Admin Law Cases

Front 1

Wood V. Strickland

Back 1

Issue: Do administrators have liability immunity for violating someones constitutional rights

Holding: No

Reasoning: Not immune if s/he knew or should have known that the action would violate someone constitutional rights.

Front 2

Pickering v. Board

Back 2

Issue: Does a teach have a first amendment right to speak publicly about the failure of a school levy?

Holding: Yes

Reasoning: You do not forfeit your right to free speech on matters of public interest by accepting employment by a government agency. You have a valuable viewpoint as a public employee

Front 3

Garcetti v. Ceballos

Back 3

Issue: Does the 1st amendment protect speech made in relation to one's employment duties?

Holding: No

Reasoning: Speech made as a matter of public concern is protected. However, this speech was made during Ceballos' duties as calendar deputy.

Front 4

Mathews v. Eldridge

Back 4

Issue: Does someone having their disability benefits terminated have the right to a pre-termination hearing?

Holding; No

Reasoning: No the process was sufficient. Nothing would be gained by having an in person pre-termination hearing that couldn't have been gained already. Mr. Eldridge had the ability to submit written evidence to challenge the accuracy of his case file.

Front 5

Goldberg v. Kelly

Back 5

Issue: Is a pre-termination hearing necessary to end welfare benefits?

Holding: Yes

Reasoning: Recipients have a right to appear personally to appear. Many lack the educational attainment necessary to write a written appeal. "The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard". Welfare recipients need the in person hearing to fulfill the due process requirement.

Front 6

Perry v. Sinderman

Back 6

Issue: Does a non-tenured teacher still have the same due process rights as a tenured teacher through a de facto tenure policy?

Holding: Yes

Reasoning: Faculty Guide encouraged him to act as permanent faculty member. He was also had taught in the Texas higher ed system for 7 years. Sinderman had given enough facts to prove that he had the same "property interest" to employment as a tenured professor and as result he had a right to due process.

Front 7

General Motors v. FERC

Back 7

Issue: Did FERC abuse it prosecutorial discretion by dismissing GM's request for an investigation into a natural gas curtailment plan?

Holding: No

Reasoning: The Natural Gas Act does not require that FERC conduct an investigation everytime it receives a complaint. The decision to investigate is therefore at the agencies discretion.

Front 8

Chevron v. NRD

Back 8

Issue: Is the EPA's allowed the interpret "stationary sources" at a lower standard than NRD wants?

Holding: Yes

Reasoning: Congress' statutory construction is unclear to what "stationary sources" mean. As a result, the EPA's interpretation of the statute is reasonable and not up to the court to impose its interpretation over the agencies.

Front 9

Goss v. Lopez

Back 9

Issue: Is a student entitled to a pre-suspension hearing before expulsion

Holding: Yes

Reasoning: Students have a right to due process under the 14th amendment. Suspension without due processes is an unlwaful deprivation of the the student's property rights, education being guaranteed by state law.

Front 10

Grutter v. Bollinger

Back 10

Issue: Can UM Law school use race as a factor in student admissions.

Holding: Yes

Reasoning: The law school narrowly tailored the use of race. Each student's application was individually reviewed.

Front 11

Gratz v. Bollinger

Back 11

Issue: Can UM undergrad use race to automatically grant 20 points to a minority students application.

Holding: No

Reasoning: To use race as a factor of admission, it must be one factor used with many other factors. Each application must be individually reviewed. The automatic application of 20 points is not being individually reviewed and therefore is a same as a quota system. It violated the 14th amendments equal protection guarantee.

Front 12

Gonzales v. Oregon

Back 12

Issue: Is the attorney generals' action to declare unlawful the use of controlled substances for physician assisted suicide in Oregon valid under the federal Controlled Substances Act?

Holding: No

Reasoning: The intent of the law is not to regulate medical practice, but to prevent illicit drug dealing. The pre-emption clause of the CSA state that the statute should not be interpreted to be the generally regulating of the medical field, that is a state power. The federal government is required to consult how the state regulated the medical practice as well.

Front 13

Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan

Back 13

Issue: Can the legislature broadly delegate its legislative powers to the executive branch?

Holding: No

Reasoning: Congress did not declare a policy or standard to be used when delegating its authority to the president. It's impossible to define what is a reasonable standard when no one ever defines what standard should be used.

Front 14

Benzene

Back 14

Issue: Does the OSHA Act of 1970 violate the nondelegation doctrine?

Holding: No

Minority Opinion: Congress was not clear on what is a bearable cost and what "extent feasible " meant in section 6(b)(5). The court believes this should be defined by the legislature, not the court. This should be considered a violation of the non delegation doctrine.

Three functions of legislative policy
1. Social policy choices should be made by Congress
2. When delegating, Congress should provide an intelligbile priniciple" to guide the exercise the delegated discretion
3. Intelligible principle should inform the judicial review process

Front 15

Reasons you can be sued

Back 15

1. Violating Constitutional Rights
2. Violating State Constitutional Rights
3. Not following procedure
4. Ultra Vires
5. Non-delegation
6. Prosecutorial or Enforcement