Study Guide for Adminstration law

IV Adjudication

Slide two left off at types of rules. Substantive, procedural. How you make substantive rules is rulemaking … we stated rulemaking formal hybrid from there until what we get to here.

Two types of review:

1. Challenges to specific agency actions seeking to reverse or alter them

2. Suits claiming damages against an agency: liability cases. (Not dealing with this till last test)

This section focuses on direct review of agency decisions. Section 8 looks at government liability.

Transformation of judicial oversight of bureaucracy in the 1960s and 1970s

- Greater recognition of the significance of government action on individuals prompted more due process within and after administrative processes

- Cases like EDF v. Ruckelshaus(1971), which required the EPA to review DDT for impact on environment and health, courts ruled that courts should scrutinize agency activities affecting basic personal interests as “life, health, and liberty” DDT kills mosquitos. Can also harm other animals.

Practical aspects of judicial review:

Courts override relatively few administrative decisions, and tend to rule conservatively (meaning supporting slow if any change in underlying law)

Reviewed cases are often very complex

Typical court response is to mandate new proceedings, not materially correct problem.

- “remand” for action in light of judicial determination usually vacates existing policy, although in recent years courts have sometimes used “remand without vacation”

Two sides to review:

Should the court provide review? (Roadblocks to review)

What are the purposes of review? (Scope)

United States V. Windsor (2013): Overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – federal law banned federal benefits for same-sex partners and allowed states to not recognize homosexual partnership rights established in other states. Overturned the defense of marriage act. Bill Clinton signed it in. most stunning decision in last five years. There were two levels of challenges. The right to be married to a same sex partner is clearly not a federal issue. It’s a state case.

Two levels of challenge:

- standing: conservatives did not see that the court should take the case

- Actual holdings: dispute over the nature of the rights and harms involved. What are the rights and harmed. Rights interest.

Example of two step pattern.

Roadblocks or constraints to judicial review: do not need to know more than this.

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. Do they really now the consequences of the case.

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

Know Windsor case limits of course involved in things. At least know this kind of list don’t need to know the details of list.