Administrative Law

Front 1

INS v. Chadha

Back 1

One-house legislative veto violates the Bicameralism and Presentment Clause, because it is essentially legislative.

Front 2

Morrison v. Olson

Back 2

1) Special prosecutors established under the statute were inferior officers, and thus could be appointed by judges, rather than the President. Factors:
i) Who can remove them,
ii) Limited duties,
iii) Limited time,
iv) Limited jurisdiction

2) ???

Front 3

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC

Back 3

1) Courts don't have the authority to require additional procedures to the APA, except when required by other statute or the Constitution.
2) Ended the debate for whether judges reviewing agency technical decisions should steep themselves in the subject area to assess teh validity of the decision, or, whether judges should ensure the agency used appropriate procedural devices to ascertain the truth.

Front 4

Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB

Back 4

"Substantial ev" is more than a "mere scintilla;" it's sufficient ev to withstand a motion for directed verdict.
(less rigorous than "clearly erroneous).
Test: Whether a reas person could make the finding the Agency made.

Front 5

NLRB v. Hearst

Back 5

(pre-Chevron).
Where the question is one of specific application of a broad statutory term, the court's function is limited when the Agency must determine the meaning initially.

Front 6

Chevron v. NRDC

Back 6

For judicial review of an Agency's interpretation of its own statute, ct employs a 2-step analysis.
1) Is statute ambig?
-Determine ambig thru plain language, leg his, policy, canons, precedent.
2) If ambig, then is the Agency's interpretation reasonable?
-based on Agency expertise, polically responsive branch, express delegation (includes silence), within range of ambiguity.

Front 7

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe

Back 7

Judicial review is precluded where there's no "law to apply." (narrow)

Front 8

Goldberg v. Kelly

Back 8

Government entitlements (Welfare benefits) are a "property" interest. Therefore, DP is required and Agency must provide the equivalent of a formal APA adjudication.

Front 9

Chrysler Corp. v. Brown

Back 9

1) FOI exemptions are discretionary, not mandatory.
2) FOIA does not create a private cause of action to prevent disclosure of info. (use the APA)
3) Disclosure of info was "agency action" w/in meaning of APA.

Front 10

Home Box Office v. FCC

Back 10

Once rulemaking begun, no ex parte communications. But, if ex parte, then agency MUST put it into the record.

Front 11

Heckler v. Chaney

Back 11

Agency's prosecutorial discretion is precluded from judicial review. ("no law to apply").

Front 12

United States v. Mead

Back 12

A "ruling letter" is not Chevron deference.
But, Chevron can apply to some interpretations that are less formal than rulemaking.
-later used in Barhart, where Chevron deference because of a longstanding interpretation.

Front 13

SEC v. Chenery I

Back 13

1) An agency must provide an adequate explanation for its decision (in a rule?).
2) A court will judge an agency action by the agency's contemporaneous justification for the action.

Front 14

SEC v. Chenery II

Back 14

Deciding b/w Adjud. and RM:
Assuming the agency has the statutory authority to do either, the decision of whether to make policy by adjudication or rulemaking is a decision to be made by the agency in its informed discretion.

Front 15

Matthews v. Eldridge

Back 15

The court employs a 3-part balancing test to determine how much due process is required where a deprivation occurred.
Ct must balance:
1) importance of private interest
2) govt interest
3) risk of erroneous deprivation under teh current procedures and teh increased accuracy the requested procedures would produce.

Front 16

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

Back 16

1) In order to justify a preclusion of judicial review, ther must be "clear and convincing evidence" of a congressional intent to preclude review.
2) Agency Action must be Ripe. Ripeness requires evaluating whether:
a) agency action is fit for judicial review at teh current time, and
b) the extent to which deferring judicial review would cause significant hardship to the parties.