Administrative Law

Front 1

Goldberg v. Kelly (U.S. 1970)

Back 1

Facts: Recipients of welfare fund dropped from roles without prior notice & hearing;

Held, hearing must be available at a meaningful time and conducted in a meaningful manner:
- Must be pre termination; allowed to appear personally; informal procedures enough; allow to retain counsel; call and cross witnesses; impartial decisionmaker; statement of reasons; judicial review

Called benefits a property interest for the first time

Front 2

Board of Regents v. Roth (U.S. 1972)

Back 2

Facts: Roth not rehired upon expiration of one-year contract as lecturer at UW; alleged because he spoke out against Vietnam and UW

Held, must have legal basis for the right asserted to trigger PDP protections; no liberty or property interest in continuing employment after contract expires.

Front 3

Sandin v. Connor (U.S. 1995)

Back 3

30 days solitary confinement for prisoner does not implicate liberty interest; only where it causes "atypical and significant hardship"

Front 4

Wilkinson v. Austin (U.S. 2005)

Back 4

Permanent assignment of prisoner to "supermax prison" constituted deprivation of liberty.

Front 5

Cleveland Bd. of Edu. v. Loudermill (U.S. 1985)

Back 5

Facts: Plaintiffs fired from city jobs over lying on application and failing eye exam; were given no pre termination hearings, post-termination hearings were nine months later.

Held, where state law provides for a substantive right, deprivation requires due process regardless of state law procedural rights or lack thereof.

Front 6

Mathews v. Eldridge (U.S. 1976)

Back 6

Eldridge's SSA benefits were terminated after he filled out a questionnaire and agency obtained contrary reports from physicians, informed by letter that he might request reasonable time to submit add'l info.

Held, procedures adequate where process begins with questionnaire and can be challenged by presenting contrary evidence before an admin law judge and can receive full back payment if erroneous.

Front 7

Londoner v. Denver (U.S. 1908)

Back 7

Ordinance required Public Works Board to establish special assessment for street paving; board could recommend apportionment and owners could file written complaints; no oral hearing or judicial review; plaintiff contended assessments were arbitrary and not based on benefit conferred by paving.

Held, legislative delegation of task to determine applicability of assessments against individuals requires notice and opportunity to be heard, to support allegations by arguments and proof, and judicial review.

Front 8

Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (U.S. 1915)

Back 8

Plaintiff sought to enjoin a city-wide property tax valuation increase of 40% on the grounds that it did not have an opportunity to be heard.

Held, generally applicable determination does not trigger PDP protections of case-by-case determinations; informed by Lochner era's concur for equal protection (and this wasn't class legislation).

Front 9

Heckler v. Campbell (U.S. 1983)

Back 9

SSA promulgated rule to establish guidelines using matrix of four factors to determine the existence of suitable jobs in the national economy for the purpose of determining whether disabled; prior to this used costly experts at each hearing.

Held, an agency can use rulemaking to determine issues that do not require case-by-case determinations; OK where still requires determination of individualized facts and you can challenge the application of the rule to your specific situation.

Front 10

Winberger v. Hunson, Wescott & Dunning (U.S. 1973)

Back 10

Agency can deny hearing when no issue of material fact.

Front 11

Withrow v. Larkin (U.S. 1975)

Back 11

Facts: State board investigated and revoked doctor's license, sitting both as prosecutor and adjudicator.

Held, absent established pecuniary interest or vendetta, combining judging and investigating functions do not violate Due Process (but see Goldberg).

Front 12

Quintinar

Back 12

A person who has participated only as a decisionmaker or advisor thereto in a determination of probable cause or other preliminary determination may serve as the presiding officer at the proceeding.

Front 13

Cinderella Career & Finishing School v. FTC (D.C. Cir. 1970)

Back 13

Facts: Chairman of FTC gave speech before Nat'l Newspaper Conference stating that ad guys should do better to "smell deception" and analogized to the finishing school, which was the current subject of a cease and desist order for unfair and deceptive ad practices; the ALJ dismissed the complaint but the FTC commissioners reversed.

DUE PROCESS TEST: Disinterested observer may conclude that the agency has in some measure adjudged the facts and the law of a case in advance of hearing it; even though commissioner's vote was not necessary for majority, litigants are entitled to an impartial tribunal and there's no telling how he could have tainted the others.

Front 14

Turney v. Ohio (U.S. 1927)

Back 14

Judge disqualified because his compensation came from fines levied on defendants; strong DP protection against pecuniary interest.

Front 15

Ward v. Village of Monroeville (U.S. 1972)

Back 15

Small town mayor disqualified from serving as traffic court judge where fines levied went to city treasury and thus reduced the amount the mayor would have to levy in taxes on cities; political, not financial stake, but still DQ'd .

Front 16

Marshal v. Jerrico (U.S. 1980)

Back 16

Distinguished Turney and Ward from case where agency collected civil penalties as reimbursement for costs of enforcement of child labor laws because the agency served a prosecutorial rather than adjudicative function.

Front 17

Block v. Ambach (N.Y. 1989)

Back 17

Facts: Petitioner's psych license was revoked for inducing patients to have sex with him over a period of two to six years without any specific dates in the notice, denying him the opportunity to rebut by alibi or other means.

Held, administrative hearing requires only a short plain statement of the matters asserted. Laches defense only applies if delay is unreasonable and causes prejudice.

Front 18

Craib v. Bulmash (Calif. 1989)

Back 18

Probable cause and specificity not required for subpoena of records; need only a lawfully authorized purpose.

Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply where records are required to be kept by statute and the scheme is designed to protect, not punish.

Front 19

Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp. (U.S. 1988)

Back 19

HSS adopted rule revising formula for medicare reimbursements to hospitals, which was set aside for failure to provide N&C; it the readopted the rule three years later and gave it retroactive effect and allowed for recoupment.

Held, absent clear authority to promulgate retroactive rules in the agency's enabling statute, agencies may not give rules retroactive effect.

Scalia concurrence: APA does not allow it because it's not a rule unless only has "future effect."

Front 20

Chocolate Manuf. Ass'n v. Block (4th Cir. 1985)

Back 20

Facts: The Food and Nutrition Service proposed a rule regarding WIC payments for sugar content in cereal, but after receiving some comments during N&C, changed the rule to no longer all WIC payments for "flavored milk."

Held, notice is inadequate where a final rule is not in character with the original proposed scheme or is not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule.

Front 21

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC (U.S. 1978)

Back 21

Facts: NRDC was denied a request to cross-examine NRC staff member whose report was the only support for the final grant of nuclear power plant license; DC Circuit overturned for inadequate procedures.

Held, courts cannot impose non-APA procedures on rulemaking unless implicating constitutional rights; the adequacy of the record does not depend upon the type or amount of procedural devices.

Front 22

HBO v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 1997)

Back 22

FCC invited and accepted comments after N&C closing arguments for cable TV rulemaking; HBO challenged as ex parte communications.

Held, ex parte communication prohibition of § 557(d) does not apply to informal rulemaking, but the agency must summarize and put the contacts on the record.

Front 23

Sierra Club v. Costle (D.C. Cir. 1981)

Back 23

Intra-executive branch meetings do not violate the APA or Due Process; Congressional pressure does violate limitations on ex parte communications, but only by showing:
1) the content of the pressure is designed to force decision based on factors not made relevant by Congress; and
2) the decision must be affected by those extraneous considerations.

Front 24

NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon

Back 24

Agency has choice to make rules, but suggests rules may be more appropriate than adjudications sometimes

Front 25

NLRB v. Bell Aerospace

Back 25

Adjudication OK except where:
- Detrimental reliance with substantial adverse consequence; or
- Abuse of discretion in violation of statute.

Front 26

Philips Petroleum (5th Cir.)

Back 26

Focus on whether a rule affects an individual's substantive rights in deciding whether it is procedural or substantive.

Front 27

Public Citizen v. Dep't of State (D.C. Cir. 2000)

Back 27

Substantive Judgment Test: Whether the rule encodes a substantive value judgment, not simply judgments about which procedures and mechanics are most efficient.

Front 28

Prof'ls and Patients for Customized Care v. Shalala

Back 28

FDA compliance guide stated policy of extending FDA regulation to pharmacy compounding of drugs from bulk active ingredients.

Held, key inquiry is whether the agency is left with any discretion; as long as the agency has not treated the police as a binding norm, it's not binding.

Front 29

Hoctor v. USDA (7th Cir. 1996) (Posner, C.J.)

Back 29

Facts: USDA adopted a rule requiring facilities housing animals to be constructed in a manner as appropriate for the animals involved; later developed an internal memo requiring dangerous animals to be inside a fence at least 8 feet tall; USDA fined Hoctor for having only a 6-foot fence.

Held, not an interpretive rule. An interpretation must be derived from, not just consistent with, a statute or regulation it allegedly ;interprets; numbers without reasons are mere arbitrary choices, not an ascertainment of meaning of the source.

Front 30

Appalachian Power Co. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2000)

Back 30

If a policy statement or interpretive rule repudiates or substantially amends the effect of a previous rule on the public, the agency must go back through A&C.

Front 31

Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB (U.S. 1951)

Back 31

NLRB charged that Universal fired an employee in retaliation for testimony given before NLRB, hearing officer found that he was fired insubordination during a quarrel about a month later but a panel of board members reversed, ordering reinstatement and back pay.

Held, substantial evidence standard requires that the board's decision be based on the whole record, including the finding of fact of the hearing officer it rejected.

Front 32

Chevron USA v. NRDC (U.S. 1984)

Back 32

EPA amendments of 1977 required states that had not met air quality standards to establish permit systems for new or modified stationary sources of pollution, EPA defined as a whole plant.

Held, two part test:
1. Is the statute ambiguous?
2. If so, determine whether agency's interpretation is reasonable.

Front 33

FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (U.S. 2000)

Back 33

FDCA grants FDA jurisdiction to regulate drugs and devices, and the the FDA issued a rule that nicotine is a drug and cigarettes are devices despite consistently denying jurisdiction since 1914, and even though FDA is required to regulate products so that they are "safe and effective for the therapeutic or medical use intended" and FDA found as a matter of fact that they are in fact unsafe and dangerous.

Held, whether Congress has spoken to the question at issue requires, in cases of major policy questions, looking to the entire regulatory scheme.

Front 34

Christensen v. Harris County (U.S. 2000)

Back 34

FLSA allowed states and their political subdivisions to compensate employees for overtime with comp time. DoL said in a letter that the county could not require the employees to use the comp time, but they did it anyway.

Held, Chevron deference applies only to agency statements with the force of law. Skidmore applies to other interpretations.

Front 35

United States v. Mead Corp. (U.S. 2001)

Back 35

Customs issued a headquarters ruling letter that trapper keepers are a diary subject to a tariff.

Held, only legislative rules have the force of law. To get Chevron deference:
1) the agency must have rulemaking authority; and
2) The interpretation at issue must be an exercise of that authority.

Front 36

Barnhart v. Walton (U.S. 2002)

Back 36

Legislative rule adopted after case reached the courts should receive Chevron deference where the rule codified a long-held informal interpretation; does not necessarily need to go through N&C to get Chevron deference

Front 37

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (U.S. 1971)

Back 37

Plaintiff challenged decision to grant funds to build interstate highway through historic park, charging that the statute prohibited it unless "no reasonable and prudent alternative."

Held, the standard of review is A&C:
1. Whether the action was within the scope of the agency's authority and discretion;
2. Whether the choice made was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; where
a) the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors; and
b) there was no clear error in judgment.

Front 38

Salameda v. INS (7th Cir. 1995)

Back 38

INS commenced deportation proceedings against couple and after long drawn out process, the couple conceded it was deportable but requested hardship suspension; agency said its hands were tied.

Held, where an agency claims it has no discretion when it clearly does, it's A&C unless you explain why you're not going to exercise it.

Front 39

Motor Vehicle Manuf. Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. (U.S. 1983)

Back 39

NHTSA kept going back and forth on whether to require passive restrain systems, eventually promulgating a midnight rule requiring compliance by 1982; in 1981 the new secretary reopened rulemaking and ordered a one-year delay due to industry struggles; after N&C they rescinded the rule, stating it no longer though auto belts would benefit safety and wanted to try airbags instead.

Held, judicial review starts with a presumption against a change in the status quo without justification. Hard Look Review: the record and agency reasoning must hang together plausibly with the decision.

Front 40

AFL/CIO v. OSHA (11th Cir.)

Back 40

Where Congress requires "substantial evidence," Hard Look Review becomes Really Really Hard Look Review.