• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/19

Click to flip

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;

19 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Weiner v. United States

F: War Claims Commission, no statute in place for removal


I: Does the President have removal power of executive officials


R: Rests on nature of agency/commission and position - "quasi-judicial"

Wood v. Strickland

F: Students expelled for spiking punch


I: Liability of individual admins for actions


Qualified or absolute immunity?


R: Responsible for knowing "settled, undisputable law" and "unquestioned constitutional rights"


Pickering v. Board of Education

F: Teacher wrote editorial in newspaper


I: Is there free speech protections for public administrators and what is the appropriate balance of immunity?


R: Public interest, acting as a citizen


Relationship between speech and work duties


Is there a compelling govt. interest to limit speech?

Garcetti v. Ceballos

F: Assistant DA wrote critical memo to supervisor


I: Free speech for public employees


R: Not an issue of public interest, not acting as a private citizen but within official work duties. Court says compelling interest for government to restrict speech here otherwise work would never get done.


Gratz v. Bollinger

F: Undergrad admission at U of M ("Undergrads are rats")


I: Was equal protection clause violated?


R: Policy ruled unconstitutional; race was a decisive factor. TOO NARROWLY TAILORED, violated equal protection clause

Grutter v. Bollinger

F: Law school admission at U of M ("Lawyers belong in the gutter")


I: Did U of M violate equal protection clause when considering race in application decisions?


R: Policy upheld; race was one of many factors considered holistically

Goldberg v. Kelly

F: Termination of welfare benefits, NYC before he could prove his case


I: What constitutes due process?


R: Because this is an issue of life and livelihood, a pretermination hearing is required

Matthews v. Eldridge

F: Termination of SS disability benefits


I: What constitutes due process?


R: A post-termination hearing will suffice - not full livelihood. Est. Matthews test: Nature of right, value of additional process, cost/effectiveness. Determined that deprivation of benefits less than in Goldberg.

Ingraham v. Wright

F: Corporal punishment for students in FL in public schools


I: What constitutes due process and how much process is due?


R: Hearing not needed for minor punishment, and effect would be lessened if not given immediately. 8th Amendment did not have place in public schools.

National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sibelius

F: ACA - individual mandate and Medicare expansion requirement


I: Legislative power


R: Mandate upheld as taxing power, not interstate commerce or necessary and proper. Medicare expansion requirement struck down.

Clinton v. New York

F: Clinton vetoed specific items in a budget bill, allowed by the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996


I: Line-item veto


R: Unconstitutional, violates presentment, allows President to basically amend a bill

General Motors v. FERC

F: GE filed complaint against regulations, FERC dismissed it


I: Prosecutorial discretion of agencies


R: Exercise of discretion upheld, agency followed procedures and has right to hold or not hold hearing

Gonzalez v. Reno

F: Cuban child applies for amnesty with great-uncle, a US citizen. Father in Cuba disagrees.


I: Deference to agency discretion


R: INS has discretion to make rules when the statute is silent.

Brock v. Roadway

F: Truck driver refuses to drive for safety. Fired, files complaint to Dept. of Labor. Reinstated before an evidentiary hearing


I: Due process for employer, discretion of agency to make rules for this kind of complaint


R: Procedures in place upheld, no need for evidentiary hearing before initial reinstatement order is enforced

U.S. v. Grimaud

F: Reg. of public forest reservations given to agency; grazing permit rules


I: Delegation of legislative powers to agency


R: Delegation upheld, was administrative function, not legislative power

Kent v. Dulles

F: Passport issuance discretion, Communists


I: Delegation of power to agency


R: Statute did not delegate this authority to the agency; if it had, constitutional question would be at stake; judicial narrowing

Industrial Union, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum

F: Benzene regulation in the workplace


I: Delegation of legislative power, quality of statutory standards


R: Delegation invalidated


Rehnquist minority: revived nondelegation doctrine

Environmental Defense Fund v. Ruckelshaus

F: Admin procedures for registration of substances with department of agriculture


I: Delegation of legislative power to agencies


R: Defer to agency action, but required to develop stronger standards

Whitman v. American Trucking Association

F: Clean Air Act leaves determination of standards to the EPA


I: Legislative delegation


R: Upheld, falls within nondelegation principle and statutory limits