Shared Flashcard Set


Administrative Law
IUPUI Professor Wright Admin Law

Additional Law Flashcards




State Ex Railroad and warehouse commission v. Chicago
- Milk/Railroad case
- Non-delegation doctrine as state level
- Agency given power through statute to make sure prices were reasonable
- If not reasonable agency to compel carriers to set fair and reasonable price
- In this case, agency not making law simply acting under the authority given to them under the statute (set fair and reasonable price)
- Statute claim that a claim was beyond judicial review could result in deprivation of DP
Schechter Poultry (non-delegation doctrine died in 1937)
- NIRA <-- Agency
- absent definition of "fair competition"
- delegated law making power away from congress and to the president
- President enacted live poultry code.
- can't do this... the pres can do what the fuck he wants and no one (congress can keep him in check with this broad authority.)
- Resulted in Pres being able to create law essentially..
Industrial union v. American Petroleum Institute (Benzene case)
- OSHA delegated to secretary of the DOL power to promulgate different kinds of standard
- Failed to meet threshold requirement for 10ppm --> 1ppm...
- Must look at risk v. benefit to meet section 6
- Agency can do whatever the fuck they want if they are not required to justify their decision
- Agency was given the guiding principles (Section 3 and 6) but just did whatever the fuck they want.
Myers v. United States (separation of powers case)
- Post master in Oregon removed by President without senate approval
- OK because post master is an executive
- outcome would have been different had he been a department head...
- President has to be able to act on executive officers or he is just a powerless bitch
Humphrey's Executor (Removal for good cause)
Statute in question provided that the commissioner can be removed for cause only
- placed limitation on the presidents power to remove those who's duties are more legislative in nature.
- Pres asked for Humphrey's resignation but Humphrey said "screw off"
- Allowed restriction on Presidents power to remove
INS v. Chada (legislative Vetoes)
- deportation case
- Legislative veto in this case only granted veto power to house which violated separation of power
- Statute allowed the house of reps to act independently via legislative veto
- Bicarmal passage required (house & senate approval)
- This action very legislative in nature
Executive Order 12, 291
- injected a cost/benefit analysis into agency rule
- If agency is creating a MAJOR RULE then they must submit a Regulatory impact analysis
- cost/benefit results in narrow tailoring
Crowell v. Benson (Agency's power to adjudicate)
- For questions of public rights facts: Agency can make final determination
- For questions of private rights: agency can make final determination because no constitutional requirement that all questions of fact go to jury
NLRB V. Universal Camera
- Dude got fired after testifying at NLRB trial but employer said it was because of "performance issues"
- ALJ reviewed the case and relied on insuficient evidence to pass judgment
- looked only at credibility of one witness and not fact as a whole
- must look at whole record
- not determining if agency was right/wrong but whether a reasonable person, after viewing the whole record, would think the agency "got it wrong)
Smyth v. Ames (pre-hope natural gas question of fact)
- NE passed bill to set intrastate price for RR
- Didn't take shit into consideration when setting price. What is fair value?
- 3 years prior 4 of 6 would have lost money
- Agency should use 5 things to determine fair value
- original cost construction
amount spent on permanent improvement
- Amount/market value of bonds/stock
- probable earnings capacity under rate
- can they meet operating costs
FPC v. Hope Natural Gas (overruled Smyth)
- 5th and 14th amendment
- Said the "fair value calc not applicable" because rate determines fair value so...
- 3 factors biatch... high deference to agency (just and reasonable price)
(1) enough revenue for operating expenses plus capital cost
(2) return on equity similar to return on other investments
(3) sufficient to maintain credit and attract capital
U.S. v. 53 eclectus parrots (review of questions of law)
- D imported 56 parrots from indonesia
- wtf does "wild" mean
- APA Section 706: reviewing court should decide all relevant questions of law interpret statutory provisions
- Agency says I define "wild bird"
- D said not so fast fucker... I can bread these birds so they are not wild!
- Courts say agency knows best
NLRB v. Hearst Publications
- Union collective bargaining case where respondent refused to bargain with newsboy delivering papers.
- Not employees so wont bargain
- COA reversed decision but was WRONG
- Where the question is one specific application of a broad statutory term then agency given deference bitch
Skidmore v. Swift (Pre-Chevron approach)
- What is "hours worked"
- legislative rules v. Agency interpretation
- Overtime pay case
- low deference given to agency
- requires courts to take a very close look at 4 factors to determine if deference should be given
(1) thoroughness of agency consideration
(2) validity of reasoning
(3) consistency in definition
(4) and all factors that give power to persuade
Chevron v. Natural Resource Defense Council
- ONLY APPLIES TO FORMAL RULE MAKING (at this point in history)
- Stationary source v. bubble
- High degree of deference given to agency
- 2 part test to determine deference given to agency
(1) has congress spoken directly and specifically to the issue
(2) Whether the agency reasonably interprets the statute to fill an explicit or implicit gap
NOTE: Explicit: can't be arbitrary
Implicit: must be reasonable
Christensen v. Harris County
Time off v. Overtime
- advisory letter received Skidmore deference because letter did not represent an authoritative view
- If it was authoritative then Chevron would apply
US v. Mead
- importation of the planners
- ruling letter regarding tarrif on imported binders
- dude said back the fuck up yo can't do that
- court said ruling letter is informal and adjudicative
- Chevron doesnt apply but the standard isn't chevron or nothing!
- Skidmore applied
Barnhart v. Walton (formal rule making case)
- Court upheld formal rule promulgated through formal procedure
- if congress doesn't make the outcome clear then Chevron II applies if the gaps need filled by agency
Kent v. Dulles (Chevron, agency discretion, and canons of construction)
- 5th amendment liberty right to travel
- Passport denied: "You are a communist bitch!"
- Congress gave limited authority to Sec of State to restrict travel under 2 very specific circumstances
- Agency restricted travel outside of the exceptions stated by congress...
- Congress explicitly outlined when agency could act and left no gaps so... Go fuck yourself agency!
- Agency may not interpret an ambiguous statute so as to raise a serious constitutional issue.
Scenic Hudson v. FPC (hard look doctrine)
- Powerplant licensing case
- First step towards making informal decisions transparent and accountable to the public
- Court reviewing agency findings of facts or of the policy of the agency
- When do you apply Hard Look Doctrine?
- when you don't trust agency
- Agency is a notorious dumping ground
- When agency is very partisan
- When agency is overambitous
Overton Park v. volpe
Overton Park is in TN. The traffic authority sought to build a highway through the 342 acre park, a plan that would have destroyed 26 acres.
Substantive “arbitrary and capricious” review
• Significance:
o Explains “Arbitrary and Capricious” Review as:
• Narrow level of review
• Searching and Careful
• Ensure that the agency hasn’t:
• Failed to review a particular part of the problem
• Failed to investigate and address all areas of the problem.
- did agency handle decision making process for assigning 10,000 homes to 90,000 people?
• Applications are not processed chronologically, or in accordance with ascertainable standards
* Significance: Another illustration that the courts are not tolerant of the agency having arbitrary discretion
fook hong mak v. INS
- transit authorization immigrant who stayed 6 months longer than his 8-day transit authorization allowed
- Case is primarily focussed on agency's ability to make rules concerning discretion

o Court will approve of the agency’s general rule if the determination is founded upon considerations rationally related to the administration of the relevant statute.
o Because general rules promote the idea that similar case shall be treated similarly.
SEC v. Chenery
- Chenery's were majority owners of a public utility company. Wanted to use class B stock in exchange for share of the new company. SEC said no... Must use preferred stock so Chenry's spent the next 3 years buying a shit-ton of preferred stock and tried that route..
- SEC made decision not based on a rule or expertise but as a court of equity..
Chenery 1: courts say no can do... Because:

1. Agency must offer sufficient justification for their decision
2. Reviewing court is not allowed to supply an adequate justification for what the agency has done, even if they can come up with something
Why? FAIRNESS ... courts can't fill in the blanks for the agency
Arizona Grocery v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway
- Rates set by agency in 1920 were in legislative capacity
- Rates set in 1922 was done so in an adjudicative capacity
- i. General Rule: an agency is bound by its rules until it changes them and satisfactorily explains the change
ii. Rationale: parties have a right to rely on agency policy until it is changed for a good reason
Schweiker v. Hansen (Estoppel)
- erronious denial of mothers insurance. Mother was not advised to fill out an application by the SSA agent per the field manual.
- COA says application was just procedural and misconduct was sufficient to grant estoppel
- SC says: You is crazy biatch! Didn't define what conduct would warrant estoppel but said the manual the SSA uses is not binding and allowing estoppel without a damn good reason would allow the bureaucrats to alter the law.
Londoner v. Denver (constitutional distinction between rule-making and adjudication) ADJUDICATION CASE
- Party specific facts
- Public works approved improvement to roads running in front of peoples houses, failed to provide public notice, and then taxed the fuckers on the improvements they didn't get a chance to bitch about.
- P sued under 14th amendment Due Process Clause
- Authorization of work was not a violation BUT
- Taxing without public hearing was a DPC violation
ADJUDICATIVE DECISION: ask yourself the question of "does this impact a broad group or a small group of individuals". In this case was small group of homeowners. if small then adjudicative decision
- When adjudicative facts are at issue, notice and opportunity for hearing should be afforded.
Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization
More legislative in nature: Notice and comment just fine
- Tax Commission ordered that all property values in Denver be increased forty percent
- applies to everyone in Denver not just a few so Rule-Making and NOT adjudication
- P sued saying he wasn't give notice and therefore a violation of DPC
- Courts say "fuck off" in the case of rule-making, the agency has to have some discretion or the government can't go on and individuals may have little or nothing to contribute to the development of legislative facts, the method of trial often is not required for determination of disputed issues about legislative facts.
National Petroleum Refiners Association v. FTC
- The FTC promulgated a rule that required that the octane rating be posted on the gas pumps.
- P said that FTC only had ability to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis and not the power to make a generally applicable rule requiring posting of octane ratings.
- Holding: if we don't implicitly read in the ability for agency's to make rules that are directly related to the agency's mission then it will take fucking forever to get shit done.
United States v. Florida East Coast Railway (ICA AND APA DISTINCTION)
- Statute says after formal hearing rates can be put into effect
- P said hearing has to be formal and on the record
- P didn't get hearing and sued that "after hearing" means formal rule making applies
- SC says "go fuck yourself": language of "after hearing" doesn't within itself trigger the requirement of formal rule making. NOT GOING TO IMPLICITLY IMPLY FORMAL RULE MAKING places a shit-ton of burden on agency
United States v. Nova Scotia Food Products Corp (notice and comment case)
- agency passed a notice and comment rule prohibiting the hot smoking of white-fish
- D sued and said "bitch! Where is my data!" the agency failed to provide the data, that the industry requested, that they used to determine the basis of the rule
- SC said: Agency rule is fucked because they failed to provide (1) meaningful comment and (2) a precise general purpose for the rule
vermont yankee
- agency licensed new nuclear facility
- informal adjudication case but they covered all basis
- courts for last 70 years have transformed the whole informal rule making process so they would have something they could review in the form of a record.
- Plaintiffs sued because didn't like the environmental shit
- COA reversed the adjudication process even though sufficient record existed
- Judge says "I need even more shit and until then go back"
- went beyond the hardlook doctrine
- requirements here are beyond what is necessary
- SC held: reversed COA... can't go beyond the hard look doctrine and require more absent extremely compelling circumstances
- Policy: consistency of the judicial process
- how high do I have to build the fence around the tiger
- Statute in question only speaks to animal safety
- Notice an comment rule required the fence to be structurally sound
- nothing agency can point to that says 6 feet high isn't enough
- agency points a memo that says 8 feet should be required... so the agency says they have an interpretive rule here that requires skidmore deference
- Judge says: Bull shit... nothing that the memo is interpreting
North American Cold Storage (Due Process Case)
- 1908 case back in the day
- authorizes the city to seize food that it finds unfit for human consumption
- Legislature says that if you have grounds to think the food is bad, public safety is so important that a pre-deprivation hearing isn't necessary
- P asked for DP and said give me a pre-deprivation hearing
- SC held no prior hearing is necessary but a post-deprivation hearing will work it all out
- Pre v post deprivation hearing: balancing of government and private interest
Goldbergh v. Kelly
- 14th amendment state action case
- Determined due process interest exists so question is "what is the timing"
- first case to recognize government payment as property right (not a privilege)
- State of NY attempted to terminate welfare benefits without providing a pre-deprivation hearing
- NY wrote in a lot of process into the statute while case was ongoing but still failed to provide a pre-deprivation hearing
- had one year contract with University but school decided to part ways after contract ended
- P claimed he was let go for speaking out against something and not provided a hearing so DP violated
- SC said: no bi-lateral expectation and no due process because no property right exists.
- At school for 10 years under 10 successive 1 year contracts
- School policy says "if you are doing well, then we want you to feel like you have a home hear"
- P says I want my DP
- Court says DP issue might exists because a property interest might exist as a result of the provision in the manual
- SC remanded for TC to determine if a property interest exists
mathews v. eldridge
- P in 1968 was given disability benis
- in 1972 benis were cut off
- Given a shit ton of deprivation process
- gave him notice of term
- gave him opportunity to respond
- looked at med records
- Got an informal hearing and not formal so he was pissed
- SC says no deprivation hearing required all reqs are met.
- Question is "will more process lead to a better result" Court says No...
- When is pre v post deprivation hearing needed?
(1) look at private interest
(2) look at government interest
(3) reliability of process in place
All these things suggest that pre-dep not required for this case
heckler v. chaney
- P sentenced to death and sued FDA for not putting the cocktail that was going to take his life through testing
- TC says law to apply found that agencies failure to just not apply rule was arbitrary and capricious
- SC says NO!! Agency can decide to not enforce and is presumptively un-reviewable by the courts
- Exception would be anything that would trigger the courts to apply the hard look doctrine or if there is an organic statute
- Policy decision... Agency discretion is equal to that of prosecutorial discretion
siera club v. morton
- how do figure out if you have standing to sue
- Siera club sued in capacity of special interest group to prevent disney from building
- Siera club just said "we have an interest in this"
- APA said you have to have actually been harmed and should have sued as if they were representing the party actually harmed.
- Nature of injury: environmental interest
- Injury in fact: Must show a cognizable interest...
abbott labs v. gardner
- Ripeness to review agency action
- Must be labeled with generic and primary name and by the way... it has to happen now!
- COA says not ripe
- APA passed notice in common rule that applied immediately (bottle labeling)
- P sued and challenged the power of the agency, not what they were claiming
- SC says no... this shit is ripe
- Ripeness if (2 prongs)
(1) fitness for judicial decision of the issue: In this case rule isn't in question but statutory construction
(2) hardship that would result if judicial review was denied: Goes into effect immediately and the hardship to manufacturers is high so SC says lets review it
- Exhaustion case
- Much like ripeness and primary jurisdiction
- Exhaustion of all remedies is required prior to going to courts
- General idea is that if issue isn't given to the agency then not looked at because issue is "waived"
- Mckart doesn't show up to the agency hearing regarding his classification because he thinks it was bogus
- failure to show says that he waived his defense
- At trial he tries to raise construction of statute issue and TC says no because you waived
- Why exhaustion?
(1) judicial expediency
(2) cheaper, etc...
- Weigh the burden of denying the claim versus exhaustion
Nader v. Allegheny Airlines
- primary jurisdiction case
- ripeness, exhaustion, and primary jurisdiction are all ways to limit access to the courts.
- Ralph suing saying the practice used to bump him was prejudicial
- Asked the agency to see if tort law violation and courts say agency has expertise in the area of airline trafficking but they don't know shit about torts...
Freedom of Information Act materials
- Freedom of information act
- applies to federal agencies
- Section 552 of apa
- Joe public doesn't have to show standing
- EXCEPTIONS (discretionary agency has burden of prooving why info falls under)
(1) national security
(2) internal personnel rules and practices
(3) trade secrets
(4) attorney client privilege
(5) personal privacy <-- pain in ass
(6) investigatory records
Section 1983 material
- dormant until Brown v. Board
- Can't sue federal govt under section 1983 must be connected to state (nexis)
- State actor must be in violation of federal law
- If remedy is implicit to the statute then no need to refer to section 1983
- If you sue under private capacity then they can claim qualified immunity HOWEVER if you sue under a official capacity then probably can't claim qualified immunity
Supporting users have an ad free experience!