Administrative Law Outline

 
Administrative Law
Professor Zach Bray
Fall 2015
 
Introduction to Administrative Law Materials
a.        What is an agency?
                                                               i.      An agency is “each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency, but does not include
1.        (A) the Congress;
2.        (B) the courts of the United States;
3.        (C) the governments of the territories or possessions of the United States;
4.        (D) the government of the District of Columbia . . . .” 5 U.S.C. §§ 701(b)(1), 551.
                                                              ii.      Franklin v. Massachusetts.
b.       We also discussed various types of agencies, discussing the differences between single-headed and multi-member agencies, executive and multi-member agencies, and the correspondence between these categories. 
c.        Statutory Interpretation
                                                               i.      the plain language of the statute,
                                                              ii.      inferences drawn from the statute’s structure,
                                                            iii.      the legislative history of the statute,
                                                            iv.      the practical consequences an interpretation may have,
                                                              v.      and various canons of statutory construction – of which you now have a handy partial list! 
1.        ORDINARY MEANING. 
2.        CONSISTENT MEANING.  Unless the drafters tell you otherwise, a word or phrase is presumed to have the same meaning throughout the document.
3.        NO SUPERFLOUS PROVISIONS.  If possible no interpretation of a statute should be adopted that renders a part of it superfluous.  Every word should be given effect; no word should just be decoration
4.        CONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE. 
5.        CLEAR STATEMENT RULE.  A fed statute should not be read to eliminate something like state sovereign immunity, nor should it be read to preempt state law in an area of traditional state action, unless the statute’s drafters are very clear that they mean to do this.
6.        6.             INCLUSION OF ONE IMPLIES EXCLUSION OF OTHERS.  
7.        7.             A WORD IS KNOWN BY COMPANY IT KEEPS.  Noscitur A Sociis.  A word is     known by the company it keeps. 
8.        8.             OF THE SAME KIND.  Ejusdum generis.  Of the same kind.  A general         residual category following a list of other items refers to items of the           same sort. 
9.        9.             SO THAT IT MAY SURVIVE RATHER THAN PERISH.  Ut magis valeat quam        pereat. An ambiguous provisions should be interpreted in a way that makes    it valid rather than invalid
Agencies and their role with the rest of the Government
 
d.       Constitutional Underpinnings
e.        Conforming Agency Practice to Article III
                           i.      How much can agencies look like Courts?
                          ii.      Public vs Private Rights
                                                            iii.      In Crowell v. Benson,
1.        Public rights, or matters arising “between the Government and persons subject to its authority in connection with the performance of” the government’s executive or legislative functions, and
a.        Act of Congress, agency etc: government gives the right
2.        Private rights, or matters arising out of “the liability of one individual to another under the law as defined.”
a.        Ex: right between two people, Tort, K 
3.        Notice: this case also represents the proposition that a non-article III court subject to review by an article III court may be enough to validate the non-article III court
                        iv.      Historic Departures
                                                              v.      In Crowell,
1.        Territorial tribunals
2.        Military courts-martial
3.        Suits against the United States
                        vi.      In Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
a.        BR case, asking whether BR judge can act like a distruict Court judge
2.        First, adopted Crowell’s conclusion that private right suits may not be adjudicated by agencies;
3.        Second, recognized that public right suits might include litigation between private individuals based on statutory claims created by Congress;
4.        And third, reiterated that Congressionally-created “adjuncts” for adjudication, like bankruptcy courts or administrative agencies, must be limited so that “the essential attributes” of judicial power are retained in Article III courts.
                                                           vii.      Brennan’s opinion in Marathon is highly formalistic.
                     viii.      Schor Test
f.          Extreme functionalism of Justice O’Connor’s approach in CFTC v. Schor. 
g.        Test from Schor  (Copied from In-Class Slide # 9)
                                                               i.      Consider the extent to which essential attributes of Article III Courts are (or should be) reserved to them;
                                                              ii.      Consider the origins and importance of the rights being adjudicated;
                                                            iii.      Consider the Congressional concerns that motivated deviations from the traditional structure.
h.       One way to think about how to use the Schor test—especially the first prong—is to think about the horizontal and vertical extent of the agency’s Article III power.
1.        How many issues it is considering and how hard it is to review
2.        How broad is the agency’s jurisdiction?  And how far up – how unsupervised – is the agency’s court-like power? 
i.         Second prong of the test highly elevated by Stern
                                                               i.      In Stern v. Marshall
1.        The Court’s holding in Stern does not overrule Schor, but it limits it by putting a significant emphasis back on the public right / private right suit distinction and the second prong of Schor
2.        The narrow issue in Stern was whether a bankruptcy court could hear the tortious interference with gift claim associated with the bankruptcy claims at issue before that court. 
3.        Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the tortious interference with gift claims at issue were private right claims, which could only be properly adjudicated by an Article III Court. 
a.        Seems to think of art III judges as angels
4.        Congress, according to the Court here, “has nothing to do” with the counterclaims at issue in Stern. 
2.        Note on 7th amendnet
a.        Grandfinanceria Case:
                                                               i.      Court hold that 7th amendment limits on Agency adjudication are co-extensive with art III limits
                                                              ii.      So, no different analysis
b.       Non-Delegation Doctrine
                           i.      SOP Concerns here
c.        What to know?
1.        Know these cases
2.        Know that the NDD is pretty weak
3.        Mistretta
a.        “So long as Congress ‘shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power
b.       Facts
                                                               i.      Sentencing guidelines
1.        Congress gave policies and directives as to how to set them
c.        Statute in Mistretta gave policies and directives, so it was more than an intelligible principle
4.        Whitman
a.        Statute: gave EPA power to determine air qualify standards
b.       Intelligible principle: protect public health
                                                               i.      Obviously super vague and loose, but enough
5.        Amtrak
a.        Is A