Administrative Law - Pierce - Fall 2008_4

8/20/2019 Administrative Law - Pierce - Fall 2008_4

1/55

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (PIERCE – FALL 2008)

GeneralAdmini!ra!i"e Pr#$ed%re A$! (APA)

I& F#%r !'e # de$ii#nma*in+ r#$ed%re

a. F#rmal ad,%di$a!i#n (§§ 554-557)i. Trial-like proceedingsii. Only required if statute says, “on te record only after opportunity for agency

earing! “"agic #ords!

$. In#rmal ad,%di$a!i#n (§ 555)i. %a&ority of agency decisions "ade troug tis process

ii. 'eneer statute autories ad&udication $ut #*o "agic #ords requiring for"al,trial-like procedures (§§ 554-557), "ore infor"al procedures apply

iii. %uc discretionc. In#rmal r%lema*in+ (§ 55+) %ake leg. rules #* sa"e force*effect as statutes

i& -.!e r#$e/

. u$lication of notice of proposed rule"aking in /ederal 0egister

1. 2olicitation and consideration of industry*e3pert co""ents+. ssuance of final rule acco"panied $y rationale*reasonsd. F#rmal r%lema*in+ (§§ 55+, 55-557)

i. .!e r#$e/ 6otice co""ent issuance of final rule and oral eidentiaryearing su$&ect to cross e3a"ination

II& T# de!ermine 1i$ r#$ed%re !# %e/

a. 8gency9s rules (so"eti"es not clear or inconsistent #* statute) $. 8gency statues (in con&unction #* 88)c. 0ely on :ue rocess ;lause to deter"ine #at to use (statutes usually don9t ae “"agic

#ords! like “on te record after opportunity

Fa$!/ ;ity of :ener passes a notice tat agency as deter"ined 9s property asincreased in alue, and terefore "ust pay te increase in property ta3es. de"anded aearing to $ring fort and contest eidence. ;ity denied a earing and treatenedseiure.


2/55

5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. says tat ;ity cannot increase an indiidual9s ta3es $ased on a contesteddeter"ination tat is property as $eco"e "ore alua$le #*o proiding i" notice andso"e kind of earing.

i& ndiidualied deter"inations $ased on resolution of contested issues ofad&udicatie fact require so"e kind of earing. Tey sould $e resoled trougte ad,%di$a!#r' r#$e

6& 7i.Me!alli$ In"e!men! "& Den"er (C#mm%ni!'.6aed r%le en#r$emen!)i& Fa$!/ ;ity of :ener notifies resident tat is property ta3es are to increase due

to rising ad"inistratie costs.ii& 5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. olds tat @ondoner as no application ere, $*c @ondoner #as

$ased on clai" tat te 9s property ad increased in alue, and present case isa$out a ta3 tat is leied on an entire class of persons (generalied leg. facts).Terefore, te 9s clai" is "ore appropriately ad&udicated in te political arena(e3. ote goernor out of office)

() 8 got. decision tat i"poses a $urden on a class of persons $ased onfacts tat are in te real" of te legislature, does not entitle an indiidualto te rule of la# or due process, $ut only access to te #li!i$alr#$e9r%lema*in+

II& M#dern Te! (R#! 2.S!e) #r De!erminin+ En!i!lemen! !# DP 5earin+ Ri+!a& S!e / :eter"ine if :ue rocess 8pplies @ife, @i$erty, or roperty nterest

i& s tere a li$erty interestA() risoners9 rigts = li$erties

a& Sandin "& C#nner (::;) risoner #as not depried of a li$ertyinterest #en su$&ect to +> days in solitary confine"ent on te $asis of a deter"ination tat e ad engaged in “ig"isconduct.!

i& Before, irtually any interest goerned $y esta$lised prison rules created protected li$erty interest n#1

only iolation if i"pose “atypical = significant ardsipon in"ate re nor"al prison life.

(2) /reedo" fro" official stig"atiation coupled #* depriation of atangi$le interest

a& C#n!an!inea%

Fa$!/ 9s na"e appears on list of kno# drunks tat got.distri$uted to $ars #* orders not to sell drunks alcool. stig"atied #*o opportunity to defend is na"e = proe tat eis not alcoolic.5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. olds tat official stig"atiation constitutesdepriation of li$erty interests in one9s reputation (dra"atice3pansion of li$erty interests si"ilar to Cold$erg in property

conte3t)6& Pa%l "& Da"i (D7)

Fa$!/ @ist of kno#n “soplifters! sent to stores.5#ldin+/ 2tig"atiation (da"age to a person9s reputation) Estanding alone- is not depriation of a due process.

i& 0ater, need stigmatization coupled #* depriation of atangible interest (like rigt to $uy alcool) (een if not#*i scope of :) in order to so# iolation of protectedli$erty rigt


3/55

(-) @i$erty can include any oter constitutionally protected interest as #ell(consider Bill of 0igts)

a& R#!/ ;annot $e punised for e3ercising a li$erty interest (freespeec).

i& f fired for no reason or in "anner tat does not urtreputation, no protected interest.

() 8pplies in got. e"ploy"ent cases #ere e"ployees are fired for

religious $eliefs een toug tey #ere “at #ill.!ii& s tere a property interestA %ust deter"ine #eter

() Tere is a !a!%!#ril' $#nerred 6enei! on a class of persons(entitle"ent) or a &o$ tat is in a statute #ere person can only $e firedfor cause.

a& Cold$erg E statute confers an entitle"ent.(2) Tere is a $#n!ra$! (controersial only #* e"ploy"ent Fs * personal

serices)a& 7d& # Re+en! "& R#!> Perr' "& Sinderman (:?2)

Fa$!/ rofessors not reired #ere >-yr professor at non-tenure college (2inder"an) and 1-yr at-#ill professor (#ere 4yrs required to get tenure) (0ot) 86: a &ustifia$le e3pectation

to continue (2inder"an)5#ldin+/ ;t. dra#s distinction $*# "ere unilateral e3pectationto continue to #ork (0ot E "ere year-to-year F) = a &ustifia$lee3pectation to continue (2inder"an E e"ployee and$ook)

rof. in 2inder"an can $e indicated #* post-depriationearing rigts

i& N#!e/ f older of an unprotected &o$ is fired for reasonstat i"pose stig"a, discarge is an inasion of li$erty =entitles icti" to na"e-clearing earing.

6& L#%dermill (:8;)

Fa$!/ Tenured scool teacer (according to statute) is fired.Cot. says no entitle"ent to pre-ter"ination earing e3ists, as

statute esta$lising tenure and ter"ination procedures says suce"ployee only entitled to post-depriation earing.5#ldin+/ ;t. re&ects lo#er ct.9s use of “$itter #* te s#eet!teory. t is te task of te &udiciary, not te leg., to deter"ine1a! : applies once it is deter"ined tat : applies at all.

i& Gere, ;t. uses %atte#s . Hldridge Test to deter"inetat teacer is entitled to so"e for" of pre-depriationearing (can $e infor"al, not #ritten), proided post-depriation earing is also allo#ed

ii& Bitter #* te s#eet teory (0enquist) f te leg.deter"ines a rigt or entitle"ent e3ists, ten leg. "aydeter"ine te procedural scope.

(-) 2tate $#mm#n la1 creates a property interest() Tere is a real r#er!' in!ere!

6& S!e 2/ Al' Ma!!e1 "& Eldrid+e a$!#r (mi+! di!in+%i @ al' G#ld6er+ ideri"a!i#n !r%l' ae$! 6& li"eli##d

i& G#ld6er+ "& Bell' (:?) (ld R%le re%irin+ airl' #rmal ad,%di$a!i#n

r#$ed%re)

Fa$!/ 6I residents receiing #elfare fro" a fed. aid progra" (8/:;) did notreceie notice or earing prior to ter"ination of teir aid. s callengedconstitutionality of eligi$ility deter"ination procedures $*c tere #as no

+


4/55

opportunity for recipients to appear personally, for confrontation or crosse3a"ination5#ldin+ (7rennan)

() S!a!%!#r' en!i!lemen! (%$ a 1elare 6enei!) are


5/55

%atte#s is not a good test, as it inoles too "any su$&ectie de$ates o#eer,"ay $e $est #e can do

iii& D#$!rinal In$#ni!en$'/ P#!.Eldrid+e $ae a"e la$*ed $lari!' @

$#ni!en$'

() G# "& L#e4 (D75)Golding 2tudent suspended $y scool principal is entitled to earing,

$uta& Gearing "ay $e conte"poraneous and eld $y sa"e people

"aking decision to suspend:ue rocess

6& 8nyting fro" face-to-face sit do#n (Coss)$& /ull oral eidentiary earing (Cold$erg)d& H3tensie paper earing = potential oral later (%atte#s)

(2) 7r#$* "& R#ad1a' Ere (DK7)Fa$!/ 'orker fired fro" &o$ clai"s fired $*c e #as a #istle$lo#er.H"ployer requests full eidentiary earing $efore :O@ "akes it reinstate

#orker.5#ldin+/ ;t. split four #ays Hntitled to earing * allo# #ritten eidence9 fine so long as proide e"ployer #* eidence against it 9 fear ofreealing #itnesses against e"ployer $*c tey9d $e fired

a& Ill%!ra!e !a! Ma!!e1 i "er' dii$%l! !# al'

Federal S!a!%!#r' 5earin+ Ri+!I& Findin+ a 5earin+ Ri+!

a& Fl#rida Ea! C#a! (:?-) (re%m!i#n a+ain! !a!%!e 6ein+ in!erre!ed are%irin+ #rmal r%lema*in+


6/55

2& %a&ority Tis does not inole indiidualied facts, $ut raterlegislatie = affects a class (Bi)

"i& 5'#/ H8 tells particular fir" tat it can*cannot engage in particular process ina particular rier analogous to @ondoner, not Bi-%etallic

& 8d&udication of rigts of particular fir" to engage in particular process $ased on particular facts (rigt to ad&udication)

6& Calian# "& amaa*i

Fa$!/ 228 requires agency to recoup oerpay"ents of disa$ility $enefits unless tey#ere “#*o! fault of $eneficiary or if agency deter"ines tat recoup"ent #ould $einequita$le ($*c $eneficiary as so little $y #ay of oter support and as suc greatneeds, etc.). 228 concludes tat it can and #ill rely co"pletely on a #ritten earing to"ake all decisions necessary to issue a recoup"ent order.5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. applies a"#idan$e $ann#n

i"& 'eneer confronted #* dispute tat could $e resoled troug interpretation ofstatute or application of ;onstitution, #ere statutory interpretation allo#s ;t. toaoid difficult interpretation of ;onstitution, it #ill apply suc statutoryinterpretation (tus aoids : decision).

"& S!a!%!#r' in!erre!a!i#n/ 228 does not require a preious oral earing todeter"ine if $eneficiary #as oerpaid (and neiter does te ;onstiitution), $ut

228 does require a earing to deter"ine if $eneficiary #as #*o fault and todeter"ine equity (tus, unnecessary to deter"ine #eter ;onstitution #ouldrequire a si"ilar result)

() O$&ectie = su$&ectie deter"inations"i& ierce Tis #as lo# quality legal reasoning E looks at statute $ut tere is no

distinction in language of §1>4(a) = § 1>4($) as far as procedures() 2tatutes say noting a$out procedures to $e used(2) ;t. sould ae used due process (case "ore like @ondoner tan

Bi) = %atte#s $alancing testa& n tat case, #en recipient could lose >>M of $enefits (as

in %atte#s), only a #ritten e3cange #as necessary $ut

ere, #* only N of $enefits lost, full earing necessaray $ad legal reasoning

6& Only factor ct. looked at #as risk of error

III& n.!e.Re$#rd Ad,%di$a!#r' Pr#$e . 'ere te agency is engaged in ad&udication,tere is a split in autority as to #eter statute tat calls for a “earing! sould $e construedto "ean a “earing on te record.!a& Sea$#a! "& C#!le (! Cir& :?8) n# l#n+er +##d la1

Fa$!/ /ed. statute requires a “earing! in connection #* issuance of a per"it $y H8 todiscarge pollutants into te #ater. Te case inoled te discarge of ot #ater $y anuclear po#er plant. ;ase of ad&udication $*c it inoles a license. 2tatute did not state#eter earing sould $e “on te record.!

5#ldin+ / st ;ir 8gency "ust ae full earingi& 2. ;t. in /@8 Hast ;oast said statute "ust say “on te record! to trigger full oral

earing procedures in §§ 55-557 unless statute "akes it clear in anoter #ay

does not "ake it clear in anoter #ay ere.() 6oneteless, st. ;ir. requires for"al ad&udication.

ii& st ;ir. says tis is quasi-&udicial $*c it affects an indiidual, #ile /@8 Hast;oast addressed a "e"$er of a class (@ondoner * Bi distinction) (ad&udicatory .rule"aking)

() s it really ad&udicatoryA


7/55

a& Gard to classify $*c not a dispute $*# indiiduals, $ut pu$licinterest E citien groups . indiidual E facts not specific to tese parties

6& /acts at issue si"ilar to %atte#s, $*c $ased on scientificeidence, o$serations, opinions<

5#ldin+ 2/ 8gency cannot get off te record adice fro" agency e"ployees #o rely one3tra-record resources

() ierce 2ould $e a$le to use tis adice, $*c agencies are supposed to $ea$le to depend on teir e3perts in "aking decisions

(2) Tis is te po#er gien to agencies $y ;ongress

6& Cemi$al Wa!e M+m! "& EPA (:8:)5#ldin+/ 2i"ilar language to 2eacoast, $ut :.;. ;ir. decides H8 rules only requireinfor"al, non-88 earing.

i& %oe a#ay fro" full oral eidentiary earing = ?J2T #ritten earing $*c() 2cientific disputes E #ritten earing equialent if not $etter tan oral

eidentiary earings(2) Oral eidentiary earings #asteful $*c consu"e great a"t. of agency

resources (ti"e, "oney, etc.)

(-) ;eron E "ust upold agency9s interpretation of statute, if a"$iguous,so long as interpretation is reasona$le.

ii& Jnless dealing #* case of trutfulness = eracity

$& Ri$ard#n "& Perale (admii#n # eara' e"iden$e)

Fa$!/ = is doctor $elieed e #as too disa$led to #ork. Offered #ritten eidencedescri$ing te disa$ility, etc. 228 turned i" do#n, $ut allo#ed an oral eidentiaryearing. 228 ten sent i" to 5 specialists, all of #o" said e #as fine. Te specialists9reports entered into eidence E $ut earsay E along #* testi"ony of doctor. 8@? found tereports "ore persuasie tan te testi"ony and denied disa$ility. ;an 228 rely onearsay eidence fro" 5 specialists #en it is contradicted $y te only eidence tat#ould $e ad"issi$le in a &udicial trial (testi"ony of 9s personal doctor)A

5#ldin+/ 8gency ead can rely e3clusiely on inad"issi$le earsay eidence as $asis for a finding een #en all ad"issi$le eidence is to contrary (as long as agency proidessu$stantial eidence to so# earsay is relia$le)

i& 88 § 55 “8ll releant eidence! allo#edii& arty can su$poena #itnesses to cross e3a"ine te", $ut if not su$poenaed, ten

no rigt to cross e3a"ine (erales9s la#yer #as irresponsi$le in not su$poenaingspecialists)

() 8@? discretion #eter to grant su$poenas (D>M denied don9t9 #ant

to inti"idate doctors or force te" to raise teir feesiii& ;t. appears to re&ect residuu" rule, #ic states tat an agency "ay ad"it

earsay eidence, $ut tat tere "ust $e a residuum of evidence other thanhearsay on #ic decision #as $ased.

d& Ad,%di$a!#r' C#ni!en$'

i& Re 3%di$a!a f an issue of istorical ad&udicated fact (e3. la$or dispute) isdecided, res &udicata is applied.

() /or legislatie facts, agency "ust $e a$le to co"e $ack and "ake ne#decisions (e3. relationsip $*# ter"al pollution or effects on aquatic life E understanding of science "ay cange)

a& %ake sure sa"e facts are inoled (disa$ility for sa"e person in1>>+ . 1>>5 E ealt states cange no 0?)

7


8/55

ii& S!are De$ii/ (re%ire rea#ned de$ii#n) 8gency "ust adere to its precedents = prior policies unless it e3plicitly ackno#ledges its departure =e3plains #y it is canging (une3plained departure is ar$itrary = capricious)

iii& C#lla!eral E!#el

() I%e # Fa$!/ ;ollateral Hstoppel precludes an indiidual fro" re-litigating

a& f it is te sa"e issue of fact 86:

6& Te agency proides enoug procedural safeguards (circuitsplit)

i& 2o"e cts. de"and ct.-like procedures (cross-e3a"ination*eidentiary earing)

ii& 2o"e cts. only ask for due process (tus #ritten earingsufficient)

(2) I%e # La1/

a& f an agency "akes a deter"ination of te applica$ility of so"ela# to a person, an agency is $ound to tat decision $y ;ollateralHstoppel. Te agency is not $ound to tat decision #* respect toany oter person.

i& 6o ;ollateral Hstoppel for legal*policy issues.

ii& 6o ;ollateral Hstoppel against got.. Oter#ise, dist. ct. could set nat9l. policy $inding

got.

i"& E%i!a6le E!#el/ 6o equita$le estoppel against te got.() 8gency proision of adice generally $eneficial for $ot got. = citiens

E don9t #ant to dissuade agency for proiding info.(2) H3. /ed. #orker told far"er e9d $e coered $y got. crop insurance, $ut

far"er couldn9t inoke HH $*c "isguided adice cannot usurp role of;ongress to "ake la#.

(-) %ay$e HH in case of gross intentional "isrepresentation"& A+en$' n#n.a$%ie$en$e/ 8n agency "ust follo# te orders of a ct. in a

particular case, $ut need not follo# te ruling of te ct. in si"ilar cases. Judges

hate this practice.() %ust $e agency9s call until all cir. cts. or 2. ;t. say it is #rong

IV& F#rmal Ad,%di$a!i#n @ 7%rea%$ra!i$ De$ii#nma*in+a& General

i& 8d&udication . Bureaucracy() 8d&udication ;t. style #ere you get an independent, detaced ie# $y

te &udicial "ind to aid te indiidual.(2) Bureaucracy 'ant to find efficient, lo# cost #ay to "a3i"ie accuracy

and consistency (no focus on indiidual)a& ?udges ary = different E not consistent

i& 2acrifice efficiency = accuracy to te e3tent tat you

rely on te &udicial "ind6& 6o discretion to any$odyii& ndiidual :ecision (&udge) or nstitutional :ecision ($ureaucrat)

() 88 §§ 554-557 Gigly independent &udges = i"possi$le to discipline(2) 88 § 557($) 8gency can su$stitute its o#n opinion = finds of fact for

te 8@?9s decision, = tey do tat a fair a"ount(-) Ten you look at § 7>(1)(H) ;t. "ust upold agency9s findings of fact

if $ased on su$stantial eidence deference to agency, not to 8@?

a& Totally inconsistent #* #at appens in /ed. ;ts6& Seara!i#n # F%n$!i#n

K


9/55

i& 88 %odel . 2plit Hnforce"ent %odel() 88 %odel relies on internal separation of functions (Bureaucrats

inestigate = prosecute, 8@? ad&udicates, agency ead can oerrule8@?).

a& Hery $eneficiary argues for unified "odel E less #asteful = produces decisions

(2) 2plit 0ule"aking = enforce"ent are split into 1 agencies (e.g. O2G8 =

O2G0;) "ore fair (fe#er due process concerns tan 88 unitary"odel), $ut less efficient*fe#er prosecutions

a& Hery regulatee argues for split "odel E #orried a$out cronyis"#*i agency

(-) 6eiter inestigators nor prosecutors "ay play any role in ad&udicatingdispute o#eer, note tat agency ead decides #eter toinestigate*prosecute, and ten can een ignore 8@?9s finding in for"alad&udication (= 2. ;t. is deferential to agency ead9s factual findings) "any

co"plain tis is unfair

$& Mana+in+ ad,%di$a!#r' er#nnel

i& 8@? E regionally located() 6eutral, tenured, and cannot $e fired

ii& 228 study so# $iggest factor in deter"ining outco"e of decision is identity of8@?

() ro$le"sa& ;an take up to 4 yrs for earing6& @ack of consistency E need like cases decided in like "anner $& Oer years, 8@?s say “yes! to greater portion of cases, tus

rising nu"$er of people receiing 228 $enefitsiii& Trad9l. #ays of @i"iting ?udicial :iscretion (so tey can9t indulge personal

preferences)() :irect reie#

a& 8ll opinions su$&ect to reie# at ne3t leel6& 8llo#ed in ad"in. la#, $ut #* 228 too "any cases

(2) 0ules ery difficult to apply rules to tese cases(-) %any 228 cases not suscepti$le to o$&ectiely-erifia$le "easures, e.g.,

"ental illness = cronic soft tissue pro$le"s.() Cuidelines

a& H3 @ong delays, tus get rid of less productie &udgesA6& 2et up resu"ptie roductiity Coal E not fired if not "et, $ut

ae "eetings, etc.i"& Na "& Cali#rnia (:80) (A+en$' $an $rea!e %ni#rm +%ideline)

Fa$!/ To increase consistency, accuracy, = efficiency, 228 created presu"ptie productiity goal of 14> cases*yr = "andated tat 8@?s grant $enefits in 4>->Mof cases tat co"e $efore te". 8@?s co"plained tis interfered #* teirdecisional independence = iolated due process.

5#ldin+/ Hery dist. ct. struck do#n (&udges sy"patetic to 8@?s), $ut cir. cts..sa# 228 interests and said OF #* statutory co""and, no iolation of :(consistency i"portant), = 8@? still independent 228 later a$andoned #en

rate of reersal $y dist. &udges soared."& 5e$*ler "& Cam6ell (:8-) (A+en$' $an $rea!e %ni#rm +%ideline)

Fa$!/ Before Geckler, 228 #ould deter"ine $eneficiary9s a$ility to #orktroug iring of ocational e3perts tat testified in eery case $efore 8@?.0equired iring "any suc e3perts, = teir assess"ents #ere often inconsistent.228 tus created a grid #ere 8@?s plug in $eneficiary9s age, education,

D


10/55

e3perience, = ealt status to deter"ine e"ploya$ility. Hli"inates *+ of earingti"e = all 8@? discretion.5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. upolds grid $*c #ill increase efficiency*fairness, = 228 statutee"po#ers 2ecretary to adopt “reasona$le = proper rules! (ere, $enefitsout#eig cost of less indiidualied attention)

"i& 7#1en "& %$*e! (:8?) (A+en$' $an red%$e !rana$!i#n $#!)Fa$!/ 228 created ne# 5-step "andatory decision"aking sequence for 8@?s,

#ere tey are instructed to stop after 2tep 1 if no “seere i"pair"ent! ($ased onnon-e3clusie list) tus, don9t go on to consider age, education, e3perience

rate of finding indiiduals disa$led decreases $y 5M5#ldin+/ ;t. split, $ut finds rule alid. ;oncurring opinions #ants to te"perrule, so tat 8@? as discretion #eter to go $eyond 2tep 1 228 later

canged ruled after lo#er cts. $egan finding agency9s decisions 8= ; andincreased reersals

d& A"#idin+ Ad,%di$a!i#n !r#%+ R%lema*in+

i& Airline Pil#! A#$& "& H%eada (:0) (A+en$' $an a"#id $#!l' earin+)

Fa$!/ /88 says pilots "ust retire at age > (inco"plete kno#ledge ofdeter"inants of risk of stroke*eart attack after tat age) E is tis ar$itrary =

discri"inatoryA5#ldin+/ /88 can issue reg. #*o earing $*c statute9s goal is to ensure air safety,speedy adoption of suc rules, = earings eery 1 years for eac >P pilot #ouldcripple /88

() Gearing process long, and pilots #ould still $e flying in te "eanti"e.(2) Too su$&ectie #* earings, = uge ad"in. costs (pilots likely to ire

la#yers, e3perts)(-) Jnattractie coice $*# rules #e kno# are oer*underinclusie, and

ad&udicatory syste"

Admini!ra!i"e R%lema*in+

A+en$' A%!#ri!' !# Ma*e Le+ila!i"e R%leI& Le+ila!i"e r%le/a. Wa! i a le+ila!i"e r%le/ Binding rule tat as legal effect. $. S!a!%!#r' a%!#ri4a!i#n re%ired/ 8gency "ust $e autoried $y ;ongress to $e a$le to

issue leg. rules ("ost are)

c. Eamle # le+ila!i"e r%le/ 8 rule declaring tat a “controlled su$stance! can leadto 1> years in &ail.

II& A+en$' Pr#$e i Em#1ered !# Ma*e Le+ila!i"e R%le

a. N#!i$e/ state"ent of ti"e (period), place (to send co""ents), = nature of proceedings(infor"al, for"al, notice = co""ent) (1>>->> pages)

$. C#mmen!/ 2olicit, receie, consider co""ents fro" interest parties (oral co""on, notrequired) (>>k-" pages, 5>k-1>>k parties)

c. Final R%le 19 7ai @ P%r#e/ ncorporate in final rule a “concise gen. state"ent ofteir $asis = purpose! (1>>-k pages)

d. P%6li/ u$lis final rule no later tan +> days $efore its effectie date (#* so"ee3ceptions) (§ 55+:)

e. Ri+! !# e!i!i#n/ eople ae rigt to petition for issuance, a"d"t, or repeal of rule =

are entitled to response (§55+H)f. ral 5earin+/ f statute requires “on te record after agency earing,! agency "ust

allo# for oral. eid. Gearings (§ 55+) ("ost don9t)III& Ad"an!a+e/

>


11/55

a. Fairne . Broader participation rigts, $etter notice, application to allregulatees*$eneficiaries at sa"e ti"e (instant co"pliance)

$. Ei$ien$' - :o not ae to conduct neer-ending earings (sae ti"e, "oney)c. Ei$a$' - Giger quality ans#ers $*c pu$lic can participate troug co""ents = proide

input for decision"aking for#ard-looking focus on policy issues rater tanidiosyncratic facts

d. P#li!i$al a$$#%n!a6ili!' - 8danced notice, $roader participation rigts, transparency of

policy"aking process pu$lic can alert ;ongress as to #at you are doingIV& Diad"an!a+e

a. In$reaed $#! 2tate /ar" = oter decisions i"pose ig costs on rule"aking process $. Si+nii$an! dela' ;t. decisions ae "ade rule"aking ery slo# Qe.g. 2tate /ar"

(adequately e3plain = consider alternaties) 8$$ott @a$s (allo# pre-enforce"ent reie#= require record for ct. reie#) 6oa 2cotia /oods (disclose reference "aterials)

c. P#li!i$all' !ranaren! 8gencies "ay not #ant to $e eld politically accounta$le forteir policy decisions

d. N# re!r#a$!"i!' 8gencies can9t issue retroactie leg. rules $ut can announce*apply sucrules in ad&udication (Ceorgeto#n, DKK)

V& Na!l& Pe!r#le%m Reiner "& FTC (:?-)

a. Fa$!/ /T; ena$ling statute proi$its unfair trade practices E /T; "akes rule on la$eling

of octane leel. 60 questions #eter /T; can issue rules (preiously, only issuedinterpretie rules)

$. 5#ldin+/ Tis is a alid rule tat /T; can issue E #ay too $urdenso"e to force /T; tofile indiidual co"plaints against non-co"pliant gas stations and old indiidualearings. /T; needed rules to apply to entire industries, not single instances.

i. A!erma!/ /T; tried to issue rules li"iting practices of la#yers, used cardealers, funeral o"es and $eer distri$utors E all po#erful lo$$ies and #ent to;ongress

. /T; "proe"ent 8ct 8llo#s opportunity for oral eidentiary earing= cross-e3a"ination #* respect to contested "aterial issues

1. 'ay too "uc ti"e = effort E /T; neer issues rules again (een tougit retains rule"aking po#er)

F#rmal R%lema*in+I& APA JJ ;;.;;?/ 8kin to &udicial trial #* pleading stage (proposed rule, #ritten responses),

trial stage (testi"ony, docu"entary eidence, cross-e3a"ination), decision stage (for"ulating final rule)a. Alie/ Only if agency9s statute requires rules to $e "ade “on te record after

opportunity for agency earing (§55+) $. De!ermina!i#n/ H3a"ine statute9s conte3t, leg. istory, or specific languagec. Re%iremen!/ /ull oral eidentiary earing (e.g. oral presentation, su$poenas, eidence

rulings, depositions, cross-e3a") (§§ 55-557)d. S%#r!er/ /airness, genuine opportunity to question, toroug record, "eaningful

&udicial reie#.

e. Cri!i$/ Ti"e-consu"ing, costly, ineffectie (e.g. 1 yrs to decide #at M of peanut $utter ougt to $e peanuts)

f. Pre%m!i#n/ f statute requires action “after earing,! only infor"al rule"aking isrequired (/@ Hast ;oast, D7+) (;; freigt cars)

g. Am6i+%i!'/ t is reasona$le for agency to interpret “earing! to refer to #ritten e3cangeof ie#s*data (;e". 'aste . H8, :; DKD)

II& 7ald#r Ele$!ri$ (:-)

a. Fa$!/ :O@ tries to use rule"aking to i"ple"ent 'als Genley 8ct requiring Cot. to#ork only #* contractors paying preailing "ini"u" #age.


12/55

$. 5#ldin+/ :O@ statute requires for"al rule"aking and so lo# #age fir"s in 2out =%id#est ask for opportunity to cross-e3a"ine people #o proided data :O@

rule"aking is dead $*c eac rule"aking #ould take at least a decade.i. Too ti"e consu"ing E no agencies #* language (only on record after opportunity

for agency earing) in statute eer issue rules $*c of need for oral eid. Gearing

In#rmal R%lema*in+ (FLA E& C#a! $rea!e re%m!i#n a+ain! !a!%!e 6ein+in!erre!ed !# re%ire F#rmal R%lema*in+K all#1 0ule is unla#ful if it is “ar$itrary = capricious! 'at does tis "eanA

6& ld !andard . ne"er $allen+ed e$e! #r $ae # en#r$emen! de$ii#n)

i. Pa$ii$ S!a!e 7# @ 7a*e! C#& "& Wi!e (:8) (ld S!andard –Fa$!/ Oregon agency issued rule requiring certain sie, sape, = structure for a $erry container. 8i"ed at elping O0 gro#ers fend off ;8 gro#ers (adds la$orcosts to ;8 gro#ers9 operations). 8gency doesn9t gie reason #y it issued rule

si"ply says “it "ay $e tatM of ti"e all agency ad

to say #as tat your actions urt pu$lic interest in so"e #ay (li$eral useof 8 = ; standard)

c. Ne1 !andard – m#! a+en$' r%le %6,e$! !# re.en#r$emen! re"ie1 (+-stepdecision"aking procedure yields record for reference $y ct. (notice, #ritten su$"issions,state"ent e3plaining incorp. of co""ents)

i. A%!#m#!i"e Par! @ A$$e#rie An& "& 7#'d (:8)Fa$!/ 6GT28 statute instructs agency to i"proe #y safety in reasona$le = practica$le "anner. 8gency proposes tat eery care in J.2. ae ead restraint(strongly supported $y after-sale ead restraint sellers). 8gency issues rule, $ut"akes factory-install"ent of ead restraints "andatory #ould eli"inate after-

sale ead restraint "kt. 2ellers callenge as 8=;5#ldin+/ 6ot 8=;

. 8gency issued rule for alid reasons engineering, structure, = safety of pu$lic.

a. ndustry ad a$ility to co""ent $efore te rule"aking

1


13/55

$. 2ellers not credi$le, first liked rule #en tougt it elped te"1. 8uto arts requires agencies to e3plain = docu"ent reasons for

decisions

ii. Na!l& Tire Dealer A#$& "& 7rine+ar (:?)Fa$!/ 6GT28 e"po#ered to “reduce traffic accidents = deats.! 6GT28issues rule requiring per"anent la$els on all re-treated tires.5#ldin+/ 0ule is 8=;

. ;ts. say tere is not enoug of a relationsip $*# per"anent la$els =safety 8=;

1. 2tate"ent of $asis = purpose "ust adequately respond to all co""ents= criticis"s, and #ell-supported alternaties.

a. @ist appendi3 #* scientific data, econo"ic feasi$ility, etc. $. :istinguis fro" 8uto arts, $*c "any unans#ered neg. co""ts

ere, #ere as ery fe# tere.c. ere as credi$ility, unlike sellers in 8uto arts

iii. M#!#r Vei$le Man%a$!%rer "& S!a!e Farm (:8-)Fa$!/ Hery car required to ae auto"atic seat$elts or an air$ag E 0eaganrescinded rule.5#ldin+/ Tis is 8 = ;

. 2a"e reasoned decisions required for rescission as for pro"ulgation =a"end"ent of rules

1. Te $urden is on any person trying to cange te rulea. %ust consider feasi$le alternaties like a"d"ts to rule

i. Tus, if client doesn9t like rule, la#yers sould su$"it"ultiple alternaties E forces agency to say "ore a$outissue in concise notice of gen. purpose

$. /or rescission, tere is presu"ption tat e3isting rule is correct.+. 6GT28 #as 8=; for failing to e3plain adequately difference $*# its

prediction tat "ost driers #o didn9t $uckle seat $elts #oulddisconnect auto"atic seat $elts and study tat found tat only 5>M ofdriers disconnected seat $elts #it ignition interlocks.

4. Ne1 La1 # In#rmal R%lema*in+/ 8gency "ust adequately e3plain#y it "ade eac of te decisions, reasoning fro" te statutory language= aaila$le data. 8gency "ust respond to all #ell-supported criticis"s = proposed alternaties in c""ts.

a. %ust co"ply #* your duty to engage in reasona$ledecision"aking cts. #ill not accept post oc la#yer "ade-up

rationale.

III& In#rmal R%lema*in+ – Pr#$ed%ral Re%iremen!a& N#!i$e in R%lema*in+/ 2 eara!e re%iremen! #r ade%a!e n#!i$e

i. Fir!> notice "ust include reference to any studies or oter "aterials on #icagency "ay rely as part of its $asis for final rule

& N#"a S$#!ia F##dFa$!/ /:8 issues rules a$out cooking ti"e and te"perature for all fis,including #itefis. 62 and oter fis sellers $ring action. /:8 says tatit relied on test to "ake rule, $ut 62 asserts tat it #as neer gien noticeof suc test.5#ldin+/ ;t. eld tat tis #as 8=;

a& A+en$' m%! r#"ide !imel' n#!i$e # !%die @ da!a i! lan

!# rel' %#n&

i. %ust include in 6otice all studies it intends to rely on or"ay rely on H3panded 6otice :octrine

+


14/55

ii. 2o"e li"its E 6eed not include eery source caneli"inate non-contesta$le issues E funda"entals,general, core

iii. %ust allo# all interested parties to co""ent ondata*study

$. %ust issue a supple"ental notice of proposed rule"aking if planto rely on ne# study

i. %ay gie a proposed rule and ask for c""tsc. 8 callenge in tis area "ust assert

i. Te issue of central i"portanceii. %ust $e of s"tg actually disputed

. 6ot a rando" dictionary clai" tat a #ord"eans s"tg else

iii. Gad callenger $een gien notice, tey #ould aerefuted it

. Tere "ust $e s"tg to refute it #itii. 2econd, 6otice "ust “adequately foresado#! final rule, and final rule "ust $e

“logical outgro#t! of notice and co""ent process.. 6otice9s autor "ust "eet #it internal agency staffers and outside

stakeolders to ascertain range of possi$le outco"es of rule"aking gienlikeliood of cange in ad"inistration, cange in scientificunderstanding, cange in tecnology, and su$"ission of olu"inousco""ents final rule "ay not $e issued for > yrs

1. 8ddress all suc possi$ilities in notice

6& 5earin+ in In#rmal R%lema*in+

i. ;ts. nudging agencies $ack to#ard for"al rule"aking re controersial issues. ;ts. feel tese issues sould $e su$&ect to full eidentiary earing.1. Verm#n! an*ee "& Na!%ral Re#%r$e Deene C#%n$il (:?8)

a. Fa$!/ 6uclear 0egulatory ;o""ission used rule"aking todeter"ine o# to andle disposal of nuclear #aste. :.;. ;ircuit

ruled tat suc issue is so i"portant tat 60; cannot finallydisclose of issue #*o proiding opportunity for li"ited scopeoral eidentiary earing.

$. 5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. reersed, olding tat cts. can only require procedures required $y agency rule, statute, or ;onstitution.(:)

i. 8$sent e3traordinary circu"stances, agencies ae $road procedural discretion

c. ost-I ?udges #o once used oral eidentiary earing todelay issue of rules tey didn9t like can no# use 8=; oradequate notice doctrine to send agency $ack to dra#ing $oard.

i. 6ote 0epu$lican &udges 43 as likely to re&ect H8 ;lean8ir 8ct rules as are :e"o &udges.

ii. n addition, cange of ad"inistration "ay also delay ruleissuance.

$& E Par!e C#mm%ni$a!i#n/ %all' all#1ed in In#rmal R%lema*in+

i. H3 parte co""unications Talking to te decision"aker off te record. 88 § 557 roi$its e3 parte co""unications in for"al ad&udication *

rule"aking (sa"e policy as #* &udicial trials)1. nfor"al ad&udication * rule"aking E silent E tere is a record

(co""ents, final rule), $ut e3 parte usually oralii& Ini!iall'> all e ar!e $#mm%ni$a!i#n re%ired !# 6e %! in re$#rd

4


15/55

& 57 "& FCC

Fa$!/ /;; issued rule to resole certain issues re ca$lecasting. GBOargued rule sould $e inalidated $*c clai"s e3 parteco""unications.5#ldin+/ :; ;ir. inalidates rule $*c deter"ined tat /;; ad engagedin e3 parte co""unications during an infor"al rule"aking (/;;co""is ad "et #* 6B;, 8B; e3ecs).

a. Tis is funda"entally unfair to pu$lic, #o is cut out fro" $ackroo" dealing. 8lso, ct. cannot reie# rule $ased on e3 partecontacts rater tan record $y pu$lic c""ts.

$. Tus, anyti"e agency engages in e3 parte co""unications, "ustinclude te" in te record.

c. :espite ruling, ery easy for agency eads to get around rulei. 8 rule"aking doesn9t $egin until after agency issues

notice tus, agency si"ply #on9t issue notice of

proposed rule"aking until agency ead as "et #*outside sources = decide #at final rule #ill look like.

ii. 8s a result, :; ;ir. as $acked off fro" rule (see $elo#)iii& R%le la!er narr#1ed # !a! #nl' e ar!e $#mm%ni$a!i#n in"#l"in+


16/55

. "partial :ecision"aker (6ot Biased or re&udiced) ;an9t ae clear =conincing so#ing tat agency "e"$er as unaltera$ly closed "ind on "atterscritical to disposition of proceeding (ig standard to "eet)

. N#! Di%ali'in+/ Opinions on issues of legislatie fact, policy, or la#

#ant people #o are kno#ledgea$le (e.g. Core appointed H8 ead)

1. Di%ali'in+/ Opinions on issues of ad&udicatie fact (e.g. enforce"entcief no# 8@? in case e prosecuted) personal grounds (related @ Pr#$ed%ral R%le J ;;-(6)O

i. In!erre!i"e R%le (n# #r$e # la1)/ ;larify scope of pre-e3isting rigt or duty= particularies it to $etter understand o# it applies in different factual


17/55

circu"stances (e.g. don9t set any ne# policy, $ut "erely e3plain preious regs. *statutes).

. 0egulatees frequently callenge $ot interpretie rules = leg. rules as procedurally-inalid legislatie rules.

a. ;allenging interpretie rules on policy grounds likely to fail ("anynot een reie#a$le on su$stantie grounds. f you try to argue tatrule is 8=;, difficult $*c no record (didn9t go troug 6=; period)

$. Tus, argue tat rule is procedurally-inalid leg. rule. 8gency is tryingto circu"ent ;ongress9s n = c procedures.i. f ct. agrees, ten rule is nullity $*c it is procedurally inalid

(cannot issue leg. rule #*o going troug 6 = ; procedures)

2& Di!in+%iin+ Le+ila!i"e R%le (#r$e # la1) r#m In!erre!i"e

R%le (n# #r$e # la1)/

a. Ameri$an Minin+ C#n+re "& MS5A (DC ::-)Fa$!/ %ine 2afety = Gealt 8d"in. issued rules requiringreporting of illnesses later, issue anoter rule saying if 3-rayso#s certain leel, ten it9s an illness = "ust $e reported 8%;clai"s 1d rule is legislatie = "ust follo# § 55+ reqs. %2G8says "erely interpretie5#ldin+/ :; ;ir. olds tat tis is an interpretie rule. ;reates4-part test tat says rule is legislatie if

i. 8gency says it is legislatie. 8gency "ay note if it9s e3plicitly inoking its

gen. legislatie autorityii. u$lised in ;/0 ($ut ct. later said tis is “only a

snippet of eidence! as "an interpretie rules appear in;/0 to "a3i"ie pu$lic access)

iii. 8n enforce"ent action could not $e $rougt #*o te rule(tis is ery i"portant)

. 0ule is legislatie E it "akes "ine o#ners dos"tg, $ut #*o it, 0ule 1 #ould not #ork

clarifies a pre-e3isting dutyi. Te rule a"ends a pre-e3isting legislatie rule.

. ;an only a"end a leg. rule #* anoter leg. rule+. Deeren$e !# Pla%i6le A+en$' In!erre!a!i#n # Le+& R%le> 6%! n#!

Parr#!in+ S!a!%!e

a. Semin#le R#$* (:) 2. ;t. eld cts. "ust defer to any plausi$le agency interpretation of an agency9s leg. rule. (ery $roadly #orded) 7T

$. G#n4ale "& re+#n (200)> 2. ;t. li"ited tis rule and eld tatno deference is due an interpretation of a leg. rule tat "erely parrots statute

i. Oter#ise, agencies #ould issue $road, ague rules "erelyrestating principal proisions of statute

ii. @o#er cts. no# trying to deter"ine o# far agency rules "ustdierge fro" te statute in order to escape $eing caracteriedas pure parroting.

ii. P#li$' S!a!emen!/ 6otice = co""ent reqs. do not apply to gen. state"ents of policy

. ed/ %ost often used to indicate to te pu$lic * regulated co""unity#en agency #ill take inestigatie or enforce"ent action #r indicateo# agency intends to act under certain circu"stances in agencyad&udication.

7


18/55

a. E!ernal En#r$emen! Cri!eria (E )/ 2tatute autoriesenforce"ent against "ine operators or indep. contractors so 2ec.of @a$or issues state"ent of criteria for #en it #ill go aftereac*$ot

$. In!ernal Penal!' G%ideline (E& 2)/ ;oast Cuard %arine2afety %anual giing guidance on #at appropriate penalties"igt $e for arious types of #ater pollution.

1. G#al/ olicy state"ents used to proide guidance to agency e"ployeesor regulated entities

+. C#er$i"e Ee$!/ Hen toug not $inding, policy state"ents ae acoercie effect on regulatees (fear enforce"ent)

4. 3%di$ial Te! #r P#li$' S!a!emen!/ ;ts. look for eidence tat agency#on9t use general state"ents of policy to decide future cases oter#isetey #ill $e dee"ed leg. rules.

a& P#li$' $an! 6ind a+en$' di$re!i#n

i& C#mm%ni!' N%!ri!i#n In!i!%!e

Fa$!/ /:8 issued “policy state"ent! saying it #on9tenforce “no feces rules! in food5#ldin+/ ;t. says tis is tanta"ount to saying /:8

#on9t enforce rule = $inding.. 8gency can9t use policy state"ents to $id *

restrict its discretion = "ust re"ain free to actin "anner inconsistent in a gien case.

$. M%dd'in+ %/ olicy state"ents tat are too clear*crisp "ayneed to $e "uddied up to $e accepted $y courts

i. E& ;ould "ake a$oe state"ent say “"igt notenforce! $elo# 3 leel less "eaningful = "ore ague

Re+%la!in+ 19# R%leI& Ma*in+ +eneral r%le # $#nd%$!

a. A+en$' $an de$lare r%le !r#%+ ad,%di$a!#r' de$ii#n/ 8gency can "ake generalrule solely troug case-$y-case ad&udication (aoiding oersigt = politicalaccounta$ility) unless ;ongress e3plicitly requires it to issue rule pursuant to § 55+(a"$ient standards under ;88, rei"$urse"ent criteria in %edicare = %edicaid)

i. Te result of "aking la#*policy troug case-$y-case ad&udication is teretroactie application of te ne# principle to te parities in te case.

ii. A6%e # di$re!i#n/ 'ere retroactie application of a ne# policy #ould aeeri#% ad"ere $#ne%en$e, a reie#ing ct. "ay ifnd tat te agency a$usedits discretion.

$. Can %e r%lema*in+ r#$ed%re # J ;;- ;ts. so"eti"es restrict agency to using § 55+,(toug suc idea as neer garnered a "a&ority on te 2. ;t.)

II& C#i$e 691 R%lema*in+ @ Ad,%di$a!i#na. Cener' II (:?)

Fa$!/ 2H; used ad&udication to announce $road rule a$out reorganiation = stocks.;enery argued tat it #as #rong for 2H; to flaunt #ill of ;ongress $y not issuing ruleaccording to §55+ = instead announcing ne#, generally applica$le rule of conduct inad&udication, = ten applying it retroactiely5#ldin+/ A+en$ie a"e di$re!i#n !# %e J ;;- r%lema*in+ #r ad,%di$a!i#n Often

circu"stances #ere agency doesn9t kno# enoug a$out factual circu"stances in orderto co"e up #* generally applica$le rule (effect of 2tate /ar")

K


19/55

i. ;t. also olds tat agency "ay take an action on re"and identical to an actionreersed $y te ct. if te agency can proide a different = legally per"issi$le $asis for suc action.

ii. ;ts. ae $een all oer te "ap since ;enery, $ut it is still te la#.

6& Pr#6lema!i$ $aei. W'man.G#rd#n (::)

E$eli#r/ 6@0B eld tat a co"pany "ust furnis te union #* a list ofe"ployees for electioneering purposes. Tis policy #as announced $y te 6@0Bas prospectie it #as not applied to te parties in te H3celsior case (6@0B saidtat $*c generally applica$le rule #as $eing announced for first ti"e, #ould $eunfair to apply it retroactieley to H3celsior)W'man.G#rd#n/

Fa$!/ '-C didn9t gie list of e"ployees and union clai"s unfair la$or practice,as in H3celsior. 6@0B directs '-C to co"ply, citing rule fro" H3celsior. :id 6@0B ae po#er to create a general rule of conduct troug ad&udicationA nH3A5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. plurality ?udicial precedent creates rules, = 6@0B could issuete order for te rule to $e co"plied #* (so not penalied rigt a#ay)

. C#n$%rren$e/ 8utoried to use §55+, $ut also ad discretion to usead&udicatie process.

1. Dien!/ ;ongress clearly #ants § 55+ to $e used, = can9t "ake prospectie rules troug ad&udication

ii. 7ell Aer#a$e (:?)/ Jnani"ously affir"ed 'y"an-Cordon despite %orton. 0ui

iii. M#r!#n "& R%i4 (:?)Fa$!/ :O B8 turned do#n 6atie 8"erican9s e"ploy"ent $enefits request $yapplying long-esta$lised policy (created troug case-$y-case ad&udication) ofrestricting suc $enefits to residents of reserations (0ui ad "oed offreseration to look for #ork, = ulti"ate laid off)5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. unani"ously said tat :O can only use § 55+ rule"aking.

. Bureau of ndian 8ffairs statute e3plicitly required policy creation $eacco"plised troug § 55+ rule"aking.

1. § 7> 0ules "ade #*o follo#ing internal guidelines are 8=;+. 0ui is unusual case $*c B8 did not follo# its o#n guidelines.4. ;enery still te la# = upeld after tis case in Bell.

$& Ee$! # !er Cae #n A+en$' In$en!i"e

i. 7#1en "& Ge#r+e!#1n ni"& 5#i!al (:88). 5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. eld tat agency cannot issue a retroactie leg. rule $ut

ackno#ledged tat agency ;86 announce = apply a retroactie ruletroug ad&udication.

d& W' D#n! A+en$ie e R%lema*in+

i. Am6i"alen$e !#1ard r%lema*in+/ 8"$ialence to#ard rule"akings tatregulate $roadly = often #* ig costs

ii. En%rin+ r%le are ra!i#nal/ 8"$ialence as led to efforts to ensure process isrational = $ased on $est info = &udg"ent

iii. Ca%!i#%> l#1 r%lema*in+ r#$e/ @a#s = ct. decision sae ensured tatrules co"e only #* careful study = analysis

i. R%lema*in+ #ii$a!i#n/ ncreased costs = delays in rule"aking leae #orkers,consu"ers, te eniron"ent, = $usinesses at risk.

. Too e3pensie E een § 55+ procedure is $urdenso"ea. +>M cance ruled #ill $e oerturned as 8=; (recall 2tate /ar")

D


20/55

1. ncreased presidential = congressional oersigta. O%B as increased reie# of rules (cost*$enefit reie#) including data quality

reie#

+. H3ception ;ongress says agency "ust resole issue $y rulea. ;lean 8ir 8ct (issues "ust $e resoled $y rule)

$. %edicare 8ct (all rules for co"pensation of proiders "ust $e resoled $y rule)

. 6egotiated 0ule"aking 8lternatie (0eg-6eg). ndustry negotiation produces si"ilar regs. #*o costly procedures

1. ndustry consensus renders legal co"pliance "oot since rule #on9t $e callenged+. oluntary co"pliance pro$a$ly proides less protection tan regulation.4. 6egotiations typically fail for rules inoling "any parties = "any issues

S%i! !# Re"ie1 an Admini!ra!i"e A$!i#n

S$#e # 3%di$ial Re"ie1 . S%mmar'7ai$ Fa$! C#n$l%i#n #

La1

Ali$a!i#n # La1 !# Fa$! Eer$ie # Di$re!i#n

;t. "ust affir"agency9s decisionif finding #asreasona$le(substantialevidence on whole

record test)

;t. "ust defer toagency9sreasonable

interpretation ifinterpreted la# isambiguous

;t. "ust accept agency9sapplication of statutory facts if() it is reasonable, (1)Chevron is applica$le, or (+)leg. delegated application issueto agency

;t. sould scrutinize the facts in te record todeter"ine if tey supportagency9s discretionaryaction o#eer, ct. must not su$stitute its o#n &udg"ent( A&C test-88)

I& S$#e # Re"ie1

a& Pre%m!i"e 6%! Limi!ed Re"ie1 ("er!#n Par*) (ee al# A66#!! La6 in


21/55

2& J?0(a)()/ 2tatutes preclude reie# - resu"ption of reie#a$ilityoerco"e only $y clear = conincing eidence intended to precludereie# (see also A66#!! La6)

a& f statute is a"$iguous or, as ere, co"pletely silent, presu"ption of reie# #ins out (no la# to apply)

i& Gere, statute included clear statutory critierion

“feasi$le alternatie! e3its to route troug park

ii& Big cange rior to tis case, ct. could reie# //;ongress said agency action #as reie#a$le

6& C%rren! i!%a!i#n/ Pre%m!i#n # re"ie1a6ili!' no longer as $road, nor as po#erful if circu"stantial eidence is suc tat

#e can dra# inference tat ;ongress "ay ae intended to preclude reie#, ten tat is enoug (;ts. ae too "uc on teir plates)

-& J ?0(a)(2)/ C#mmi!!ed !# a+en$' di$re!i#n 6' la1 – Only in rareinstance #ere tere is no la# to apply

a& 8gency cannot $e faulted for failing to proide state"ent ofreasons $*c tere9s no statute*constitutional proision requiring itto do so (i.e. no &usticia$le standard to apply)

6& C%rren! i!%a!i#n/ ;t. is "ore #illing to find tat ;ongressi"plicitly co""itted so"e class of agency decision to teunreie#a$le discretion of te agency (;ts. ae too "uc onteir plates)

& J ?0(2)(A)/ 2tandard of reie# E 8=; L “searcing = careful,!“pro$ing, in-dept,! “narro#! 2ee also 2tate /ar"

a& n tis situation, ct. "ust decide #eter agency action is 8=;(yet standard is a"$iguous)

6& C%rren! i!%a!i#n/ 2tate /ar" does fles out "eaning of 8=;standard. Go#eer, tat test designed to fit procedures uses #enengaged in 6=; rule"aking. Gere, agency did not engage inany fa"iliar procedures.

;& 7ai #r re"ie1/ :ist. ct. sould re"and case to agency #* instructionstat it proide state"ent of reasons for acting as it did sufficient for ct. toapply 8=; standard

a& @ater cases rule out cross of decisio"aker (e3cept in rare case#ere po#erful e3trinsic eidence of $ad fait E e3. $ri$ery)

II& S%6!an!ial E"iden$e Re"ie1 – alie !# #rmal ad,%di$a!i#n9r%lema*in+a& J?0(2)(E)/ ;t. sall “decide questions of la#! = “upold agency9s findings of fact! if

tey are supported $y su$stantial eidence.i& 2u$stantial eidence test only applies to findings "ade in #rmal ad,%di$a!i#n

#r #rmal r%lema*in+> unless organic act specifies 2H reie#.ii& 8=; applies to findings in all oter cases, $ut it is not clear tat tere is any real

difference $*# 8=; = 2H reie#.iii& C#n#lida!ed Edi#n @ ni"eral Camera/ Se! #r! S%6& E"iden$e Te!

5#ldin+/ ;t. "ust upold agency9s findings of fact if supported $y “sucreleant eidence as a rea#na6le mind "igt accept as adequate to support aconclusion considering $ot te eidence tat supports te finding = teeidence tat detracts fro" te finding ('GO@H 0H;O0:)

& f 8@?9s findings are inconsistent #* agency9s, ct. sould consider recordtat includes $ot agency9s findings of fact = 8@?9s findings*opinion

2& 8gency9s findings, not 8@?9s, are deferred to, $ut ct. still considerseeryting

1


22/55

-& ery deferential test E record is often of nature #ere agency can find for eiter side.

N#!e/ 8 ct. "ay "ore closely scrutinie an agency tat reerses an 8@?9s a$!%al findings (8@? can assess credi$ility) tan #en agency reerses an 8@?9s le+al findings (agencies e"po#ered to reac o#n legal conclusions)N#!e/ 2u$stantial eidence can $e earsay eidence, proided it is relia$le(erales . 0icardson).

i"& 5#1 M%$ Deeren$e re-DK4 (;eron), cts. acillated on leel of deferenceto agencies $ut generally eld tat findings of fact are entitled to deference(upold if supported $y su$stantial eidence), $ut tat legal conclusions sould $e "ore rigorously scrutinied (cts. decide issues of la#)

& NLR7 "& 5ear! P%6li$a!i#n (:)

Fa$!/ 6e#s$oys #ant to unionie. %ay only do so if tey aree"ployees #*i conte3t of 6at9l. @a$or 0elations 8ct (no statutorydefinition of e"ployee at tis ti"e). 6@0B concludes "assie disparityof $argaining po#er = great potential for iolence unless parties aeaenue for resoling dispute ne#s$oys are e"ployees.

! Cir/ Tis is issue of la# (state tort la#, fed. ta3. la#) tat sould $e

resoled troug case la# so §7> says reie#ing ct. soulddecide issues of la#, no suggestion of deference (8pproac )5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. reerses, says "ust upold agency conclusion if “it as#arrant in te record and reasona$le $asis in te la#.! (8pproac 1)

a& @ooks to ;ongressional intent in enacting 6@08i& roide safeguards to industrial #orkers

ii& reent $loodsed in resolution of disputesiii& Balance $argaining po#er

6& Cien ;ongress9 intent, sould ne#s$oys $e e"ployeesA

see"s to pass a$oe testi& %ore a policy issue tan one of fact or la#

ii& :oesn9t see" to $e issue for ct., $ut for agency

iii& t is 6@0B9s &o$ to decide #eter policies of 6@08#ould $e furtered $y including ne#s$oys in scope ofstatute, su$&ect to deferential reie#.

$& ;ts. acillated $*# 8pproac = 8pproac 1 for long ti"esi& f Gearst ad $een decided under ;eron

. ;ongress did not definitiely decide question of#eter ne#s$oys #ere e"ployees, tus, $*c 6@0B9s quality of reasoning #as okay, ct.#ould ae to upold agency9s ruling.

"& T'i$al M#dern Di%!e (S$ien$e De$ii#n)/ H3isting data so#s ar"s ofig-leel e3posure, $ut tere are inerent uncertainties as to #eter te ar"

e3ists at lo#er leels = terefore #eter agency sould $e allo#ed to regulateit.

& Ameri$an Pe!r#le%m In!i!%!e (7en4ene Cae) (:80)

Fa$!/ O2G8 passed lo# standard for e3posure to $enene, = 8contested $*c clai"ed too costly.5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. plurality struck do#n O2G8 decision to $lock e3posureto lo# concentrations of $enene in #orkplace $*c

a& Limi!ed da!a> n#! e!ra#la!ed/ H3isting eidence only so#edtat ig concentrations are linked to cancer = O2G8 produced

11


23/55

no data response cure so#ing likely effects outside igconcentrations

6& 5i+ $#!> %n$er!ain 6enei!/ ;o"pliance #ould cost $illions,yet data didn9t de"onstrate clear $enefits

$& S!a!%!#r' lan+%a+e/ 2tatute requires an initial finding of facttat pre-e3isting standard creates a significant health risk so tata ne#, lo#er standard is “reasona$ly necessary or appropriate to

proide safe*ealtful e"ploy"ent*places of e"ploy"ent.Reer !# !a!%!e (Benene plurality) 8gency failed to "eet stat.reqs. (e.g. initial finding of sig. risk) (f plurality could not read intostatute s"tg it doesn9t contain, #ould ae no coice $ut to side #*concurrence = strike do#n as unconstitutional)Deer !# a+en$' (Benene dissent) 8gency acted #*i its discretiongien inerent uncertainties at frontiers of science.S!ri*e d#1n !a!%!e a %n$#n!i!%!i#nal (Benene concurrence) olitically unaccounta$le $ureaucrats can9t "ake fund. policydecisions “funda"ental! key $*c "any "ake policy decisions

86: agency eads are politically accounta$le, so not rigt.2& Ar#ria!e ,%di$ial r#le/ s it appropriate for &udges to play a role in

tecnically co"ple3 scientific decision"akingAa& Learn !e %6!an$e ?udges can try to learn te su$stance

troug use of e3perts, special "asters.6& Eml#' r#$ed%re: ?udges can require agencies to entilate

te issues troug oral earings to ensure te agency understandste issues = can "ake supporta$le findings of fact (consistent #*T Iankee, D7KA)

$& Deer !# a+en$'/ ?udges can defer to agencies in ligt of teirsuperior e3pertise = inerent uncertainty ($ut ;ongresso$iously #anted cts. to do "ore tan ru$$er sta"p agencydecisions - § 7> standards of reie#)

d& S$ien$e C!&

-& Benene 0eisited O2G8 proided %6!an!ial e"iden$e of “significantealt risk! = lo#ered standard.

& f Benene ad $een decided under ;erona& ;t. #ould say, first, tat ;ongress as not decided precise

question, = second, tat te decision #as not reasona$le6& 0enquist9s approac inconsistent #* ;eron (agencies are

accounta$le)$& lurality also inconsistent (politically unaccounta$le &ustices

attri$ute to ;ongress s"tg tat it did not say = faor tat ie#oer tat of agency

d& Tus, #ould ae to upold agency9s decision.

III& In!erre!a!i#n # La1/ Te Ce"r#n D#$!rine S!r#n+ Deeren$ea& f ;ongress e3pressly or i"plicitly delegated la#-interpreting po#er to te agency, ct.

m%! follo# any reasonable (not 8=;) agency interpretation of an a"$iguous statutei& ;ontrasts #* pre-;eron #eak deference approac, #ere cts. #ere ulti"ate for

statutory interpretation)6& Ce"r#n "& Na!%ral Re#%r$e Deene C#%n$il (:8)

i& Fa$!/ Jnder ;88, "ust gie reasons to create ne# “source! of pollution. H8canged definition of air pollution “source! to refer to all deices #*i singleindustrial $u$$le after it concluded tat its old definition of “source! #as

1+


24/55

ar"ing econo"y = air quality $y "aking it difficult to replace old equip"ent#* ne# lo#er-polluting "acinery.

ii& 5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. upeld H89s ne# definition, noting tat #ile te statute doesdefine source, it did not resole tis particular aspect “source,! and tus agency"ay interpret its o#n statutory "andate any#ay tat it likes (proided sucinterpretation is reasona$lenot 8=;).

& ;t. states tat politically unaccounta$le &udges sould not $e "aking

policy decisions. 0ater, tey sould defer to politically accounta$leagencies (indirectly accounta$le $*c #ork for resident).

iii& C!& ann#%n$e

a&


25/55

a& ;eron applies to notice = co""ent (infor"al) rule"aking =for"al ad&udication (Mead, 200)

2& n$lear i Ce"r#n deeren$e alie !# in!erre!i"e r%le> #li$'

!a!emen!> in#rmal ad,%di$a!i#n

a& ;eron deference "ay apply $ased on “all facts =circu"stances!

6& ;usto"s classifications :o not #arrant ;eron deference $*c

tousands are "ade $y lo#-leel personnel #*o underlyingreasons or precedent alue.

$& S*idm#re eer!ie deeren$e applies #en ;eron does not(%ead, 1>>) :eference #ill $e afforded depending on

consideration of certain factorsi& :id agency carefully considered interpretation at a ig

leelAii& s agency9s interpretation persuasie

iii& s interpretation e3pressed in pu$lised reg*reasonedad&udicatory opinion, or in for"al letterA

i"& :oes agency ae e3pertise in tis areaA"& s interpretation consistent #* past interpretationsA

(;eron deference does not require consistency)-& Ce"r#n !#da'/ Cenerally, if te position taken $y te agency appeals

to and is consistent #* te :e"ocratic party, te li$eral &ustices #ill say;eron applies, and conseratie &udges #ill say tat ;eron doesn9tapply, and doesn9t pass te 2kid"ore test, or ;eron does apply anddoesn9t pass te 2kid"ore test, and ice ersa

& La1'er/

a& f you #ant agency action upeld, argue for ;eron*2kid"oreapplication

6& f don9t #ant agency action upeld, argue tat ;eron does notapply, and argue tat agency9s reasoning #as not persuasie

A"aila6ili!' # 3%di$ial Re"ie1 (reference $ack to Oerton ark a$oe). Pre%m!i#n # Re"ie1a6ili!' # Final A+en$' A$!i#n/ Oerton ark announces

po#erful presu"ption of reie#a$ility. Today, presu"ption e3ists, $ut it as $een cut $ack instrengt = scope.a& S!a!%!#r' Pre$l%i#n . J ?0(a)()

i& A66#!! La6/ (ee al# in


26/55

statute does not per"it. 0o$ison sougt reie# $ased on alleged st 8"d"tiolation.5#ldin+/ ;t. applies aoidance canon as $asis for allo#ing reie#

& C#n+re rea#n #r re$l%din+ re"ie1 ere (looking at leg.istory)a. 8oid $urdening $ot agency = cts. #* uge load of litigation

$. Feep cts. fro" interfering #* efficiency of agency

decision"aking (= acco"panying iger costs)2& 6eiter reason related to constitutional issues, #ic #ere su$&ect of

instant case.-& C!& in!erre!ed !a!%!e !# a' n#n.re"ie1a6ili!' # a+en$'

de$ii#n> n#! n#n.re"ie1a6ili!' # !a!%!e i!el in!erre!ed a

daysof issuance of rule.5#ldin+/ ;ongress can li"it to +> days ti"e #*i #ic anyone can seekreie# of e"issions standard (te"poral li"it), $ut can o$tain reie# of #eter rule qualifies as an e"issions standard ($*c it did not, ti"e li"itdoesn9t apply)

6& De$ii#n ). ;t. "ustdeter"ine #at tat "eans.5#ldin+/ ;t. olds tat ;8 director9s decision to ter"inate e"ployee #*o proiding reasons or earing is not reie#a$le $y cts. $*c it is co""itted toagency discretion $y la# gien

& 2tatutory language (personnel decisions are “in is discretion #eneere sall dee" it adisa$le!) =

2& ;onte3t (dealing #* clandestine ;8 on "atters of nat9l. security)0eaffir"s 0o$ison to allo# ct. to reie# for constitutional clai"s.:issents

. O9;onnor 2tay out of ;8 $usiness altogeter 1. 2calia 6ot like line of decisions E if ;ongress says no reie#, ten

sould $e no reie# (anti-0o$ison)(een #* const9l. issues)ii& 5an @ Lan+e"in (


27/55

-& Lan+e"in (2nd Cir&)/ Tere is la# to apply (;ongress lifted standard fro" preious 2. ;t. opinion), $ut ;ongress i"plicitly precluded reie#.

a. 1nd ;ir.9s opinion "uc $etter tan st ;ir.9s (standard of statute isone tat cts. ae $een applying in oter cases for decades) Esays ct. doesn9t #ant to get inoled, $ut if ;ongress #ants cts.to get inoled, tey #ill.

$. :

II& Pre%m!i#n # N#n.Re"ie1a6ili!' # A+en$' Ina$!i#na& En#r$emen! Di$re!i#n/ 8gencies ae discretion oer #eter to inestigate or take

enforce"ent action gien li"ited resources = funding = te need to prioritie decisions= respond to co"peting pressures = suc decision are generally unreie#a$le.

i& C!& $an! $#mel a+en$ie !# a$! #r #li$' rea#nD%nn "& Re!ail Cler* (:2)

Fa$!/ Jnion sends people to floor to $ri$e for otes. /ir" sends spies to recordfor unfair la$or practices = takes info to 6@0B. 6@0B decides not to take anyaction, despite solid eidence.5#ldin+/ ;t. olds tat een if facts presented to agency so# a clear iolationof la#, te ct. cannot co"pel te agency to act.

& olicy coice = resource allocation outside of ct.9s e3pertise.

ii& C!& CAN re"ie1 a+en$' le+al de$ii#n (e$e!i#n)S#& Cal& Di!& C#%n$il

Fa$!/ 8gency decided not to act on stated $asis tat 2O@ ad run out.5#ldin+/ ;t. can reie# = reerse decision not to act if agency gies legallyincorrect reason for declining to act (ere, 2O@ ad not run out)Re%l!/ Today, if not "andated $y statute to gie reason #y it9s not required toact, agency #ill proide any reason (tis #ay, decision #ill not $e reie#a$le)

iii& M of ti"e)

$. ro$a$le cause (&usticia$le standard)5#ldin+/ :O@ 2ec.9s decision su$&ect to &udicial reie#, al$eit narro# 8=;

(rational reasons required, $ut not earing) (partially affir"s +rd ;ir.). ;ongress clearly #anted to create decison"aking process tat #ould not

cast long-ter" cloud oer union leadersip. f ordered earing, #ould $eyears of delay $efore leadersip could $e deter"ined.

5'# :O@ decides election loser pro$a$ly lost $ecause of #inner9s illegaltactics, $ut also decides it lacks sufficient resources to act in all suc cases = tattis case is less i"portant tan oters.

. 'at sould :O@ do ("ust gie reasons, $ut not required to proideeidence)

17


28/55

a. n eery case you coose not to pursue troug for"al "eans, put out sa"e $oilerplate state"ent E o$scure real reasons for notacting

i"& C#%r! $ann#! $#mel en#r$emen! a$!i#n

5e$*ler "& Cane' (:8;)

Fa$!/ 8nti-deat penalty group files la#suit #* /:8 arguing drugs used forletal in&ection are not safe and effectie. /:8 does noting.

DC Cir& applies presu"ption of reie#a$ility (Oerton ark, 8$$ott @a$s,:unlop) = /:8 policy state"ent re off-la$el use to co"pel /:8 to act.5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. reerses, $ased on re%m!i#n # %nre"ie1a6ili!' #r a+en$'ina$!i#n (not inestigating).

& 0ecognition of reality tat tere9s no agency tat as resources sufficientto allo# it to act in eery single case (furter, factors tat induce agencyto act in one case $ut not anoter ery co"plicated).

2& resu"ption can $e re$utted $y language of co""and (“sall!) coupled#* &usticia$le standard (treat :unlop as "eeting re$uttal reqs., tusreie#a$le E rof. disagrees)

a. resu"ption can $e re$utted only $y statute or leg. rule $. olicy state"ents cannot re$ut

i& 6ot $indingii& 6o# "any agencies #on9t issue leg. rule #* la# to apply

$*c #ant to aoid reie# E &ust issue policy state"entsc. nterpretie rule can9t co"pel reie#a$ility, $ut agency could

ae an a"$iguous leg. rule tat #as interpreted to i"pose on ita duty to act in circu"stances specified $y leg. rule

6& Di$re!i#n !# Re+%la!e/ ;ts. aren9t second-guessing agency9s allocation of scareresources $ut reie#ing outco"e of agency9s oluntary decision after it as alreadycosen to deote resources to rule"aking

i& § 55+(e) proides rigt to petition for rule"aking = requires agency to giereasons for refusing.

& C!& $an re"ie1 de$ii#n n#! !# i%e r%le a!er r%lema*in+NRDC "& SEC (DC :?)

Fa$!/ Hniron"entalists = ciil rigts groups #ant 2H; to require allcorps. to include in teir reporting ery detailed reports on teireniron"ental = e"ploy"ent practices. 2H; conducts a rule"aking $utonly issues a decision requiring co"pliance state"ents.5#ldin+/ :ecision not to issue a rule 8/TH0 conducting rule"aking 2reie#a$le E already spent resources.

2& Re%al !# amend r%le %6,e$! !# deeren!ial re"ie1

Ameri$an 5#re Pr#!e$!i#n An& "& L'n+ (DC :8?)

Fa$!/ ;ongress passed statute $anning “soring! and tells :O8 toi"ple"ent $an.. :O8 initially indicated it #ould $an ligt #eigt soring

it found to $e in&urious $y independent study, $ut ten refused to issuene# soring rule.5#ldin+/ 8gency decisions to refuse to issue or a"end a rule in responseto a petition are su$&ect to deferential reie#.

a. R%lema*in+ ina$!i#n i dieren! r#m en#r$emen! a$!i#n69$/

i& @ess frequent tan decisions not to act in ad&udications(tus #on9t oer$urden ct.)

ii& Often focus on la# (ere, definitional ), rater tanco"plicated set of factors tat agencies consider #en

1K


29/55

deciding #ere to allocate teir resources (tus ct. asso"e understanding of issue).

iii& 88 § 55+ 'eneer agency denies petition forrule"aking, requires agency to gie reasons for denial-- proides $asis for reie#.

i"& :ecision not to initiate a rule"aking is rarelyoerturned.

. Gere, only $*c :O8 #ent against ;ongress, itso#n study (see"s illogical).

-& MA "& EPA (200?) ( # #nl' - $ae in 1i$ e!i!i#ner +#! re"ie1 @

WN)

Fa$!/ 2. ;t. applies 8G8 test in conte3t of petition to H8 to initiaterule"aking to deter"ine #eter = to #at e3tent to li"it autoe"issions of ;O1 to "itigate glo$al #ar"ing. i%e/

a. :oes ct. ae standingA $. s it 8=;Ac. nterpretation of statued. 8dopt reasoning = standing of 8G8 . @yngA

5#ldin+/ ;t. olds tat :; ;ir. got it rigt in 8G8 E adopts reasoningin toto

$& Timin+ # 3%di$ial Re"ie1i& Re%iremen!/ 8gency action is reie#a$le only if it is final, ripe for reie#,

and as e3austed ad"inistratie re"edies.& Pe!i!i#ner "ust succeed on all + grounds2& A+en$' need only succeed on ground

ii& Finali!'/ 1-step test& 8gency "ust ae concluded its decision"aking process (leel of

agency tat as autority final language) 86:2& :ecision "ust ae for"al legal consequences (create rigts, take a#ay

rigts, cange rigts) decision"aker as arried at definite positionon issue tat inflicts an actual, concrete in&ury)

-& APA J ?0/ %akes final agency action su$&ect to &udicial reie#& Ra!i#nale #r Finali!' Re%iremen!/ 8oids &udicial interference #*

ongoing agency actiities.;& N#n.$#ne%en!ial de$ii#n are n#! inal

Dal!#n "& Sen$er (::)

Fa$!/ 2pencer seeks reie# of decisions of :O:, B;;, = resident toclose iladelpia 6ay Iard.5#ldin+/ Jnreie#a$le under 88 $*c resident is not an agency, andresident as final say E residential decisions are not reie#a$le under88 unless tere are constitutional issues.

a. :O: = B;; decisions do not ae legal effect (carry noconsequences) until resident acts, tus tey are not “final! eentoug tey represent te final #ord of eac agency.

$. C#n$%rren$e/ /unctional oerlap $*# reie#a$ility doctrine =+ ti"ing doctines statute silent re reie#a$ility of decisions,

= structure "akes it clear tat ;ongress #anted cts. to stay out(circu"stantial eiden) E 88 § 7>(a)(1) tus don9t need to

talk a$out finality

1D


30/55

& A+en$' Can$ella!i#n @ S%eni#n %nder FIFRA (e!i$ide)

Eamle (EDF "& 5ardin> EDF "& R%$*ela%)

Fa$!/ ::T pesticide cases.a. Can$ella!i#n/ 0equires finding tat costs e3ceed $enefits after

ela$orate procedure tat takes year (e.g. H8 decision to cancelregistration of pesticide $*c its costs out#eig its $enefits)

$. S%eni#n 0equires finding of i""inent ar" after fe#, if any

procedures = can $e done quickly (e.g. H8 decision to suspendregistration of pesticide $*c it causes i""inent ar"

5#ldin+/ 8n agency9s inaction can $e eld to $e a final order, if it is teequialent to an order denying relief (ere, te issue of te “i""inence!of te treat #as finally resoled)

a& De$ii#n !# ini!ia!e Can$ella!i#n

i& e E not finalii& N# E reie#a$le = final

iii& Ina$!i#n E not reie#a$le E ct. says at tis point agencyinaction is te sa"e as saying no, $ut after Geckler .;aney, tis is not reie#a$le

6& De$ii#n !# %end (a%min+ lan+%a+e # $#mmand

,%!i$ia6le !andard)i"& e E co"pleted te process = it as concrete effect

(toug "ay$e not per"anent effect), $ut tere are no procedures. 8gencies argue tat tis is an inter"ediatedecision = tere is no record for reie#. ;ts. diided ontis question.

"& N# E suspension process = its action as a concreteeffect ("igt continue to kill certain ani"als if interestgroups correct). Iet could $e caracteried asinter"ediate step in on-going cancellation process. ;ts.diided

"i& naction E unreie#a$le $*c no ct. ere #ould equate

failure to act #* a negatie decision.$& De$ii#n !# Can$el

"ii& Ies E definitely final"iii& 6o E definitely final

i& naction E not reie#a$le?& A+en$' Dela' @ C#mellin+ A+en$' A$!i#n (ae$! all !imin+

d#$!rine)

a. J ?0/ P#!en!ial remediei& ;t. can order agency to act if action “unreasona$ly

delayed!. But so "any reasons for delay possi$le

resources, procedures

1. "ust proe it9s “unreasona$le! for agency toae allocated resources in suc "anner tat ascaused delay in oter priorities iolates

;aney $*c cts. inco"petent in telling agencieso# to prioritie

ii& %andatory 2tatutory :eadlines. Hasy in teory ;ongress can set deadlines on

agency action1. Gard in practice ;ongress does not kno#

pro$le"s*priorities of agency

+>


31/55

a. /O8 requires action #*i 1> days, $ut/B is 1> yrs $eind

iii& Riene/ 'eter issues are appropriate for &udicial reie# at a gien ti"e& S#%r$e/ Crounded in co""on la#, not 882& Ra!i#nale #r Riene Re& 8ssures issues are sufficiently deeloped

for &udicial resolution-& Re%iremen! #r Riene

& A66#!! La6 "& Gardner (:?)Fa$!/ /:8 issues “eery ti"e! rule E include generic na"e on allla$eling, adertising under $rand na"e of drug “eery ti"e.! ar"ssue.

a. Old 0ule ;an9t callenge rule until $reak it = suing underenforce"ent record #ould $e enforce"ent earing.

i& Bad pu$licity for callenges ($*c ae to $reak la#), $utagencies liked it.

$. 6e# 0ule Once rule is issued, can sue for declaration #eterit9s alid

5#ldin+/ ;t. says tis rule is ripe = announces +-part test on pre-enforce"ent reie#

a& () Did C#n+re in!end !# #r6id re.en#r$emen! re"ie1i& Tere is a presu"ption of reie#a$ility

ii& ;ongressional intent to preclude reie# "ust $e so#n $y “clear = conincing eidence! to oerco"e presu"ption of reie#a$ility.

6& (2) Are !e i%e a $!& i 6ein+ $alled %#n !# re#l"e

ar#ria!e #r ,%di$ial re#l%!i#n a! !i !ime in !i

a6!ra$! $#n!e!

a& P%rel' le+al/ "ore likely to $e ripe for reie#6& P%rel' a$!%al/ @ess likely to $e ripe for reie# (e.g.

#ait to see o# la# is applied)$& (-) W#%ld e!i!i#ner %er ardi a a re%l! # de$ii#n

!# deer re"ie1

;& Pre.En#r$emen! Re"ie1 Pre$l%ded

a. 7enei! Eli+i6ili!' R%le (SSA 6enei!> INS de#r!a!i#n> e!$&)Ren# "& Ca!#li$ S#$ial Ser"i$eFa$!/ re-enforce"ent reie# of $enefits rule denied5#ldin+/ ;annot reie# $enefits rule until $enefits ae $eendenied (post-enforce"ent E tus 8

i& /ails art (1) of 8$$ott E 6o factual $asis for denying $enefits so cannot $e dealt #* in a$stract conte3t.

ii& /ails art (+) of 8$$ott E 6o ardsip until $enefits ae $een denied.

$. Al!erna!i"e R#%!e !# Re"ie1T%nder 7ain C#al

Fa$!/ tries to get pre-enforce"ent reie#5#ldin+/ /ails art () of 8$$ott

i& ;ongress i"plicitly precluded pre-enforce"ent reie#of a regulatory rule $y proiding an alternatie route toreie# (can callenge rule in enforce"ent proceeding)

& Pre.En#r$emen! Callen+e/ ?ustices disagree #eter tere is a presu"ption of pre-enforce"ent reie# (Illin#i C#%n$il #n L#n+.TermCare> 2000) (in $#n!ra! !# "er!#n Par* @ A66#!!)

+


32/55

a. N#! rie 1en de!ermina!i#n i !## a6!ra$!T#ile! G##d/ /:8 issued a “free access rule! stating tat itsregulatees "ust gie its inspectors free access or face reocationof teir (regulatees9) certification.5#ldin+/ 6ot ripe for reie# under 8$$ott

i& /ails art (). ;ongress did 6OT intend for pre-enforce"ent

reie#ii& /ails art (1)

. 6ot kind of of la# tat can $e resoled in tea$stract igly fact dependent

1. "ust #it until access atte"pted = tende"onstrate #y access under tosecircu"stances is 8=;

iii& /ails art (+). 6o ardsip to $*c certification alted E OO0

reasoning, says rof. (tis #ould $e ardsip)

;t. sould not ae addressed tis issue $*c itcase clearly failed art (1)

i"& Be'/ ;allenge to leg. rule tat raises "ere possi$ilityof cange $ut doesn9t affect pri"ary conduct of regulateunlikely to $e found ripe

$. Rie 1en P i+nii$an!l' $an+e $#nd%$! #r $#!l'$#mlian$e

A66#!! La6/ er"itting pre-enforce"ent callenge $y drug"akers to “eery ti"e! rule

i& /ails art (+) “Hery ti"e! rule required drug "akers tospend a lot of UUU

ii& Be'/ ;allenges to leg. rules i"posing duties orrestrictions requiring i""ediate canges in conduct ofregulatees or $e found in iolation of la# are irtually

al#ays eld ripe.?& A66#!! Ima$!/ Gas "ade pre-enforce"ent reie# co""on, "aking

rule"akings 5-> yr endeaors.a. n pre-enforce"ent reie#, can9t rely on enforce"ent proceeding

for record to deter"ine #eter rule is 8=;, so "ust insteadrely on record created $y notice = co""ent rule"aking

$. 2tate"ent of $asis = purpose "ust respond adequately to allco""ents.

c. 0eno . ;atolic 2ocial 2erices cipped a#ay att = Tunder

Basin created $ig #ole in 8$$ott, as did llinois @ong-Ter";are

d. %asa# as urged 2. ;t. to oerturn 8$$ott @a$s.

i"& Ea%!i#n/ 6o one is entitled to &udicial relief for a treatened in&ury until prescri$ed ad"inistratie re"edies ae $een e3austed (purely &udge-"ade)

& Ra!i#nale/ :efer to agency decision"aking, factual resolution,e3pertise, discretion, = autono"y, = enance efficiency $y aoiding pre"ature interruption of agency9s decision"aking = $urdening cts.

2& R%le/ Dar6' "& Ciner# (::-)

a. 88 § 7>4 ;ongress #rote to narro# scope of e3austiondoctrine, so tat tru"ps ct. *agency co""on la# reasoning

+1


33/55

$. /inal = ripe actions are reie#a$le unless !a!%!e #r r%lerequires resort to intra-agency reie# (§§ 7>1, 7>4)

i& 8pplies only to intra-agency reie#.ii& t is te po#er of te agency to deter"ine if intra-agency

reie# is "andatory or optional.c. f intra-agency reie# is not required $y organic statute or

agency rule, ten "ay seek reie# #*o aing e3austed tat

ad"inistratie re"edy.-& Admini!ra!i"e Remedie N#! Ea%!ed

M'er "& 7e!leem S!eel (:-8)

Fa$!/ 6@08 said 6@0B as &uris. oer la$or disputes tat take place in interstate co""erce, = is e"po#ered to deter"ine tatco. inoled in interstate co""erce is engaged in unfair la$or practices. 6@0B issues rule oer B2;. B2; callenges 6@0B &urisdiction (says not interstate co""erce).5#ldin+K ;t. cannot en&oin 6@0B earing $ased on finding tatconduct #as not in interstate co""erce.

i& arty "ust first callenge &urisdiction at agency earingsu$&ect to deferential &udicial reie# of agency

deter"ination at end of proceeding ("ust go troug allagency re"edies $efore callenging in ct.)

ii& ;oincided #* adoption of ne#, "ore li$eral tests todeter"ine #eter conduct is in ; 8gency as

po#er to "ake decision re &uris. = const9l. facts& Ea%!i#n E$e!i#n – Wen Fail%re !# Ea%! Ma' 6e E$%ed

a. Dra! Claii$a!i#n $. M$Bar! "& &S& (::) – 7e! $ae why ea%!i#n d#$!rine i

# im#r!an!

Fa$!/ 2ole suriing son e3e"pt fro" draft if fills out for".:oesn9t fill out for" = ten doesn9t report #en drafted.8rrested.

5#ldin+/ ;t. e3cuses te son9s lack of e3austion $*c reasons for doctrine

i& 8oid interruption of agency decision"aking process.ii& 8llo# agency to deelop facts to resole factual issues.

iii& 8llo# agency to e3ercise discretion = to applye3pertise.

i"& Hfficiency E aoid $urdening agencies = cts. #* "ultipleappeals.

"& 0espect agency autono"y."i& :eter parties fro" sand$agging agency.

H3cuses te doctrine ere $*c tese reasons aren9t so i"portant.And any opportunity to e3aust re"edies as past too late.

"ii& Gardsip of going to prison is ars.c. M$Gee "& &S& (:?)

Fa$!/ 2i"ilar to %cFart, $ut conscientious o$&ector failed to fillout card.5#ldin+/ did 6OT e3aust all re"edies, = si3 reasons arei"portant ere.

d. 8gency9s gatering of facts * analysis = e3pertise are necessary.;& S$#e # Ea%!i#n/ 0egulatees "ay argue tat decisions requiring

e3austion sould $e narro#ly construed to aoid "ore costly, ti"e-consu"ing, non-essential deter"inations.

++


34/55

a. A"#idin+ $lini$al !rial/ 8rgue tat scope of e3austion sould $e #eter a product is a drug su$&ect to years of clinical trials,not te $roader question of #eter it is safe = effectie, $*c ifit9s not a drug, clinical trials are an unnecessary #aste of ti"e =costly (e.g. scope of $urden su$stantially out#eigs feasi$lealternaties).

& C!& Can! E$%e Fail%re !# Ea%! Wen C#n+rei#nall'

Re%ired/ ;ts. cannot e3cuse a failure to e3aust ad"in. re"edies #en;ongress as required e3austion $y statute (no ct. "ay reie# decisionof tis agency unless and until petitioner as taken follo#ing steps E e3.i""igration prisoners9 rigts) (W##d#rd "& N+#> 200)

?& C!& Can! Im#e Addl& Ea%!i#n Re/ ;ts. are not free to i"posean e3austion req. as a rule of &udicial ad"inistration #ere agencyaction as already $eco"e final under 88 § >(c) (Dar6' "& Ciner#>::-)

8& Pi44a 5'#

a. /:8 caracteries pia you "ake and #ant to sell as drug (notfood) and requires > years of clinical trials at cost of UUUU to proe it is safe and effectie (for purpose of not clogging arteries

$y using fau3 ceese) $efore you can "arket it. Iou atte"pt too$tain reie# of /:89s caracteriation, $ut /:8 argues you"ust first e3aust your re"edies troug clinical trials.

$. 'at result #ould you predictA Go# can you distinguis yourcase fro" %yers . Betlee" 2teelA (B2;)

i& 0e"edy tat B2; #as told it ad to e3aust #as goingtroug long and e3pensie earing #ere 6@0B #oulddecide #eter it #as undertaking ; = engaged inunfair la$or practices.

ii& 0e"edy ere #as clinical trials.iii& :ifference in degree

. n B2;, #ere co. #anted to go directly to ct.,

kne# tat it #ould #in any#ay, so unfair to"ake it go troug 1 years of ad"in. reie#. ;t.said "ust do so despite costs.

1. ;t. is less likely to require you to pursue ad"in.re"edies ere

i"& /inality. /:8 as already "ade final decision tat tis is

a drug, and no# saying tat9s only part ofdecision"aking process (no# "ust deter"ine#eter safe to sell in ;)

1. Iou can argue tat deter"ination tat it9s a drugis final decision tat as legal consequences

(forces you to spend UK5>" and >yrs testingfood, = proi$ited fro" selling it in "eanti"e).

"& 0ipeness. 6o, tere is not eidence tat ;ongress intended

to preclude reie# of final decisions classifyingso"eting as a drug $efore "anufacturer asgone troug application process to get itapproed safe and effectie

"i& s issue appropriate for &udicial reie# at tis ti"eA

+4


35/55

. Cien tis su$stance, and clai"s used toadertise it, is tis a drugA

1. /:8 as already looked at eidence, "adedeter"ination tat it is a drug and e3plained #y

+. Tat issue is appropriate for reie#4. Gardsip Ies - UK5>" and > yrs of testing5. ;onince court tat tis is a good ti"e to reie#

action (as "uc prag"atic as doctrinal)"ii& H3austion, finality, and ripeness are not i"pedi"ents to

i""ediate &udicial reie# of /:89s deter"ination tat pia is not a drug

d& S!andin+i& Re%iremen!/ n order for ct. to accept case, action "ust $e reie#a$le under

ti"ing doctrines (final, ripe, = e3austed re"edies), and "ust ae !andin+ Ea sufficient legal interest to proceed tat isn9t too speculatie, attenuated, ora$stract

& C#n!i!%!i#nal Re%iremen!/ n&ury in fact, causation, = redressa$ility(8rt. “case or controersy! 8rt. “take care!)

2& S!a!%!#r'9Pr%den!ial Re%iremen!/ Vone of nterest Testii& Be' di!in$!i#n/ :irectly regulated parties seldo" ae a standing pro$le", $ut

$eneficiaries #o seek to "ake regulatory syste"s ae "ore $ite #ill often failto de"onstrate te requisite “in&ury in fact!

iii& Pre.ADP "& Cam/ 2 line # $ae (#$%ed #n ri+!)

Aleander Sr#%! @ S#n (:-0) E @egal 0igt TestFa$!/re-e3isting rate structure faored 2prunt oer its co"petitors. 8fterearing, ;; found rate structure illegal = ordered 00s to equalie rate(#ould urt 2prunt). 2prunt sougt reie#.5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. said 2prunt ad no standing $*c agency order did not effectits “legal rigt.!

a. Tis is really a "erit issue = sould $e deter"ined after te case

is eard. t forces ct. to "ake cursory = asty ealuation at $eginning of case

i& Go# can ct. kno# order is la#ful $efore it reie#s it#y can9t 2prunt argue tat order is inconsistent #itstatute, 8=;, or unsupported $y su$stantial eidenceA

2& Sander 7r#& (:0)

-& Fa$!/ /;; grants license to 2B9s co"petitor, = 2B callenges issuance,clai"ing it as legal rigt to $e free fro" aderse co"petition.

& 5#ldin+/ 2. ;t. says 2B as no rigt to $e free fro" co"petition, $ut asstanding $*c /;; statute confer standing on anyone aderselyaffected*aggrieed $y an /;; order.

a. ;ongress can confer $road standing on “priate 8Cs! to elp

insure tat agencies co"ply #* la#.i& Cot. as li"ited enforce"ent resources, = tus can

supple"ent its efforts $y enlisting priate 8Cs toenforce statutes on issues tat affect te".

$. 2upported $y alf of 2. ;t. today.c. @egal rigt applies #en statute doesn9t appy priate 8C can $e

used at any ti"ei"& C#n!i!%!i#nal Re%iremen! #r S!andin+ (ADP "& Cam> :?0) (#$% #n

in,%rie)

+5


36/55

& In,%r' in Fa$!/ ;oncrete = particularied = actual or i""inent, notypotetical or con&ectural

2& Ca%a!i#n (>>) s.

so"eday intention to isit across glo$e (@u&an, DD1)a. Se$%la!i"e Tri A6r#ad (N# !andin+)

L%,an "& Deender # Wildlie (ee al# En"ir& S!and&)

s lacked standing to callenge narro#ing of Hndangered2pecies 8ct to apply only to J2 pro&ects $*c teoretical futuretrips a$road to see ani"als only a speculatie in&ury, not one infact.

$. Nei+6#rin+ P#ll%!i#n (S!andin+)Laidla1 (ee al# En"ir& S!and&)

6eig$ors of #aste#ater treat"ent plant ad standing under

;lean 'ater 8ct #en clai"ing teir recreational opportunities#ere curtailed $*c fear of ongoing pollution eene #*o actual pollution

. !enient Injury in "act #equirement

a. Rea#na6le Fear Re%iremen!Laidla1

/or standing, it is sufficient for to so# tat is cange in $eaior (curtailed recreation) #as due to a “reasona$le fear!regarding effects of discarges fro" near$y #aste#atertreat"ent plant

$. Te!in+ Di$rimina!i#n5a"en Real!' (:82)

Fa$!/ Jnla#ful to discri"inate in ousing $ased on race E priate class action.

i& Te!in+ $ae/ n&ury of not getting ousing E $ut if a testcase, is tere a real = actual in&uryA

5#ldin+/ Black “tester! can callenge apt. $uild. o#ner9siolation of /G8 een toug tester ad no interest in renting anapt. ;ongress ad taken $old action to eradicate ousing

discri"ination = it is unla#ful to proide inaccurate info. onracial grounds.

c. In#rma!i#nal In,%r'A*in "& FEC (::8)

Fa$!/ /H; requires 8;s to disclose info a$out teir financing

= actiities. 8ra$-8"erican oters #ant to callenge /H;9sdecision tat 88; (srael lo$$y) is not a 8;.

i& 5#ldin+/ ;ongress as created a rigt in eery oter toenforce rigt to access tis info.

. 8n in&ury suffered $y eery oter ($y te "any)is a &udicially-cognia$le in&ury if ;ongress ascreated a statutory rigt tat applies to eeryoter = an agency as acted in a a#ay tatinterferes #* tat rigt, distinguising2clesigner = 0icardson. (prudential, rater

+


37/55

tan constitutional li"itation, = tus can $edispensed #* $y statute)

ii& :issent n&ury sare $y "any (all oters in sa"e #ay Eno access to info.), doesn9t qualify asconcrete*particularied, $ut rater a$stract*generalied no standing ties into 2calia9s Take ;are teory

d. Generali4ed Trea! # C#me!i!i#n

e. Amer& Da!a Pr#$e#r "& Cam (:?0)Fa$!/ 8: #ants statute interpreted to say $anks can9t engagein oter co""ercial actiity like co"puter serices.5#ldin+/ Te ;o"ptroller of te ;urrency as allo#ed nat9l. $anks to perfor" data processing serices. Tis in&ured personsin te data processing $usiness. 8: need not so# tat a particular "e"$ere #ould lose U as a result of a particular $ank9ssuccessful effort to take a particular custo"er fro" te "e"$erto gain standing. ;o"petitie in&ury satisfied te in&ury in factreq.

-& #igorous Injury in "act #equirement (W6ote Tese often inoleta3payer callenges, "ilitary*foreign policy, or political questions)

a. Di$l#%re # CIA 7%d+e!Ri$ard#n (:?)

Fa$!/ /ed. ta3payer callenged statutes tat allo#ed ;8 not to pu$lis a regular state"ent of accounts, alleging tat te statutesiolated state"ent = acct. clause of ;onstitution.5#ldin+/ 6o standing in&ury is too general*not particularied

9s alleged in&ury E disa$ling i" fro" oting #* kno#ledge ofincu"$ent legislators9 decisions a$out intelligence $udgeting E"ere “generalied grieance! tat failed to distinguis i" fro"any citien #o o$&ected to te secrecy of te intelligence $udget.

i& Cot.. as neer allo#ed disclosure of suc infor"ation

pu$lic doesn9t understand tis issue any#ay aoidsaing to decide const9l. issue

ii& 6ote distinguised fro" 8kins $. Mem6er # C#n+re in Mili!ar'

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	championegy325
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Administrative Law - Pierce - Fall 2008_4

Documents