Administrative Law - Pierce - Fall 2006_4

8/20/2019 Administrative Law - Pierce - Fall 2006_4

1/22

Admin Law Final Outline – Pierce (Fall 2006)

*Outline Summary

1. Challene! "# $ %e&en!e! O& Aency Acti#n: Challenging Statute, Adequacy of Process, Availability of Review, Scope of Review2. 'ntr#ducti#n t# Aencie! and Admini!tratie Law: Agencies, Constitution, Statutes, Key Doctrine, Principles, odels, Key !unctions. Aencie! 'n A Sy!tem O& Searated P#wer!: Congress, "#ecutive, Courts+. Aency ,ulema-in: $ntroduction, Process, !or%al, $nfor%al, &egislative, 'on(&egislative, Require%ents, )enefits*)urdens, "#e%ptions. Aency Ad/udicati#n: $ntroduction, !or%al, $nfor%al, Constraints, Per%itted, Require%ents, Consistency, Controlling +ith Rules, Due Process6. Aailaility #& udicial ,eiew #& Aency Acti#n: Agency Action, Agency $naction, !inality, Ripeness, "#haustion, Standing C - Statutory. Sc#e #& udicial ,eiew #& Aency Acti#n: APA, Chevron, Substantial "vidence, Arbitrary and Capricious, Re%edies, odern Dispute

'. Challene! "# and %e&en!e! O& Aency Acti#n

A. Challenin the 3nderlyin Statute 't!el&

./ Congress lac0ed the authority to delegate such legislative 1rule%a0ing2 * 3udicial 1ad3udication2 power to an agencya/ 'on(Delegation Doctrine

b/ $ntelligible Principle Require%entc/ Statutory Precision

4/ Congress i%properly aggrandi5ed core e#ecutive functions for itself a/ Appoint%ent Power

b/ Presu%ed Re%oval Power c/ Co%%ander in Chief Power d/ "#ecutive 6rder Power

7/ Congress i%properly delegated core 3udicial functions to agenciesa/ Private Rights Disputes

4. Challenin the Ade5uacy #& the Pr#ce!! and Pr#cedure!./ 8eneral Proble%sa/ &ac0 of 9rial(&i0e earing 1!or%al Ad3udication * !or%al Rule%a0ing2

b/ )ias and Pre3udg%entc/ "# Parte Co%%unications

4/ Ad3udicationsa/ ;iolated $ts 6wn Procedural Rules

b/ ;iolated Party


2/22

''. 'ntr#ducti#n t# Aencie! and Admini!tratie Law

A. Aencie! 1APA ?.2: created by statute, agencies are govt/ authorities that are not the legislature, courts, territorial govern%ents, or president1) 7ecutie Aencie!8 located in e#ec, generally w* . person heading the agency 1often cabinet level2 who


3/22

'''. Aencie! 'n A Sy!tem O& Searated P#wer!

'. AEC'S AE% COE,SS (A,"'CL ')

A. C#nre!!i#nal Limit! #n Aency P#wer

1) C#n!tituti#nal P#wer: all legislative power shall be vested in a Congress

2) %eleati#n ,e5uired: agencies can only act to the e#tent that theyc#n#mic #al!: CAA properly delegated legislative power to "PA to %a0e air qualitystandards Hto protect public health,I w*o considering costs given statutory language - conte#t 1 *hit"an v. A" r'cking , 4.2e. ,ati#nale r Clear Statut#ry Standard!: broad delegations of legislative power absent clear standards prevents politicalaccountability and fosters an environ%ent in which corruption, cronyis%, and patronage can thrive&. Pr#lem! with 3nclear Statut#ry Standard!: can


4/22

%. Limitati#n! #n C#nre!!i#nal 'n&luence

1) Searati#n #& P#wer! (P#wer ra! !. Addin Chec-!): SC has struc0 down acts by Congress that usurp e#ecutive power for itself,while upholding acts li%iting e#ecutive power in a way that adds chec0s that Congress itself doesnA#inted 'ndeendent C#un!el '! C#n!tituti#nal: Congress can have court appoint $C to investigate e#ec branchwrongs - %a0e $C re%ovable by A8 only Hfor causeI cu5 its not Cong grabbing power 1 Morrison v. #lson, .FEE, functionalist2

. udicial Sentencin C#mmi!!i#n i! C#n!tituti#nal: Congress can create an independent sentencing co%%ission in the 3udiciary cu5 it doesn


5/22

''. AEC'S AE% "B JC3"'I (A,"'CL '')

A. 7ecutie Limit! #n Aency P#wer

1) S#urce! #& C#n!tituti#nal P#wer

1. Ie!tin P#wer Clau!e: power of e#ecutive is vested in the pre52. Oini#n in


6/22


7/22

'''. AEC'S AE% "B CO3,"S (A,"'CL ''')

A. C#n!tituti#n: >/S/ 3udicial power shall be vested in one Supre%e Court - such inferior courts as Congress %ay ordain - establish 1Art/ $$$24. ,eality: federal agencies ad3udicate (. ti%es %ore disputes than federal courtsC. ?ey Fact#r! F#r Ad/udicatie %eleati#n! 1CFC v. Schor , .FE2

./ "#tent essential attributes of 3udicial power are reserved to Article $$$ courts4/ "#tent non(Article $$$ foru% e#ercises range of 3urisdiction and powers nor%ally vested only in Article $$$ courts7/ 6rigins and i%portance of right to be ad3udicatedB/ Concerns that led Congress to depart fro% the require%ents of Article $$$

%. Priate ,iht! . Pulic ,iht!: Article $$$ applies to private rights, not public rights 1Crowell v. %enson, .F742 1statute can ta0e away findings offact fro% Article $$$ courts2

1. Priate ,iht!: Congress can assign agencies so%e power over private or C*& disputes where narrowly tailored or prag%atic 1and it iso0ay that federal courts are not involved2

Modern Views

a. Aencie! Can Sueri!e Priate %i!ute! 'n Earr#w Cla!! #& Ca!e! '& "here! ##d ,ea!#n!: 3ustices uphold statuteassigning a class of ta0ings disputes to agency(supervised binding arbitration cu5 narrow class of disputes involved 1can patentapplicant 4 rely on R-D of patent applicant . or is that a govt/ ta0ing2 and good 3ustification e#ists 1 ,nion Carbide, .FE2

. Aencie! Can Ad/udicate Earr#w Cla!! #& CL C#unterclaim! '& "here! ##d ,ea!#n!: @ 3ustices uphold C!9C assertionof power to ad3udicate C*& counterclai%s cu5 narrow class of disputes, good prag%atic 3ustification 1efficiency of . proceeding2,and D i%plicitly consented by bringing clai% w* C!9C 1CFC v. Schor , .FE2:

c. Aencie! Can E#t 3!ur CL Claim! 'n


8/22

'I. Aency ,ulema-in

A. 'ntr#ducti#n t# ,ulema-in

1. ,ule: agency state%ent of general or particular applicability - future effect designed to i%ple%ent, interpret, or prescribe law or policy2. Anal#y8 si%ilar to legislative enact%ent

. Alicati#n: general and broad application+. A&&ect!: broad class of people and parties. "imin: forward loo0ing and future effect 1retroactivity not allowed26. 4a!i!: general %atters of law, policy, discretion. %ue Pr#ce!!: not i%plicated 1 %i3Metallic, .F. broad govt policy li0e ta#ation2H. "ye!: for%al and infor%al, legislative and non(legislative

G. 7amle!: setting standards, requiring or prohibiting certain actionSettin Standard!: specifying industry(wide caps on air and water pollution, how long pilots can fly w*o ti%e off *,e5uirinPr#hiitin: requiring airbags in all new cars, prohibiting use of ben5ene in wor0places, banning HsoringI of horses

4. Aency Pr#ce!! i& m#wered t# @a-e Lei!latie ,ule!

1. E#tice: state%ent of ti%e 1period2, place 1to send co%%ents2, - nature of proceedings 1infor%al, for%al, '-C2 14( pages22. Leal Auth#rity: disclose reference to legal authority under which the rule is proposed 1?7)2. "erm! #r %e!criti#n: provide the ter%s or substance of proposed rule or description of sub3ects and issues involved+. 7lanati#n and Pur#!e: provide a prea%ble to e#plain the purpose and provisions of the proposed rule. C#mment!: solicit, receive, consider co%%ents fro% interested parties 1oral co%%on, not required2 1.K(. pgs K(4K parties26. Final ,ule


9/22

6. @u!t %i!cl#!e 7 Parte C#mmunicati#n!: e# parte in rule%a0ings %ust be put in record 1 H%# v. FCC , DC .F@F2 1off(record %tg w*industry insiders2, but narrowed to only those w* Hconflicting clai%s to a valuable privilegeI 1 Act +or Childrens V , DC2 1e/g/ !CC license2

a. ,ati#nale Aain!t 7 Parte: open, transparent, disclosure, accountable to public 1%odel: 3udicial syste%2. ,ati#nale F#r 7 Parte: fle#ibility, speed, efficiency, and candid off(the(record dialogue 1%odel: legislative syste%2c. Start ,ulema-in A! Late A! P#!!ile: issue notice only after all 0ey input - all necessary e# parte cs 1 t##l: A'PR2

. 'martial ,ulema-er (E#t 4ia!ed #r Pre/udice): canD, S, D6$, D69, D6&2and Congress has overridden others by statute so the rule tends to be construed %uch %ore narrowly than on its face

2. 7emt Fr#m E#ticeC#mment ,e5uirement! (APA = ()) 1e#e%pts %any rules w* no legal effect not a license for vagueness2

a. 'nterretatie ,ule! (n# rce #& law): clarifies scope of pre(e#isting right or duty - particulari5es it to better understandhow it applies in different factual circu%stances 1e/g/ don


10/22

i. E# Alternatie 4a!i! r nrcement: an enforce%ent action could not be brought w*o rule 1leg rule2. Amend! A Pri#r Lei!latie ,ule: if a rule effectively a%ends a prior legislative rule its li0ely a leg rule

ii. 'nterretatie (P#licy Letter!): SA rule requires report for each occupational disease HdiagnosedI in e%ployee, but 7 policy letters defining #(rays as HdiagnosesI are interpretive rules e#e%pt fro% '-C 1 AMC v. MSHA4 DC .FF72

iii. Lei!latie (Preci!e Standard): EI fence require%ent by D6A based on a leg rule requiring structurally soundfacilities to protect dangerous ani%als during transport is a leg rule requiring '-C 1 Hoctor v. ,S 1#A, @th Cir/ .FF2

i. %e&erence t# Plau!ile 'nterretati#n!; 4ut E#t Parr#tin Statute: courts will defer to plausible agency interp ofits leg rule 1Se"inole Rock .FBB2, but not if interpretation of a rule %erely parrots a statute 1Gon(ales v. #R, 42 cu5

otherwise agencies would issue broad, vague rules %erely restating principal provisions of a statute* Li"its: can'nternal Penalty uideline! (7amle M2): Coast 8uard arine Safety anual giving guidance on whatappropriate penalties %ight be for various types of water pollution

ii. #al: policy state%ents are used to provide guidance to agency e%ployees or regulated entities

iii. C#ercie &&ect: even though not binding, policy state%ents have a coercive effect on regulatees 1fear enforce%ent2

i. udicial "e!t r P#licy Statement!: courts loo0 for evidence that an agency wonP#licy Cant 4ind Aency %i!creti#n: agency can


11/22

I. Aency Ad/udicati#n

A. 'ntr#ducti#n t# Ad/udicati#n

1. Ad/udicati#n: application of a statute or other legal standard to a given fact situation involving particular individuals or parties2. Anal#y: si%ilar to 3udicial process

. Alicati#n: specific and narrow application+. A&&ect!: specific parties, activities, businesses, properties involved. "imin: bac0ward loo0ing application of law to past conduct 1retroactivity allowed26. 4a!i!: application of law to facts in specific disputes with particular parties. %ue Pr#ce!!: i%plicated 1 Londoner , .FE individuali5ed deter%inations2H. "ye!: for%al and infor%al

G. 7amle!: deter%ining eligibility, licensing decisions* %eterminin8 if student qualifies for loans, in3ured person can get disability, alien can stay in >/S/, %erger was anti(co%petitive* '!!uin8 licenses to pilots, broadcasters for 9; station, businesses to pollute up to certain cap, developers to build on wetlands

4. F#rmal Ad/udicati#n (=+)

1. Alie!: only if agency


12/22

a. An Aency Can ,ely ntirely #n Bear!ay: agencies can %a0e an ad3udicatory decision solely based on hearsay 1e/g/ relyingon docs who found no disability in hearsay vs/ testi%ony of . doc who did for SS benefits, Richardson v. $erales, [email protected]

. Su#rt: for%al ad3udication orders %ust still be supported by Hreliable, probative, and substantial evidenceI ?1d22. 4urden #& Pr##& : the burden of proof is on the proponent of the order 1e/g/ SSA to show a person


13/22

() Pre>"erminati#n Oral identiary Bearins: apart fro% Goldberg v. 6elly 1.F@2 SC


14/22

I'. Aailaility #& udicial ,eiew #& Aency Acti#n

A. Pre!umti#n #& ,eiewaility #& Final Aency Acti#n 1#verton $ark [email protected]: APA provides a right to review of final agency action >'&"SS

(1) Statute Preclude! ,eiew (=01(a)(1))8 requires clear - convincing evidence Congress intended to preclude review 6R

Stat'tory Silence Still Reviewable8 D69 act barring use of fed M to build highways through public par0s if Hfeasible - prudentI alternativee#ists reviewable by courts even though statute


15/22

C. "imin #& udicial ,eiew

(1) ,e5uirement!: agency action is reviewable only if its final, ripe for review, and P has e#hausted ad%inistrative re%edies

(2) Finality: agencyC#n!e5uential %eci!i#n! Are E#t Final: proposed decisions that carry no consequences are not HfinalI even if theyrepresent an agency


16/22

i. ?ey8 challenges to legislative rules that raise %ere possibilities of change but don S pro3ects cu5 theoretical future trips abroad to see ani%als only a speculative in3ury, not one in fact 1 L'9an, .FF42

.


17/22

) Eeih#rin P#lluti#n (Standin): neighbors of wastewater treat%ent plant had standing under Clean +ater Act whenclai%ing their recreational opportunities were curtailed cu5 fear of ongoing pollution even w*o actual pollution 1 Laidlaw, 42

Lenient -n9'ry -n Fact Re;'ire"ent

a) ,ea!#nale Fear ,e5uirement: for standing it is sufficient for P to show that his change in behavior 1curtailed recreation2was due to a Hreasonable "ear I regarding effects of discharges fro% nearby wastewater treat%ent plant 1 Laidlaw, 42

) "e!tin %i!criminati#n: )lac0 HtesterI can challenge apt/ building owner/S/ support 1 L'9an, .FF42 O,

hospital %ight still not serve the poor even under threat of losing ta# e#e%ption 1 Si"on v. /. 6! *el+are Rights Assn, .F@2

() #ne #& 'ntere!t "e!t (Statut#ry ,e5uirement > APA =02) : whether the interests sought to be protected by P is arguabl( within the )one o" interests to be &rotected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question 1 A1$ v. Ca"&, .F@2

a) 4a!ed #n APA =02: creates a cause of action for persons adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the%eaning of a relevant statute

) C#nre!!i#nally 'ntended 4ene&iciary "e!t: who and what did Congress %ean to protect in enacting a particular statuteO

c) P#litical %ynamic!: 3ustices are very split on standing and cases on 5one of interest will li0ely depend on the politicaldyna%ics of the case 1e/g/ labor unions, creditors, etc/2

.@


18/22

%road Con+erral o+ Standing

a) 3nintended 4ene&iciarie! 4ut Suitale Challener!: co%petitors of national ban0s engaged in data processing servicesdee%ed w*in class of aggrieved persons entitled to 3udicial review of agency action even though Congress wasn'n>Fact Eeed E#t 4e c#n#mic 1 A1$ v. Ca"&, .F@2

) nir#nmental and Ae!thetic Barm! Can 4e 'n/urie!>'n>Fact 1Sierra Cl'b v. Morton, .F@42 1hi0er in wilderness areain3ured by agency action allowing develop%ent of that area2

*Scalia Paer #n Standin a! an !!ential lement #& Searati#n #& P#wer! 1.FE72: 9a0e Care Clause per%its only thePresident to enforce environ%ental laws and precludes a court fro% interfering with the President


19/22

. E# Standin: in3ury to earth is too speculative*general, greenhouse gases fro% cars are only of total sonot fairly traceable to the "PA, and not redressible by a court if China and other big countries 0eep polluting

c. Finality8 "PA denial of a petition for rule%a0ing to pro%ulgate nationally applicable regs is final actiond. E# Finality: "PA


20/22

I''. Sc#e #& udicial ,eiew #& Aency Acti#n

A. ,#le #& udicial ,eiew: ensure result is reasonable, w*in range of authority conveyed, for%ulated in %anner prescribed, - disappointed hadopportunity to %a0e their views 0nown as Congress provided

4. %#wn!ide! #& udicial ,eiew: for%ali5es and rigidifies agency decision %a0ing process, increases ti%e - costs associated w* agency decisions1e/g/ agency ends up spending lots of resources 3ust to defend cases rather than furthering its %ission2

C. ,eleant APA Pr#i!i#n (=06): reviewing courts shall review the whole record and1.2 co%pel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed AE%142 hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be (

1A2 arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law

1)2 contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or i%%unity 1C2 in e#cess of statutory 3urisdiction, authority, or li%itations, or short of statutory right 1D2 without observance of procedure required by law 1"2 unsupported by substantial evidence in a case of for%al rule%a0ing, for%al ad3udication or otherwise provided by statute 6R 1!2 unwarranted by the facts to the e#tent that the facts are sub3ect to trial de novo by the reviewing court

%. Cher#n "w#>Ste "e!t: deter%ining whether to grant deference to an agency


21/22

. Standard! #& ,eiew8 agencies %ust docu%ent - e#plain bases of their decisions 1?72 - will be held unlawful absent reasoned support 1?@2

(1) Su!tantial idence #n the ,ec#rd (=06(2)())

(a) Alie!: to review of questions of fact or in for%al proceedings 1?@1421e2, ,niversal Ca"era, .F., Consolidated /dison2

() Fairly %e&erential: whether reasonable people could %a0e the finding the agency %ade based on the record before itconsidering both the evidence that supports and detracts fro% the findings

(c) AL . Aency: a court %ay %ore closely scrutini5e an agency that reverses an A&=ne#plained departures fro% precedents and prior policies b/ !ailing to consider 0ey alternatives or e#plain why they were re3ected 1State Far", .FE72c/ +ea0 agency e#planation unsupported by record - unresponsive to strong challenge to costly regs 1 %rinegar , .F@B2d/ !ailing to articulate a standard which guides its action 1 Morton v. R'i( , .F@B2 1)$A welfare M2e/ a0ing a decision based on factors not %ade relevant by applicable statute 1cf/ Sierra Cl'b v. Costle, .FE.2f/ !ailure to disclose %aterials on which agency relied as part of its basis for a final rule 1 Nova Scotia Food , .F@@2g/ Refusing to a%end a rule after indicating agency would based on study


22/22

. ,emedie!

(1) "imetale!: courts recogni5e li%ited agency resources and so re%edy is often li%ited to requiring agency to produce a ti%etable(2) Iacatin ,ule!: courts %ay often vacate rules pending agency reconsideration so that the court

Administrative Law - Pierce - Fall 2006_4

Documents

Transcript of Administrative Law - Pierce - Fall 2006_4