Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
45 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Two basics questions concerning judicial review of agency action: |
1. Does a court have the authority to 2. If so, what is the scope of review? |
|
|
Sources of Review Authority of agencies by courts |
Most review authority comes from statutes. Other authority comes from the Constitution and the common law. |
|
|
Statutes |
If a statute provides for judicial review, no other method may be used. Time limits for judicial review may be provided by Congress. 60 and 90 days are common Congress may set the location for review. Both time and location requirements must meet due process or will fail. Congress may explicitly preclude judicial review, by statute also. |
|
|
The APA Section 702 |
allows adversely affected parties of agency action to seek judicial review |
|
|
Certiorari |
Order of a higher court to lower court demanding records or file for review |
|
|
Habeas corpus |
Latin for “you have the body.” Common law writ issued by a court to a custodian of a person to bring the prisoner before the court to determine the lawfulness of the imprisonment. |
|
|
Prohibition |
Common law writ issued by a court to an inferior tribunal or person prohibiting the recipient from taking some act or hearing some case. |
|
|
Decisions "committed to agency discretion" are not subject to |
judicial review Specifically exempted by the APA. Suits filed that challenge agency discretion are dismissed due to lack of authority to hear the case. |
|
|
Webster v. Doe |
the firing, pursuant to authority vested in the director by statute, of a homosexual CIA employee was deemed nonreviewable because the alleged national security issue was considered by the courts as committed to the agencies discretion. |
|
|
Lincoln v. Virgil (1993) |
Court determined that Indian Health Service could close childrens centers in the Southwest by its discretion even though children would be adversely affected. |
|
|
Heckler v. Chaney |
Court ruled that FDA did not create an abuse of discretion by refusing to take requested actions by death row inmates |
|
|
Although agency discretion cannot be reviewed by a court, blank of discretion can |
abuses |
|
|
9.4 Standing
|
The Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to "cases or controversies.“ Theoretical and hypothetical disputes may not be heard.
Where a statute is silent as to who may petition for review, standing principles apply. The standing doctrine requires that the person bringing the suit have a personal interest in the case.
Where a statute narrowly limits the group eligible to seek review, the statute applies.
Traditionally, financial and personal injury issues alone were not sufficient to create standing. This inflexibility proved problematic.
|
|
|
Association of Data Processing Organizations v. Camp |
Court ruled that Data processing guys had standing to sue Comptroller of Currency for allowing national banks to offer data processing services to other banks and customers. They had standing because they were financially hurt by the decision. |
|
|
what are the three new conditions for standing created by the association of data processing organizations v. camp? |
(1) The plaintiff must suffer an injury in fact; and 2 must be shown that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the challenged governmental action; and
|
|
|
Citizen and Taxpayer Standing |
* Voting status alone does not create the right to challenge public expenditures in most situations.
|
|
|
Federal Election Commission v. Akins (1998) |
Court ruled that respondents had standing to sue FEC for not making the American Isreal Public Affairs Committee a political organization, since it was highly likely the court would determine that the evidence showed that there was a high likelihood that the AIPAC could be reevaluated and determined to be a political committee. |
|
|
What are Qui Tam Actions
|
Congress may authorize private individuals to act as private attorney generals and bring suit on behalf of the United States against one who has defrauded the government.
|
|
|
Standing in Environmental Cases
|
Noneconomic injury can often be found in environmental cases.
The implication is that an individual member of the organization must show evidence of injury, to establish standing for and on behalf of the organization.
|
|
|
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife |
Hippies tried to use the Endangered Species Act to cover regions outside of the US but failed.
In [this] decision, hailed by the right and attacked by the left as well as by a broad swath of legal scholars, the Court made clear that plaintiffs must suffer a concrete, discernible injury—not a "conjectural or hypothetical one"—to be able to bring suit in federal court. It, in effect, made it more difficult for plaintiffs to challenge the actions of a government agency when the actions don't directly affect them |
|
|
Sierra Club v. Morton |
The Sierra club tried to stop Disney from building a ski resort in a wilderness area, but failed because court ruled that to exhibit a sufficient stake in the case requires a showing that they were aggrieved and injured. Merely showing an interest does not rise to the level of showing injury supporting standing.
|
|
|
Competitor Standing
|
Business Competitors have a valid interest and therefore standing |
|
|
Consumer Standing |
Standing can be found regarding: Pricing Reduction of quality
|
|
|
What is Primary Jurisdiction |
Requirement that disputes between private parties be raised in an administrative forum before an administrative before being filed in court if an administrative agency had jurisdiction over the dispute.
Applied only in closely regulated businesses.
Fact issues are referred but not issues of law. This does not preclude judicial review, only delays it.
|
|
|
policy that all administrative remedies must be pursued and completed before judicial review may take place is called |
Exaustion of administrative remedies |
|
|
What are the purposes of exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement? |
It allows the agency to correct mistakes. Preserves agency autonomy and independence. Promotes judicial economy by providing a complete record. Promotes judicial economy by allowing the agency to make initial findings. Cooperation among agencies and parties is enhanced.
|
|
|
Woodford et al. v. NGO |
Facts: The U.S. Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that prisoners in state and federal correctional institutions exhaust their administrative remedies before they seek federal civil rights remedies. California has a system to hear grievances that requires the first complaint to be filed within 15 days of an incident. Issue: If a prisoner fails to file in the fifteen days and is barred from a remedy in the state system, has he or she exhausted state remedies? Decision: No. The PLRA was intended to bring prison litigation under control by reducing the number of suits and by improving the quality of the cases that federal courts review. Exhaustion was intended to do both. A prisoner who does not timely avail himself of state remedies has not exhausted them under PLRA and accordingly, may not have the claims heard at the federal level.
|
|
|
McKart v. United States |
Guy did not appear at induction to army, court determined that he did not have to follow the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine and could bring his case to judicial court. |
|
|
what is ripeness of a case? |
Deals with whether the case is mature enough for trial.
The APA provides for review of final agency action. With the exception when provided for specifically by statute or when an agency is clearly violating the law, only final actions may be reviewed by courts.
Accordingly, agency investigations, hearings, and rules that are under consideration but not finalized may not be appealed.
|
|
|
what Three issues are scrutinized to determine ripeness:
|
(1) Are the issues fit for review? (2) Have any administrative remedies been exhausted? (3) Will there be significant harm if pre-enforcement review is not conducted? |
|
|
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner |
Abbott challenged a rule requiring labeling information. The FDA claimed that the case was not ripe because the rule had not yet been enforced. The court found the case to be ripe because the issues were purely legal and because significant harm could come to Abbott if the rule were enforced.
|
|
|
What are the three standards of judicial review of agency decisions? |
De Novo- No deference is given to agency findings. Reviewing court may substitute its judgment for the agency's.
Substantial Evidence- Reviewing court examines facts and conclusions of agency. Court may not substitute its judgment. (ie. Cannot come to a different decision.) Reviewing court affirms agency decision of supported by substantial evidence. Used for review of formal rulemaking and decisions from a formal adjudication.
Affords significant deference to agency decisions. Agency decisions are presumed valid and is affirmed if rational. Clear error is required to overturn an agency decision. Applies to all informal agency actions.
|
|
|
Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA |
The Court ruled that the EPAs decision to not regulate vehicle emissions was arbitrary and capricious because The EPA’s reasons for not regulating are not related to global warming and are not reasonable. |
|
|
In most cases discretionary decisions are subject to the blank standard |
arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion |
|
|
Decisions committed to blank are not reviewable.
|
agency discretion |
|
|
Review is generally limited to issues raised at the level. |
administrative |
|
|
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery |
the court ruled that review must be limited to an agency's rational and courts are not permitted to seek or use alternative rational in arriving at a decision.
|
|
|
Formal rules are reviewed under the blank standard |
substantial evidence |
|
|
Informal rules are reviewed under the blank standard.
|
arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion |
|
|
Interpretive rules are reviewed under the blank standard. |
de novo |
|
|
Four common law doctrines are utilized by reviewing courts: |
Res judicata Collateral estoppel Equitable estoppel Laches
|
|
|
what is Res Judicata |
Also called claim preclusion.
Does not apply to: Different facts Appeals Reconsiderations Rehearings Executive functions Legislative functions
|
|
|
what is Collateral Estoppel
|
Also called issue preclusion.
Prevents the relitigation of an issue previously decided in a prior case. Parties must be identical Issues must be identical
Prevents relitigation of issues but does not preclude entire case.
Application of collateral estoppel varies from agency to agency.
|
|
|
what is Equitable Estoppel |
Prevents the assertion of certain claims or issues because it would be unfair to the opposing party.
In Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, the court said that equitable estoppel could never be applied so that a claim or benefit contrary to what Congress authorized is awarded.
|
|
|
what is Laches
|
Requires that an issue be raised in a timely manner. Three requirements: (1) Party must have been aware that the claim could have been raised; and (2) Delay in raising the claim must be unreasonable; and (3) Delay must result in prejudice to opposing party.
May apply even if statutory deadlines are not violated.
|
