Administrative Law Outline

Federal Administrative Agencies-  MD requires no standards but only procedural safeguards (p. 416)- Soc. Sec. Administration- largest system of adm. adjud. in the world
 
agency acts as 1) legislator, 2) investigator- 3) prosecutor, 4) judge, and 5) jury
 
Administrative Law derives mainly from Four Sources:
1) The Constitution 2) APA 3) Particular Agency enabling Acts 4) Administrative Common Law-
 
The arbitrary and capricious test is sometimes called the HARD LOOK test-
 
If a rule is NOT published in the Federal Register- it is NOT a rule-
 
Also even if a statutory scheme required individualized determinations, the decionmaker has the authority to rely on rulemaking to resolve certain issues of general applicability unless Congress clearly expresses an intent to withhold that authority- (Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. NLRB)
 
Nguyen: Agency unpublished interepretation affects substantive rights when:- p. 298
1)      Changes existing rules, policy or practice
2)      Whether intepretation deviates from the plain meaning of the statute or regulation at issue
3)      The rule is substantive if it is of binding force and narrowly limits administrative discretion
 
Problem 8 page 293- Madisonpro bono work for lawyers (changed rationale)- This is a post-hoc rationalization- Look to note 7
 
Differences between a RULE and an ORDER-
A rule usually requires a further proceeding (an adjudication) to make concretely effective against a particular individual, while an order needs no further proceeding to make it effective
A rule is usually directed at and binds a described class that may open to admit new members,
an order is directed at and binds only those who were parties to the adjudicative proceeding
Rule- prospective; Orders are- retroactive
 
Vermont Yankee- APPLIES TO BOTH Informal Rulemaking AND informal Adjudication
The Court declared that courts could NOT go beyond the rulemaking procedures set forth in APA. Later the Court extended the Vermont Yankee principle to adjudication. As a result, if the procedures for a particular adjudication are not prescribed by the APA or due process or some other source of law, the agency decides what procedures to provide- NOT the courts
 
Agency acts as legislature, investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury for purpose of efficiency and effectiveness- Their functions are to distribute benefits, grant permits and licenses and make administrative policy across a broad range of issues.
 
Public interest v. public choice- Crunchtime p. 111-
 
ALJ hear cases of formal adjudication- their independence is safeguarded by an elaborate web of statutory protections. (p. 150)- AJs hear informal adjudications- which can be just as formal, but AJ independence is NOT protected by statute
 
I. Non-delegation
 
Courts at first in 30, 40 and. 50 did not like agencies stealing its authority- tried to limit agency power- but courts realized we don’t have staff, expertise, or experience to deal with all of these issues in court- court focused on PROCEDURE and substance – most of the time send it back to agency- due to procdure- court does NOT decide case
Remedies- remand!!! most of the time expertise comes from agency- courts now use limited intelligble principle-
[Evolved from a strict, categorical approach to the current intelligble principle standard]  
AGENCIES ENFORCE POLICIES OF ADMINISTRATION- new regime will change administration ruling- reason why these agencies are called executive agencies-
p.90
 
II.  Constitutional problem- p. 396 separation of powers and checks and balances- Basic issue of admin law- proprietary to delgate legislative and judicial power
Administrative agencies which are barely mentioned in the federal Constitution, have been often regarded as posing threats to the constitutional structure. Agencies typical possess delegated authority to make rules, to adjudicate individual cases, to engage in law enforcement, and conduct other activities related to those functions. These are the functions of normally entrusted to the three branches of government that the Constitution establishes in express and detailed terms which could be a checks and balance issue. The legitmacy of such delegations has long been contested, because most agency heads are appointed rather than elected, and therefore are not directly responsible to the voters. Modern administrative agencies seem to defy the principle of separation of powers, since a single entity exercises rulemaking, adjudication, and law enforcement functions. However, must people concede that this combinations function within a single administrative unit is legitimate and a practical necessity in a modern government.  
Does Congres have power to delegate power? if an agency is given power- it must have intelligble interest that it must conforms- The judiciary power- is also involved w/ sep. of power- the federal judiciary power was vested in Article III judges- judges with life tenure to ensure unbiased consideration of cases, a delegation of adjudicatory powers to agencies transfers to them authority that appears to belong exclusively to the judicial branch. An agency can NOT impose a criminal fine or define criminal offenses, because of constitutional restrictions applicable to the criminal process. However, a legislature can allow an agency to impose a civil fine.
 
I. Delegation of Legislative Power to Agencies-
 
**Intellgible principle: Congress may NOT delegate to administrative agencies the power to set standards in applying statutory laws witout specific legislative guidelines- In order for delegation to be constitutionally valid, Congress must provide an intelligble principle defining its control and accountability specific enough to enable courts to ascertain whether administrative action is within its scope (Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Connally)
 
IUD v. AFL-CIO- Congress should have made critical decision between balancing lives against industrical resources BECAUSE- Congress did NOT provide specific legislative guidelines-
 
Revival of non-delegation principle- Whitman- (EPA lacked intelligible principle to confine its own discretion)- Sup. Ct. reversed- look this up- intelligible standard still applicable
 
II. Delegation of Judicial Power to Agencies
 
There is a minimal intrusion on Article III- judges- thus Agencies can adjudicate-
4 factors in the case- p. 430- (CFTC- v. Schor)- Article III challenges-
 
Delegation of Judicial Power:
1) The extent to which the “essential attributes of judicial power” are reserved to Article III courts
2) The extent to which the non-article III forum exercises the range of jurisdiction and powers normally vested only in Article III courts
3) The origins and importance of the right to be adjudicated
4) The concerns that drove Congress to depart from the requirement of Article III-
 
Nothing in Article III mandates that each case must be tried in an Art. III court- thus delegation of judicial power to agencies okay. Generally agencies only to adjudicate cases involving “public rights.” (Individual v. government)- Agencies may adjudicate some private rights cases (individual v. individual) involving tremendous public rights impact.
 
Constitutional Procedural Due Process
 
Due process (Matthews v. Eldridge)
[bottom p. 53]- “Opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner”
 
Liberty: (Board of Regents v. Roth)