Study Guide for Adminstration law

A few notable additional cases and points to know:

"the demise of irrebuttable presumptions":

Stanley v. Illinois (1970)

"Chevron Doctrine"

Gilbert v. Homar (1997)

Section 3: Rulemaking

Four Major Methods of rulemaking:

If you worked in an agency and were selecting a rule-making process to use, what would you consider when comparing them?

What court cases address what the courts think is necessary for legal rulemaking?

If you were regulated by an Oregon state agency, what would you expect in an agency rule-making process?

Regulatory analysis and OMB control over rulemaking: How can Trump influence rulemaking to favor his policy goals?

Rulemaking and Adjudication:

Why might an agency make policy through adjudication rather than by rulemaking?

Why might an agency use rulemaking to limit adjudication?

What do the courts think about using adjudication for rulemaking? What court cases discuss how adjudication and rulemaking connect?

Relevant Cases for Rulemaking:

Vermont Yankee v. NRDC (1978

U.S. v. Florida East Coast Railway (1973)

Londoner v. City of Denver (1908)

Bimetallic Investment (1915)

Relevant cases that overlap between adjudication and rulemaking:

SEC v. Chenery (1947) (aka "Chenery II)

NLRB v. Wyman Gordon (1969)

NLRB v. Bell Aerospace (1974)

U.S. v. Storer Broadcasting (1956)

Heckler v. Campbell (1983)

Section 4: Adjudication

What is the basic meaning of "due process"?

The right to due process, or an individual hearing, can come from four places:

constitution

statute

administrative rule

contract

When the courts are deciding if a government action with a harmful impact is allowed, the type of justification required for the harm can vary by the constitutional importance of the affected persons or the type of harm. The courts also consider statutory context.

Three levels of standards of review: “strict scrutiny”, “rational relationship”, and “intermediate level”: courts will evaluate appropriateness of an action according the which standard of review fits the context

While statutory, agency rules and contracts are specific, how have the constitutional due process rights evolved in recent decade?

1) Due process involved according to 5th and 14th amendment to losses of life, liberty, or property

2) Changes in what is considered a "right" verse a "privilege"

3) Evolution of concept of property and liberty rights

Key cases on constitution due process for property or liberty:

Board of Regents v. Roth (1972)

Perry v Sinderman (1972)

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)

Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)

Paul v Davis (1976)

Thematic question: Whether and when a hearing might be required for various government actions, such as firings, denying benefits, or taking away a permit?

- be sure to understand "balancing test" from Eldridge case.

Types of hearings and when they are required or appropriate

Key elements of administrative hearings and how they may differ from judicial hearings

- ex.: qualifications and conduct of hearings officers, discovery, and rules of evidence

Oregon’s basic design for adjudication:

Cases about adequacy of legislative hearing processes"

Richardson v. Perales (1971)

Withrow v. Larkin (1973)

Goss v. Lopez (1975)

Section 4: Judicial Review

Practical aspects of judicial review

- Do the courts constantly interfere with all agency activities?

Roadblocks or constraints to judicial review:

1. Jurisdiction: Is the specific court the right place to hear the case? Preclusion, federalism, et cetera

2. Standing: Should this party be allowed to present the case? injury et cetera

3. Committed to Agency Discretion: can courts provide practical solution?

4. Timeliness: Is this the right time for the court to hear the case? ripeness et cetera

Scenario: Someone is allegedly harmed by an agency action. Will the courts allow them to present their case at the time the hurt party wants?

Cases on getting heard in court:

United States V. Windsor (2013