Politics of Administrative Law after midterm

the APA also grants the judiciary oversight over all agency actions.

to govern the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations.

1. to require agencies to keep the public informed of their organization, procedures and rules;
2. to provide for public participation in the rulemaking process, for instance through public commenting;
3. to establish uniform standards for the conduct of formal rulemaking and adjudication;
4. to define the scope of judicial review.

review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act.

U.S. Supreme Court case striking down the legislative veto on account of its violation of the separation of powers.

authorized the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to suspend deportation of an alien continually residing in the United States for at least seven years where the U.S. Attorney General, in his discretion, found that deportation would result in "extreme hardship." After making such a finding, the Attorney General would transmit a report to Congress pursuant to and either house of Congress had the power to veto the Attorney General's determination pursuant to.

• Chadha's student visa ran out in the United States
• Chadha sought to suspend his deportation and the INS accommodated until the house of representatives vetoed this request and continued with deportation preceedings
•the nine circuit court found it unconstitutional and ordered the attorney general to suspend deportation proceedings
• the INS appealed to the supreme court

7-2 decision in favor of Chadha claiming that the resolution of the House of Representatives vetoing the Attorney General's determination was constitutionally invalid, unenforceable, and not binding. Congress may not promote a statute granting to itself a legislative veto over actions of the executive branch inconsistent with the bicameralism principle and Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution.

The principle of a two-house legislature of the senate and the house of representatives to make decisions

A bill must be passed in identical form by BOTH the House of Representatives and the Senate and must be presented to the president for approval

chief justice burger

Justice Powell wrote that Congress views the legislative veto as essential to controlling the executive branch, and should therefore be undertaken with caution.

Congress may not expand its own power into the areas of competence of the other branches

which prohibits Congress from undertaking legislative trials that lack the safeguards and accountability of judicial trials. For a house of Congress to force the deportation of Chadha would amount to such a legislative trial.

Justice White wrote that the legislative veto power does not involve the ability of Congress to enact new legislation without bicameral consensus or presentation to the president, but instead involves the ability of Congress to veto suggestions by the executive, a power that both houses of Congress already possess. he concurred that the attorney general's opinion was similar to presidential power and that

Gave any president the power to go to war under certain circumstances, but required that he could only do so for 90 days before being required to officially bring the matter before Congress.

The law empowers Congress to review, by means of an expedited legislative process, new federal regulations issued by government agencies and, by passage of a joint resolution, to overrule a regulation. rules can not lawfully take effect until they are submitted to congress.

The United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers

Does the Clean Air Act permit the EPA to define the term "stationary source" to mean whole industrial plants only, which allows plants to build or modify units within plants without the permit required under the Act?

the condition of a court yielding or submitting its judgment to that of another legitimate party, such as the executive branch in the case of national defense.

*Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 to address states that had failed to attain the air quality standards established by the (EPA)
*The amended Clean Air Act required these 'non-attainment' States to establish a permit program regulating 'new or modified major stationary sources' of air pollution.
*During the Carter administration, the EPA defined a source as any device in a manufacturing plant that produced pollution.
*after Ronald Reagan's election, the EPA, which was headed by Anne M. Gorsuch, adopted a new definition that allowed an existing plant to get permits for new equipment that did not meet standards as long as the total emissions from the plant itself did not increase

6-0 decision upholding the EPA's interpretation. A two-part analysis was born from the Chevron decision (called the "Chevron two-step test"),

written by justice Stevens states that A government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations as long as its interpretation is reasonable.

It ruled that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act did not give the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco products as "drugs" or "devices".

FDA attempted to regulate tobacco products. Tobacco companies challenged the regulations. *The District Court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's claim.
*The Circuit Court reversed, ruling for the tobacco company.
* The FDA argued that nicotine was a "drug" and cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are "devices" that deliver nicotine to the body within the meaning of the FDCA.
*The court found that the FDA's definition of tobacco as a device was flawed because the agency could not prove that the impact of tobacco products on the body was "intended" under the act.

5-4 in favor of Brown and Williamson

Written by justice Oconnor Congress, for better or for worse, has created a distinct regulatory scheme for tobacco products, squarely rejected proposals to give the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco, and repeatedly acted to preclude any agency from exercising significant policymaking authority in the area."

written by Justice Breyers who states that the Court should accept the FDA's interpretation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because it was a more convincing literal reading of the statute.

is a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding who is a "supervisor" for the purposes of harassment lawsuits

*While working at Ball State University, Maetta Vance contended that Saundra Davis, a catering specialist, had made Vance's life at work unpleasant through physical acts and racial harassment.
* Vance asserted that Davis was a supervisor; Ball State claimed the opposite.
*The District Court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had determined that Davis was not Vance's supervisor, because Davis did not have the power to direct the terms and conditions of her employment

Can a coworker who is vested with the authority to oversee the daily work of another worker be considered a supervisor for the purpose of determining employer liability for harassment?

States it is necessary to show that the employer is negligent in responding to complaints about harassment. However, to win a lawsuit for harassment by a supervisor, the employer does not have to be negligent because Title VII imputes the supervisor's acts to the employer creates a distinction between an employer's liability for the actions of a coworker and the actions of a supervisor

5-4 decision The Court held that, for the purposes of liability for workplace harassment under Title VII, the definition of a "supervisor" is limited to a person empowered to take tangible employment action against the victim.
to be considered a supervisor for the purposes of workplace employer liability, an individual must have the power to hire, fire, fail to promote, reassign to a task with significantly different duties, or cause a significant change in benefits available to the victim.

written by justice Alito

written by justice Ginsburg she argued that the majority's opinion ignores the conditions of the modern workforce and that a more workable definition of a supervisor would be that offered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): anyone with the authority to direct an employee's daily activities.although a supervisor may not have the authority to discharge or demote the victim, a supervisor who can effect change in the victim's working conditions has similar power over the victim.

A supreme Court case stating that a caseworker visit was not a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

*barabara James and her son Maurice were living in the bronx and she applied for aid
*she began receiving assistance after a caseworker visited her apartment
*two years later they scheduled another visit but she refused it so her assistance was terminated
* James then filed suit under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the caseworker visit was a search and would violate her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court ruled in her favor. New York appealed.

It applies when someone acting "under color of" state-level or local law has deprived a person of rights created by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes.

6-3 in favor of Wyman

written by Justice Blackmun stating that "the visitation in itself is not forced or compelled," and as a result, "there is no entry of the home and there is no search." Even if the caseworker visit "does possess some of the characteristics of a search in the traditional sense," the visit still would not violate the Fourth Amendment, under the unreasonableness standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio. The Court concluded that the caseworker visit was not unreasonable, as the visit allowed the state to focus on the child and to ensure that its welfare funds were being used properly. Moreover, the visit was not confrontational and James' refusal did not lead to criminal prosecution. Justice Byron R. White concurred in the judgment.

justice Douglas says the right to continue the exercise of a privilege granted by the state can not be made dependent upon the grantee's submission to a condition prescribed by the state which is hostile to the provisions of the federal constitution.

It involved the ability of Occupational Health and Safety Administration inspectors to conduct warrantless searches of the work areas of businesses.

* Mr. Barlow refused to let an OSHA inspector conduct a warrantless search of his business,
*the District Court of Idaho ruled in his favor, the Secretary of Labor appealed the ruling and sought to establish the right of OSHA inspectors to conduct these searches under Section 8(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

permits OSHA inspectors to enter, inspect and investigate, during regular working hours, any workplace covered by the Act

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that warrantless by OSHA inspectors violated the Fourth Amendment, so Section 8(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was unconstitutional.

written by justice White concludes that The Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment protects commercial buildings as well as private homes. The businessman, like the occupant of a residence, has a constitutional right to go about his business free from unreasonable official entries upon his private commercial property.

written by justice stevens who states that Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act to safeguard employees against hazards in the work areas of businesses subject to the Act. To ensure compliance, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to conduct routine, nonconsensual inspections. he Court today substitutes its judgment for that of Congress on the question of what inspection authority is needed to effectuate the purposes of the Act.

a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1986 dealing with the right to privacy and advanced technology of aerial surveillance.

The EPA used, without a warrant, a commercial aerial photographer to get photographs of a heavily guarded Dow facility that was, according to the petitioner, protected by the State Trade Secrecy Law.

branch of intellectual property law that addresses the protection of proprietary information against unauthorized commercial use by others.

5-4 in favor of the EPA stating that For purposes of aerial surveillance, the open areas of an industrial complex are more comparable to an "open field" in which an individual may not legitimately demand privacy. [1] In the absence of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches does not apply.

justice burger stated that The Court maintained that the EPA's statutory jurisdiction "carries with it all the modes of inquiry and investigation traditionally employed or useful to execute the authority granted." Fourth Amendment protection involves the invasion of areas where intimate activities occur, whereas "the open areas of an industrial complex are more comparable to an 'open field' in which an individual may not legitimately demand privacy." The fact that EPA could take aerial photographs of the facilities from public airspace with the standard photographic equipment employed by mapmakers confirmed that the area was not subject to strict protection from observation.

Justice Powell states that thats an invasion of privacy and against fourth amendment rights.

the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to require the disclosure of summaries of honor and ethics hearings at the U.S. Air Force Academy to Michael Rose, an academy graduate who was an editor of the New York University Law Review.

-regarding rule violations, cadets of the airforce are submitted to hearings which are confidential and carried out by a panel of faculty members.
-Respondents, present or former student law review editors researching for an article, having been denied access to case summaries of honors and ethics hearings

Provides a system for the public to obtain government records, as long as they do not invade individuals' privacy, reveal trade secrets, or endanger military security.

Exemption 2 of the FOIA exempts from mandatory disclosure records that are "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency." (1) The courts have interpreted the exemption to encompass two distinct categories of information:

(a) internal matters of a relatively trivial nature -- often referred to as "low 2" information; and

(b) more substantial internal matters, the disclosure of which would risk circumvention of a legal requirement -- often referred to as "high 2" information. (2)

protects
information about individuals in "personnel and medical files and similar files" when the
disclosure of such information "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.

5-4 in favor of Rose

By Brennan who argued that the case summaries at issue, which would have been posted at the academy itself, were neither personnel files, with large amounts of private data, nor were they closely related to medical files that were also exempt from disclosure.
-the primary purpose of the FOIA was to open government actions to public scrutiny.

-written by Burger, he argued that the information at issue was close to that in a personnel file, which the FOIA had exempted. He further thought that it was an unwarranted imposition to require U.S. district courts to conduct in camera inspections in such cases.

-Justice Harry Blackmun doubted whether Congress had intended to include the Air Force Academy as an "agency" subject to FOIA regulations. He further thought that the majority underestimated the privacy rights at stake.

-Justice William Rehnquist wrote an additional dissent giving greater deference to the academy in choosing not to disseminate such records.

for human resources and employee relations records

for records whose disclosure would risk circumvention of the law.

Maps describing the location of explosives do not qualify for withholding under Exemption 2 of the Freedom of Information Act, which shields from disclosure only records that relate to employee relations and human resources issues.

-Petitioner Milner submitted FOIA requests for explosives data and maps used by respondent Department of the Navy (Navy or Government) in storing munitions at a naval base in Washington State.

refers to human resources matters.

8-1 in favor of milner

by Kagan "because Exemption 2 encompasses only records relating to employee relations and human resources issues, the explosives maps and data requested here do not qualify for withholding under that exemption."

case which held that due process protections attach only to administrative activities in which a small number of people are concerned, who are exceptionally affected by the act, in each case upon individual grounds. By contrast, rule-making or quasi-legislative activities that affect a large number of people without regard to the facts of individual cases do not implicate due process protections.

-The State Board of Equalization of the state of Colorado and the Colorado Tax Commission ordered that the valuation of all taxable property in Denver be increased by forty percent
-Plaintiff company brought suit alleging that it had been deprived of its due process protections because a tax had been levied against its property without it being afforded an opportunity to be heard, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

9-0 in favor of Colorado "Where a rule of conduct applies to more than a few people it is impracticable that every one should have a direct voice in its adoption. The Constitution does not require all public acts to be done in a town meeting or an assembly of the whole."� Dissent. None. Concurrence. None.

...

-Several faculty members of the University of Missouri-Kansas City Medical School expressed dissatisfaction with the clinical performance of Charlotte Horowitz, a medical student.
-Horowitz failed to show improvement, her surgery rotations rated "low satisfactory," and the Council recommended dismissal from the university
-A committee composed solely of faculty members and the Dean, the final decision-makers, approved the decision.

6-3 in favor of the university

delivered by rehnquist stating Horowitz was fully informed of the faculty dissatisfaction with her clinical progress and the threat of postponing her graduation and continued enrollment. The Court held that a hearing before the school's decision-making body is not required for dismissals for academic deficiencies.

However, the procedure of dismissal for academic reasons, rather than disciplinary reasons was arbitrary. In his separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, with whom Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. joined, wrote that Horowitz received the procedural process due under the Fourteenth Amendment, but that the Court should not decide what the further appropriate procedures are required in graduate school dismissals.

...

the Illinois Pollution Control Board denied Marathon oil Co. Variance from certain water quality standards that would not harm the environment. His refinery converts crude oil into fuel and produces and dumps chloride as a bi-product. the act requires the company to demonstrate and arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.

9th circuit judge Joseph seed states that in setting out how administrations can make adjudicatory determinations

adjudication is individuals about a third party seeking to settle a dispute between two people legislation is a statute that affect everyone

...

...

...

...

1. The right of an injured person to secure redress for violation of his or her rights INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO TO AGENCIES THEMSELVES TOG ET SUITS DONE.

allows administrator to determine pay fees to agents or attorneys issued involving veterans and suits brought against the VAA. it limits the fee award to ten dollars. does the limitation of fees deprive the defendant of due process.

6-3 in favor of walters The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that this limit violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the First Amendment, because it denies veterans or their survivors the opportunity to retain counsel of their choice in pursuing their claims.

board of veteran affairs.

you can challenge a process on the ground of administrative law if the decision maker is impartial

they believed they were making exaggerated claims such as false advertisement. and administrative law judge ruled in favor of cinderella. administrative judges are civil servants who agree to be impartial.