NO Plaguarism

Emt uNlT FoUR lthe neWhtort Environment the water. It then flows through a pipe that opens into a manhole-covered test pit outside the plant in full r.rew of Riverdale's employees. Three hundred feet away, the pipe merges into the public sewer system. In October 1997 , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent Justin Pimpare and Daniel Granz to inspect the piant. Without a search warrant and without Riverdale's express consent, the agents took samples from the test pit. Based on the samples, Riverdale and James Knott, the company's owner, were charged with criminal violations of the federal Clean Water Act. The defendants sued the EPA agents in a federal dis- trict court, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment. What right does the Fourth Amendment provide in this context? This right is based on a "reasonable expectation of privacy" Should the agents be held liable? Why or why not? lRiverddle MILLS Cory. v. Pimpare, 392 F.3d 55 (Ist Cir. j\- zoo+)t ( rs- lemaking. The Investment Company Act prohibits a \/rhutual fund from engaging in certain transactions in which there may be a conflict of interest be[ween the manager of the fund and its shareholders. Under rules issued by the Securities and Exchange Commlssion (SEC), however, a fund that meets certain conditions may engage in an oth- erwise prohibited transaction . In 2004 , the SEC added two new conditions . Ayear later, the SEC reconsidered the new conditions ln ter-rns of the costs that they would impose on the funds. Within eight days, and without asking for public input, the SEC readopted the conditions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce-which is borh a mutual fund shareholder and an association with mutual fund managers among its members-asked a federal appellate court to review the new ruIes. The Chamber charged that ln readopting the ru1es, the SEC relied on materials not in the "rulemaking record" without providing an opportunlty lor public com- ment. The SEC countered that the information was oth- erwise "pub1ic1y available." 1n adopting a rule, should an asencv consider in lormatioffi _\? rLaklng recordl Why or why not/ lLhamber oJ Lommerce ol ..,--::--:..-- --.#-, the Uniled SLaLes v. Secunties aid Exchange Commission. 443 E3d 890 (D.C.Cir. 2006)l 19-6. fffi Case Problem with Sample Answer. Agency IEIII Powers. A well-documented rise in g1oba1 tempera- tures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Many scientists believe that the two trends are related, because when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it produces a greenhouse effect, trapping solar heat. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to regulate "any" at-r pollutants "emitted into . . the ambient air" that in its'Judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution." A group ol private organizations asked the EPA to regulate carbon dloxide and other "greenhouse gas" emissions from new motor vehicles. The EPA refused, stating that Congress last amended the CAA in 1990 without authorizing new, binding auto- emissions limits. The petitioners-nineteen states, includ- ing Massachusetts-asked a distdct court to review the EPAb denial. Did the EPA have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicies? If so, was its stated reason for refuslng to do so consistent wrth that authority? Discuss. lMassachusetts y. Enyironmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497, lZ7 S.CL. 1438, 167 L. Ed.Zd24B (2007)l -To rriew a sample answer for Case Problem 19-6, go to Appendix F at the end ofthis text. l9-7. Iudicial Deference. Dave Conley, a longtime heary smoker, was diagnosed with lung cancer and died two years later. His death certificate stated that the cause of death was can- cer, but it also noted other significant conditions that had contributed to his death, including a history of cigarette smoking and coal mining. Conley's widow filed for ben- efits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, which provides for victims of black lung disease caused by coal mining. To qualify for benefits under the act, the exposure to coal dust must be a substantially contributing factor leading to the person's death. Under the statute, this meant to "hasten death." The U.S. Department of Labor collected Conleys work and medical records. An administrative law judge (ALJ) revrewed the record and took testimony from sev- eral physicians about the cause of Conley's death. Oniy one physician testifled that the coai dust was a substan- tial factor in Conleys death, but he offered no evidence other than hls testimonlz Nevertheless, the ALJ ruied that the coal mining had been a substantial factor that had has- tened Conley's death and awarded benefits to his widow. Conleyb employer appealed to the Benefits Review Board (BRB), which reversed the ALJs decision. The BRB found that there was insufficient evidence to hold that coal dust was a subsmntial factor in Conleys lung cancer. Conleys widow appealed. Should the court defer to the ALJ's deci- sion on the cause ol Conleys death? Which decision does the federal appellate court review, the ALJs conclusions or the BRBs reversal? Explain your answers. lConley v. National l:'4rnes Corp.,5S5 E3d 297 (6th Cir. 2010)l l9-8. Arbitrary and Capricious Test. Every year, Michael Manin, an airline piiot and fllght instructor, had to renew his first- class airman medical certificate, which showed that he had met medical standards for aircraft operation. The applica- tion for renewal included questions regarding criminal his- tory including non-traffic misdemeanors. Manin had been convicted of disorderly conduct, a minor misdemeanor, in 1995 and again in 1997, but never disclosed these con- victions on his yearly applications. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) discovered the two convictions in 2007 and issued an emergency order to revoke Manin's flight certificates in 2008. Manin fiied an answer to this revocation order, as well as an administrative complaint. He claimed that he had not known he was required to report a conviction for a minor misdemeanor and also asserted that the complaint was stale (legally expired) under Natlonal