Shared Flashcard Set


Administrative Law Cases
Undergraduate 3

Additional Law Flashcards




Wyman v. James
  • Welfare recipient claims visits by caseworkers without a warrant or consent violates her 4th and 14th Amendment rights

  • Court rules search is not unreasonable because appellee can refuse search and aid is stopped

  • Interest of the welfare is to protect the dependant child. Mother's rights should not come before this interest

  •  Situation is the same as if she had not applied for benefits in the first place




Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.
  • OSHA gives inspectors the right to warrantless searches of employee areas for safety hazards
  • Mr. Barlow refuses to let area be searched
  • Court rules warrantless search is unreasonable
  • Protections of warrant are not so marginal that they can be sacrificed to prevent administrative burdens
Dow Chemical v. U.S.
  • EPA uses aerial photographer to take pictures of Dow Chemical facility after request to search is denied
  • Plane is always w/ in legal airspace and takes pictures that any plane could
  • What is observable by the public is observable w/ out a warrant by government officials
  • Navigable airspace is public domain
  • Also, government has greater latitude to conduct warrantless inspections of commercial property than they do private property
Marathon Oil v. EPA
  • EPA creates regulation through rulemaking procedure
  • Marathon Oil claims that because of the adverse impact suffered, the hearing should have been adjudicatory and rulemaking was not sufficient
  • Court rules that these proceedings fall into the category of proceedings the APA was created for and therefore adjudication should have been used
Gibson v. Berryhill
  • Alabama Optometric Association charges employees of Lee Optical, Co. of practicing optometry unlawfully through "unprofessional conduct" and brings it before Alabama Board of Optometry
  • Alabama Board of Optometry also brings trial against Lee Opitical, Co.
  • Lee brings suit against Board claiming they can't hear a claim against a company they already sued
  • Court agrees that those with interest in legal proceedings should not adjudicate the dispute
Cinderella v. FTC
  • FTC brings charges against Cinderella Career and Finishing School for false advertising
  • After hearing, examiner rules that case should be dismissed
  • During appeal, Chairman Dixon openly criticizes the school, thus becoming an impartial decision maker who could influence the rest of the appeals court
  • Court rules litigants are entitled to an impartial trial and case needs to be reheard w/ out the participation of Dixon
Ventura v. Shalala
  • Ventura makes claim for disability under social security
  • Denied claim several times, but continues to appeal
  • During an appeal, ALJ is hostile towards Ventura and continues to ask him questions not pertinent to the case
  • Court rules that Ventura did not get the full and fair hearing he was entitled to and gets a new hearing in front of a different ALJ
Goldberg v. Kelly
  • Group of welfare recipients are in danger of losing their benefits without the right to a pre-termination hearing
  • They claim they have the right under due process in the 14th Amendment to a pre-termination hearing
  • Court rules that when welfare is discontinued, only a pre-termination hearing provides due process
  • The fundamental requisite of due process of law is to be heard. The hearing must be at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner
Mathews v. Eldridge
  • Eldridge's social security benefits are terminated through standard procedure w/ out a pre-termination hearing
  • Sues claiming lack of hearing is in violation of due process
  • Court rules he has property rights in his benefits and due process is applicable, but hearing is not required
  • Mathews Test for determining how much due process is required:
  • Injury threatened by loss of property
  • Risk of error through standard procedures
  • Costs and burdens of additional action and the interest in efficiency
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
  • Two public employees are fired and not given the chance for a pre-termination hearing and sue for due process
  • District Court dismisses complaints because they failed to state a claim
  • Court rules that they could not make claim because there was no pre-termination hearing and that public employees are entitled to a hearing before being fired
  • Public employees have a property interest in their jobs and people have a right to due processs before losing property rights according to Mathews Test in this situation
  • Hearing does not have to be long, just enough for the employee to hear the charges and tell their side of the story
Gilbert v. Homar
  • University police officer is arrested in drug raid and suspended by the university
  • State drops charges against him a week later, but suspension by university continues and eventually he is demoted without being able to respond in a hearing
  • Question becomes whether he can be suspended w/ out pay before notice and a hearing
  • Court rules he is entitled to a post-suspension hearing, but pre-suspension hearing is not required
  • The state needs the right to immediately suspend people in positions of public visibility when felony charges are presented
  • Also, there was no termination, only suspension
Schweiker v. McClure
  • Congress authorized contracts to allow private insurance firms to operate Part B Medicare claims
  • Three people have their claims denied by these private contractors and bring suit that it is not fair to have private insurance firms hold these hearings w/ out right to appeal
  • Court rules appellees fail to show that additional procedures would reduce risk of unreasonable deprivation of benefits
  • Medicare is funded by state so insurance companies are losing nothing by approving claims
Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy
  • Cook at gun factory has her clearance badge taken away for failing to meet security requirements and can no longer work there
  • Factory fails to provide her with a hearing on why her clearance was lost so she sues
  • Court rules she is not being deprived due process
  • She is able to get job at another restaurant w/ in the company, just not the gun factory
  • Government has typically had much more control over private interests in military matters
  • Dissent: Without a hearing, there is no way to know whether there was cause or if it was just discrimination
Perry v. Sindermann
  • Man teaches at school for several years on series of one-year contracts
  • Makes comments that get him fired
  • Regents give him no hearing because he has no tenure due to his contract situation
  • Court rules that he has the right to a type of tenure even if the school has no formal tenure system in place and therefore deserves a hearing before the Court can rule on whether his First Amendment rights were violated
Lujan v. NWF
  • NWF challenges land withdrawal review program saying that return of land to public domain will open it up to mining
  • Court rules NWF cannot show enough evidence to prove that a wrong is being done and the claim is given a summary judgement
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
  • Woman sues claiming that United States support of a dam in Sri Lanka will hurt endangered species
  • Court takes on case to determine whether there should be judicial review of this support
  • Court rules she has no injury and even if there was injury they cannot stop the dam from being built
  • For a case to have standing, the plaintiff must suffer an injury which is concrete and actual and the injury must be traceable to the action
  • Not enough evidence to prove that supporting the dam will cause injury
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
  • Secretary of Transportation wants to build a highway through a park
  • Statute requires Secretary to look at all other avaliable routes before destroying a park
  • Secretary fails to provide any documentation on why the road cannot be built in another location
  • Court rules that Secretary does not lose, but without formal findings they cannot review the Secretary's action
NRDC v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • NRC undertakes rulemaking procedure to determine what to do with nuclear waste
  • Commission members refuse to allow environmental groups to cross-examine Dr. Pittman
  • NRDC claims the NRC decision is arbitrary because they did not look at the weakness of Dr. Pittman's testimony
  • Court rules it is not their job to get involved in the details of procedures
  • Their job is to review the proceedings and make sure there was a fair opportunity for discussion, but they cannot tell the examiner how to determine his ruling 
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC
  • Established that a court cannot impose rulemaking procedures on an agency
  • Congress intended that the discretion of the agencies and not that of the courts should be exercised in determining when extra procedures should be applied
  • 553 is the maximum required in decision making and court cannot impose anything more
MVMA v. State Farm Mutual
  • Congress enacts the Motor Vechicle Safety Act of 1966 to reduce traffic accidents and deaths
  • This act allows the Secretary of Transportation to set motor vehicle safety standards but leaves any change to a set standard to be subject to judicial review
  • Court rules that the Secretary does not provide enough evidence to rescind the passive restraint requirement and that is arbitrary and capricious
  • No thought given to requiring airbags which have tremendous life saving potential
  • Court doesn't require any specific procedures, just that in this one instance they did not even consider the alternative option
Chevron v. NRDC
  • EPA allows states to give permits for devices that create excess pollution as long the total pollution of the plant does not increase
  • Question becomes how much a court can review how an agency decides to interpret a statute it administers
  • Creates test for when agency has deference:
  • Court rules that if Congress has not specified directly how the statute is to be followed, the agency has deference and the Court can ensure that it is in line w/ what Congress wanted
  • If there is any gray area, it is up the the agency to decide
Rust v. Sullivan
  • Secretary of Health and Human Services issues new rules that say counseling may not discuss abortion as a method of family planning and cannot encourage or promote it and no funding will go to programs for abortion
  • Court rules that Secretary has right to do so because of Chevron
  • Secretary has deference in the matter because Congress doesn't specifically discuss it in the statute
U.S. v. Mead Corp.
  • Mead's products classification is changed by Customs Service meaning they have to start paying tariffs
  • Court rules a statute applies for Chevron deference when Congress delegates authority to that agency to make the rule of law
  • However, since setting a tariff is not rule of law and they are subject to change often, Chevron does not apply
  • Scalia dissent: Chevron should apply to all authoritative decisions
Connick v. Myers
  • Assistant district attorney is told she is to be reassigned
  • She claims this would cause ethical concerns because she would be before a judge she had worked w/ before
  • Hands out questionnaire to other office members and is then fired for refusing transfer
  • Sues claiming she was fired for the questionnaire which was in violation of her First Amendment rights
  • Court rules that First Amendment rights apply to matters of public concern and that she was speaking as an employee, not a member of the public
  • Employer has wide discretion in this case to determine to what extent her actions caused turmoil in the workplace and her dismissal was legal
  • Dissent: How far will this go in restricting free speech at the work place?
  • Employees will now be fearful of criticizing agencies
Waters v. Churchill
  • Churchill is accused of telling her friend she shouldn't transfer to her department by Ballew who tells Waters
  • Welty and Koch also hear the conversation but claim she supported Waters
  • Churchill is fired despite the conflicting stories
  • Court rules that agencies hire employees to do their tasks effectively and efficiently. When they do or say things that detract from this, the agency needs ways to restrain it
  • If they believed Ballew's side of the story, then they had every right to dismiss Churchill because speech was not protected
  • Even if speech was protected, disruptiveness of telling a public employee not to transfer outweighs First Amendment right
  • Dissent: Management needs to get the facts straight before firing
  • Disagreements are desirable because they support reform
O'Connor v. Ortega
  • Man becomes subject of investigation at work and he agrees to take vacation while the investigation takes place
  • Team from hospital searches his office for possible violations w/ out a warrant
  • Court rules that Ortega had REoP at work but the agency still needs the ability to ensure that all employees are operating efficiently
  • Agency would suffer if they needed a warrant everytime they needed to find a file
  • Establishes standard of reasonableness for when agencies have the right to intrusion on public employees
  • Dissent: Ortega did indeed have REoP and there was no special need in this case for intrusion
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab
  • Drug test program is started for Customs employees seeking promotion and union challenges it
  • Court rules that drug tests for all promotions cannot be ruled on because there is no evidence to support it as there was in Skinner
  • However, tests for promotions to jobs where employees will be in direct contact with drugs or guns are acceptable because drug users may have personal interests in dealing with drugs and drugs users with guns are unsafe
  • Dissent: Why just guns? Cars can be even more dangerous than guns
  • Drug users are as likely to be bribed by drug lords as diamond wearers are by diamond smugglers
Chandler v. Miller
  • Georgia creates law saying all people running for public office must pass drug test and Chandler challenges it
  • Question is whether there is "special need" for this warrantless search
  • Court rules that drug users can hold high offices as well as non-drug users and there is no evidence otherwise to create this special need
  • Also, candidates are under scrutiny and any unwanted drug use would be detected by voters
  • Dissent: Claim that candidates will be detected because they are under scrutiny is weak
  • Government should not settle for this vague scrutiny when they can have actual drug tests to tell for sure
Urofsky v. Gilmore
  • Virginia passes law banning employees from looking at sexual material on state computers and employees challenge it
  • Court rules that this ban is legal and does not violate the 1st because when using state computers they are acting as employees, not as citizens
  • Threshold inquiry - whether speech is regulated in their capacity as citizens speaking in a matter of public concern
City of North Miami v. Kurtz
  • City decides that all people employing for city jobs must execute an affidavit attesting that they had not smoked for a year prior to applying to save health care costs
  • Woman sues claiming invasion of privacy
  • Court rules that restaurants and hotels ask about smoking all the time so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in smoking
  • Dissent: If they can ask this question, where is the limit on what can be asked later
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton
  • Faragher claims her supervisors created a sexually hostile environment as a lifeguard
  • She quits after another lifeguard files a claim and the supervisors have minor punishments
  • She then sues for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which says an employer can't discriminate because of sex
  • Court rules that city is indeed liable because the employer is subject to vicarious liability for a hostile environment created by a supervisor
  • Dissent: City should not be vicariously liable for supervisor's action
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
  • Fitzgerald is asked to testify about an Air Force program and is fired after criticizing it
  • Sues claiming there was a conspiracy between Harlow and others to fire him
  • Court rules that Harlow has no liability because he knew what he was doing violated the Constitution. No good faith
  • Dissent: President has immunity. Why don't his aids in the same decision?
Nixon v. Fitzgerald
  • Court rules President has absolute immunity because:
  • Unique position
  • Seperation of powers protects him from judiciary
  • Still only extends to duties of office
  • Dissent: Immunity applies to actions, not office
  • Gives President too much power
Clinton v. Jones
  • Governor Bill Clinton is sued for sexual harrassment while in office of President
  • Court rules absolute immunity does not apply because he was not the President when it happened
  • Breyer concurs claiming that a judge shouldn't be able to interfere w/ the President but this small case will not be an issue
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of FBN
  • Mr. Bivens' home is raided by six narcotic agents without a warrant and he is arrested. Wife and children also threatened
  • Taken to federal facility where he is searched and interrogated
  • Claims his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because of lack of warrant but lower courts rule privacy rights are issue of state and not federal law
  • Court rules that Fourth Amendment should apply to federal action as well as state
  • Federal actors can cause much more harm than an individual trespasser
  • People have no protection to their privacy from both state and federal intrusion except the courts
Safford v. Redding
  • School officials strip search girl on suspicion of handing out drugs
  • Mom sues officials for violation of 4th Amendment rights
  • Court rules that officials had right to search possessions and outer clothes because of lower requirement of suspicion in school searches
  • Strip search, though, violated "degree of reasonableness"
  • Officials got qualified immunity because the law was not clearly defined and they thought that what they were doing was legal
Morse v. Frederick
  • Student holds up sign at school function that says "Bong Hits"
  • Principal confiscates sign and suspends student
  • Student sues claiming his First Amendment rights were violated
  • Court rules that principal is not liable and First Amendment rights were not violated because it is in school rules
  • Breyer concurs that principal is immune but disagrees with bringing the First Amendment into it
Owen v. City of Independence
  • Police chief is asked to step down and take a different position after an investigation got complicated
  • Chief refuses to step down and is eventually fired
  • He is given no notice or hearing and claims his due process was violated
  • City claims they were acting in good faith and should be immune to his law suit
  • Court rules that a municipality can have no immunity
DeShaney v. Winnebago Co. DSS
  • Father is suspected of child abuse 5 times on visits to house by DSS yet agents decide against removing child from house
  • Eventually, child is knocked into a brain-damaging coma
  • Mother sues DSS for not removing child from house earlier
  • Court rules that agents were exercising their discretion and are not liable
  • Due process was not violated because the violence was from a private actor
  • He was not in custody of DSS so they were not required to protect him from private action
U.S. v. Lee
  • National government takes land from Lee to build cemetary
  • Court rules that government only has sovereign immunity when following its sovereign laws
  • People in the United States need to be able to bring a claim against any actor since that was not the case with a king
Correctional Service Corporation v. Malesko
  • Inmate in halfway house sponsored by the federal government is injured after not being allowed to use elevator
  • Court rules Bivens does not apply to private actors acting under color of federal law, only to federal actors
  • Scalia concurring: Bivens has been applied too widely already and needs to be forgotten
AMMI v. Sullivan
  • Pennsylvania provides in its workers' comp law that an employer or insurer may withhold payment pending an independent review
  • Court rules that insurers are not state actors and therefore the law does not deprive employees due process
  • People do not have a property interest in treatment that has not been found reasonable and necessary
Richardson v. Wright
  • Question is whether disability benefits can be discontinued with out pre-termination hearing
  • Court ducks the issue that is later presented in Mathews, but Brennan still dissents here
  • Secretary insists that Goldberg does not apply because discontinuing disability benefits is different from discontinuting welfare benefits because welfare can be brought to attention by tips, rumor, or gossip
  • Brennan argues it does not matter how the authorities hear, it is all about whether the recipient is eligible
  • Secretary also argues that welfare can be subjective while disability is objective
  • Brennan says there are three ways in which disability can cease and none of them are objective
Supporting users have an ad free experience!