no other method may be used to establish a court's authority to hear the case, with the possible exception of cases in which a constitutional issue is raised.
exceptions to the exhaustion of administrative remidies
does not apply to civil rights cases (such as those brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983), cases where there is a constitutional challenge to the law being applied, and criminal cases.
The statute governing federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331) states that
federal courts may hear any claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. A federal question is broad enough to establish jurisdiction for review in the absence of a contrary statute.
Sovereign Immunity
holds that the government is immune from suit. This means that the government must consent to be sued for damages. In most instances, a citizen's right to sue the government is derived from the legislature and controlled by statute.
injury in fact requirement details
An economic injury will usually satisfy the "injury in fact" requirement, but noneconomic injuries, such as aesthetic, conservation, recreational and environmental injuries, may establish standing under the new test.
agency discretion
Decisions that have been "committed to agency discretion" are not subject to judicial review
Arbitrary, Capricious, Abuse of Discretion Standard
For discretionary action that is not "committed to agency discretion," judicial review is available under the arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion standard. Under this standard, courts give the most significant deference to agency decisions. Generally, agency action is presumed valid and affirmed if founded on a rational basis. The arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion standard of review applies to most informal agency actions, including informal rulemaking and informal adjudication.
citizen and taxpayer standing
Taxpayers may have standing to challenge a spending statute if a nexus between the taxpayers' status and the expenditure can be shown and it can be shown that the statute exceeds a constitutional limitation. (Flast v. Cohen.)
laches
The common-law doctrine of laches may be held to bar a claim that is unreasonably delayed. There are three essential elements: • First, the party against whom laches is claimed must have been aware of the right or claim that was not raised. • Second, there must have been unreasonable delay in raising the right or claim. • Third, the delay must cause the adverse party to suffer some prejudice.
chevron doctrine
The decision as to whether Congress has "directly spoken to the precise question at issue" is reviewed de novo. This is commonly known as a Chevron Step One determination. If Congress has clearly spoken, that is the end of the inquiry. If Congress has not spoken to the question and there is no explicit delegation of authority to an agency to address the question, a court can reverse the agency decision only if it is unreasonable. This is commonly known as the Chevron Step Two determination. Finally, if a reviewing court determines that Congress has expressly delegated the authority to develop policy, the agency's policy decisions are reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard
Section 701 (a)(2) of the APA specifically exempts agency action that is:
committed to agency discretion by law" from review.
under de novo standard
courts review agency decisions anew - that is, no deference is given to the agency's decision
Federal Tort Claims Act
was enacted by Congress to give private parties the right to sue the United States in federal court for certain torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the United States. creates the general rule of liability of the United States for torts. expressly prohibits any award of prejudgment interest or punitive damages in FTCA cases
The following agency decisions have been held to be "committed to agency discretion" and therefore not reviewable by the courts:
• Agency refusals to institute investigative or enforcement proceedings (Heckler v. Cheney) • Decisions involving national security (Webster v. Doe) • Managerial decisions by agency officials • Decisions as to allocation of funds from a lump-sum appropriation (Lincoln v. Vigil)
The following are exceptions to liability of the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act:
• Executive functions • Claims arising out of intentional torts • Discretionary functions
The reasons why exhaustion of administrative remedies is beneficial and is generally required include the following
• Exhaustion allows agencies to correct their own mistakes and thereby learn from their errors. • It promotes agency autonomy and independence by preventing premature judicial intervention into agency affairs. • It promotes judicial economy by allowing a complete record to be made. • It promotes judicial economy by allowing the agency, rather than the reviewing court, to make findings. • It encourages cooperation and communication between agencies and parties because judicial intervention is not immediately available.
In Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, the court rejected the "legal interest" test because it goes to the merits. The court adopted a new test standing that has three prongs:
• First, the plaintiff must suffer an "injury in fact." • Second, the interests asserted by the plaintiff must be "arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question" • Third, it must be shown that it is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision However, a mere intellectual or metaphysical interest in a problem does not confer standing. One must actually suffer some harm, whether economic or noneconomic.
