Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Welcome to PP600: Administrative Law Welcome to PP600: Administrative Law
Unit 7 SeminarUnit 7 SeminarAll About Judicial ReviewAll About Judicial Review
Professor Patricia Maitland, J.D., Ph.D.Professor Patricia Maitland, J.D., Ph.D.
Copyright 2011
Recall the types of Political Oversight Recall the types of Political Oversight of Agenciesof Agencies
One type was Constitutional One type was Constitutional oversightoversight Judicial ReviewJudicial Review Courts assume jurisdiction even when there is no Courts assume jurisdiction even when there is no
statutory authorization (in the agency’s enabling act) for statutory authorization (in the agency’s enabling act) for a judicial appeal. a judicial appeal.
There is an inherent right of appeal from orders of There is an inherent right of appeal from orders of administrative agencies where constitutional rights are administrative agencies where constitutional rights are involved.involved.
Courts provide relief or review even though there is no statute Courts provide relief or review even though there is no statute which specifically provides for such relief or review.which specifically provides for such relief or review.
Copyright 2011
A History RefresherA History Refresher
1802 John Marshall was Chief Justice 1802 John Marshall was Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Courtof the U.S. Supreme Court Believed in a strong federal governmentBelieved in a strong federal government
Contrast to Jefferson who thought more Contrast to Jefferson who thought more power should be pushed out to the statespower should be pushed out to the states
““It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” department to say what the law is.” Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Copyright 2011
A History RefresherA History Refresher
In an 1803 Supreme Court case, Marshall said the Court could throw out any law passed by Congress if the Court thought that law was unconstitutional Marbury v. Madison
Copyright 2011
A History RefresherA History Refresher
Thomas Jefferson thought judicial review made the court too powerful. Remember Supreme Court justices are
appointed for life, not elected.
Fun Fact:Fun Fact: The longest serving Justice was William O. Douglas who served for 36 years, 7 months, and 8 days from 1939 to 1975.
Copyright 2011
A History RefresherA History Refresher
Jefferson and Marshall disliked each other in the extreme Even though they were cousins!
Their dispute was in regard to ideas So what was Marbury v. Madison all
about?
Copyright 2011
Marbury v. MadisonMarbury v. Madison
In the Presidential election of 1800:In the Presidential election of 1800:
Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated the incumbent Federalist Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated the incumbent Federalist John Adams.John Adams.
The Republicans (forerunners of the Democratic Party) also took The Republicans (forerunners of the Democratic Party) also took control of Congresscontrol of Congress
But the “lame duck” Congress passed an amendment to the But the “lame duck” Congress passed an amendment to the Judiciary Act, creating a lot of new judicial positions and filled Judiciary Act, creating a lot of new judicial positions and filled them at the last minute with Federalist appointees.them at the last minute with Federalist appointees.
William Marbury received one of the appointments to a minor William Marbury received one of the appointments to a minor judicial post in the new District of Columbia.judicial post in the new District of Columbia.
His appointment was signed by President Adams but not His appointment was signed by President Adams but not delivered to Marbury.delivered to Marbury.
The new Secretary of State, James Madison, also never delivered The new Secretary of State, James Madison, also never delivered the appointment.the appointment.
Copyright 2011
Marbury v. Madison Marbury v. Madison (cont.)(cont.)
Marbury sued Madison in the Supreme Court, Marbury sued Madison in the Supreme Court, asking the Court to issue a asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamuswrit of mandamus ordering Madison to deliver the appointment ordering Madison to deliver the appointment document.document.
The SC had a new federalist Chief Justice, John Marshall, The SC had a new federalist Chief Justice, John Marshall, who was also a new appointee.who was also a new appointee.
Marshall did not Marshall did not recuserecuse himself from the case. himself from the case.
Marshall feared that a writ would be ignored or defied, Marshall feared that a writ would be ignored or defied, revealing the weakness of the SC and would have a revealing the weakness of the SC and would have a negative impact on the legitimate authority of the negative impact on the legitimate authority of the courts.courts.
Copyright 2011
Marbury v. Madison Marbury v. Madison (cont.)(cont.) Marshall’s opinion asked and answered the Marshall’s opinion asked and answered the
following:following:
Has the applicant a right to the commission?Has the applicant a right to the commission? Yes, it is being illegally withheld.Yes, it is being illegally withheld.
Has the applicant a legal remedy for this wrong?Has the applicant a legal remedy for this wrong? Yes, a writ of mandamus can properly be directed against a public Yes, a writ of mandamus can properly be directed against a public
official who fails to carry out a ministerial duty.official who fails to carry out a ministerial duty.
Is the applicant entitled to the particular remedy for which Is the applicant entitled to the particular remedy for which he applies?he applies?
No, the SC does not have the power to issue such a writ. No, the SC does not have the power to issue such a writ.
Why didn’t the SC have the power to issue the writ Why didn’t the SC have the power to issue the writ since the Judiciary Act gave the SC that power?since the Judiciary Act gave the SC that power? Because the Judiciary Act was unconstitutionalBecause the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional..
Copyright 2011
Marbury v. Madison Marbury v. Madison (cont.)(cont.)
Why was the Judiciary Act unconstitutional?Why was the Judiciary Act unconstitutional? By giving the SC itself the power to issue writs of By giving the SC itself the power to issue writs of
mandamus Congress tried (unconstitutionally) to mandamus Congress tried (unconstitutionally) to expand the SC’s original jurisdiction.expand the SC’s original jurisdiction.
So while Marbury had a valid grievance, he needed So while Marbury had a valid grievance, he needed to pursue his remedy in a Federal District Courtto pursue his remedy in a Federal District Court
Which he never did, and Marbury never received the Which he never did, and Marbury never received the appointmentappointment
Thus, the case forms the basis of judicial reviewThus, the case forms the basis of judicial review
Copyright 2011
Today, the portraits of Marbury and Madison are Today, the portraits of Marbury and Madison are hung side by side in the Supreme Court’s Private hung side by side in the Supreme Court’s Private
Dining RoomDining Room
Copyright 2011
Marbury Madison
Judicial ReviewJudicial Review
Administrative agencies are subject Administrative agencies are subject to the judicial review of the courts. to the judicial review of the courts.
What is Judicial Review?What is Judicial Review? The courts’ ability to review a law or act The courts’ ability to review a law or act
of an agency for constitutionality.of an agency for constitutionality. APA § 702APA § 702
Copyright 2011
JusticiabilityJusticiability
Can the Court exercise its authority?Can the Court exercise its authority? ReviewabilityReviewability StandingStanding
Representational StandingRepresentational Standing InjuryInjury CausationCausation RedressableRedressable Exhaustion Exhaustion Case in ControversyCase in Controversy
Copyright 2011
ReviewabilityReviewability
Authorization of the court to review the caseAuthorization of the court to review the case ““federal question” federal question” ((28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. §1331) §1331)
Complainants allege constitutional violationsComplainants allege constitutional violations
Statutory jurisdictionStatutory jurisdiction The APA does not necessarily grant, but The APA does not necessarily grant, but
presumes reviewability unless another statute presumes reviewability unless another statute has specified the manner in which jurisdiction is has specified the manner in which jurisdiction is established established
Copyright 2011
StandingStanding
The Party must have standing to sueThe Party must have standing to sue The right to bring a suit or action The right to bring a suit or action
before a court of justicebefore a court of justice Plaintiff must show Agency action has or Plaintiff must show Agency action has or
will will causecause an an injuryinjury to the Plaintiff that to the Plaintiff that can be avoided or can be avoided or redressedredressed by the by the court court
Copyright 2011
Representational StandingRepresentational Standing
Supreme Court recognizesSupreme Court recognizes Organization has a member who Organization has a member who
could bring the case (individual could bring the case (individual standing)standing)
Purpose of the organization is Purpose of the organization is relevant to the suitrelevant to the suit
The person actually injured is a The person actually injured is a party to the suitparty to the suit
Seeking declaratory or injunctive Seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, not damagesrelief, not damages
Copyright 2011
InjuryInjury
InjuryInjury a concrete injury, not a general grievance.a concrete injury, not a general grievance.
Risk Immediate, increasedImmediate, increased
Procedural Injury Categorical exemptionsCategorical exemptions
Copyright 2011
Types of InjuriesTypes of Injuries
RecreationalRecreational AestheticAesthetic EnvironmentalEnvironmental ProceduralProcedural InformationalInformational
Copyright 2011
CausationCausation
The allegedly unlawful action caused The allegedly unlawful action caused the injurythe injury ““fairly traceable”fairly traceable”
33rdrd Party actions Party actions Example: Developer damming the river. Example: Developer damming the river.
Copyright 2011
Redressable Redressable
Party must show that a favorable Party must show that a favorable decision by the court will redress or decision by the court will redress or avoid the injury.avoid the injury. Generally causation and redressabilityGenerally causation and redressability
are linked. are linked. What about 3What about 3rdrd Parties? Parties?
A beneficiary of health services for low-A beneficiary of health services for low-income persons files suit against the IRS income persons files suit against the IRS for withdrawing a hospital’s tax-exempt for withdrawing a hospital’s tax-exempt status.status.
Copyright 2011
ExhaustionExhaustion
The Party must have exhausted all The Party must have exhausted all administrative remedies.administrative remedies. The party must also have raised the The party must also have raised the
issue with the Agencyissue with the Agency FinalityFinality
No review of preliminary or intermediate No review of preliminary or intermediate actions or rulings actions or rulings
ConsummationConsummation Rights and obligations determinedRights and obligations determined
Copyright 2011
Case in ControversyCase in Controversy
There must be a case in controversy There must be a case in controversy (Article lll, Section 2 of the (Article lll, Section 2 of the Constitution)Constitution)
A definite, concrete issue concerning A definite, concrete issue concerning legal relations among parties whose legal relations among parties whose interests conflictinterests conflict Based on alleged factsBased on alleged facts Resulting in a decision grantingResulting in a decision granting
specific relief specific relief
Controversy
Copyright 2011
Exceptions to Judicial ReviewExceptions to Judicial Review
Statutory PreclusionStatutory Preclusion If the Agency’s enabling act specifies an If the Agency’s enabling act specifies an
alternative.alternative. Action committed to Agency Action committed to Agency
discretiondiscretion Example: A CIA employee.Example: A CIA employee.
Copyright 2011
Scope of Judicial ReviewScope of Judicial Review
Exceeded the scope of its enabling Exceeded the scope of its enabling legislation?legislation?
Correctly interpreted the laws?Correctly interpreted the laws? Violated the U.S. Constitution?Violated the U.S. Constitution? Complied with all applicable procedural Complied with all applicable procedural
requirements?requirements? Are actions arbitrary or capricious (abuse Are actions arbitrary or capricious (abuse
of discretion)?of discretion)? Conclusions not supported by substantial Conclusions not supported by substantial
evidence?evidence?
Copyright 2011
Exceeded the ScopeExceeded the Scope
The Agency’s statute did not provide The Agency’s statute did not provide the authority to the Agency for a the authority to the Agency for a particular action. particular action.
Agency Organic Statute
Copyright 2011
Correct InterpretationCorrect Interpretation
The court may affirm, reverse or remand The court may affirm, reverse or remand an agency order if it finds that the agency an agency order if it finds that the agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of has erroneously interpreted a provision of lawlaw
Copyright 2011
Violated the ConstitutionViolated the Constitution
Statutory construction is Statutory construction is unconstitutionalunconstitutional
Contrary to rights, powers, privileges Contrary to rights, powers, privileges or immunitiesor immunities
Courts generally interpret the Courts generally interpret the statutes so as to avoid constitutional statutes so as to avoid constitutional questionsquestions
Copyright 2011
Complied with ProceduresComplied with Procedures
Did not comply or apply the Did not comply or apply the appropriate procedures.appropriate procedures. Example: The Developer was issued a Example: The Developer was issued a
permit although the granting Agency did permit although the granting Agency did not coordinate with other agencies.not coordinate with other agencies.
Agency response is usually the Agency response is usually the procedures were not required.procedures were not required.
Copyright 2011
Arbitrary or Capricious Arbitrary or Capricious
A finding of a lower court will not be A finding of a lower court will not be disturbed unless it has no reasonable disturbed unless it has no reasonable basisbasis
Copyright 2011
Substantial EvidenceSubstantial Evidence Questions of fact – Agency action must be Questions of fact – Agency action must be
supported by “relevant evidence that a supported by “relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”.support a conclusion”.
Generally when the Agency action is formal Generally when the Agency action is formal rulemaking or formal adjudicationrulemaking or formal adjudication
Some statutes (1970s) designate hybrid Some statutes (1970s) designate hybrid rulemaking is subject to this type of reviewrulemaking is subject to this type of review
Copyright 2011
Abuse of DiscretionAbuse of Discretion A failure by the Agency to take into proper A failure by the Agency to take into proper
consideration the facts and law relating to a consideration the facts and law relating to a particular matterparticular matter
An arbitrary or unreasonable departure from An arbitrary or unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom precedent and settled judicial custom
Applicable to informal adjudicationsApplicable to informal adjudications The application of laws to facts in reviewThe application of laws to facts in review The court does not substitute its judgment for the Agency’sThe court does not substitute its judgment for the Agency’s Review is based on the record before the Agency at the time of Review is based on the record before the Agency at the time of
its decision.its decision.Copyright 2011
The Chevron Two-StepThe Chevron Two-Step(not the latest dance craze)(not the latest dance craze)
Chevron, Inc. Chevron, Inc.
v. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council Natural Resources Defense Council
Copyright 2011
The Chevron Two-StepThe Chevron Two-Step
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
1984 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court 1984 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers.administers.
Copyright 2011
In ChevronIn Chevron Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 to address Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 to address
states that had failed to attain EPA established air quality states that had failed to attain EPA established air quality standards standards
Required non-compliant States to establish a permit program Required non-compliant States to establish a permit program regulating new or modified sources of air pollution.regulating new or modified sources of air pollution.
The Carter administration defined a source of air pollution The Carter administration defined a source of air pollution one way, but in 1981, when Ronald Reagan was elected, one way, but in 1981, when Ronald Reagan was elected, the EPA adopted a new definition of a source of air pollutionthe EPA adopted a new definition of a source of air pollution
allowed facilities emitting pollution to get permits for non-compliant allowed facilities emitting pollution to get permits for non-compliant equipment . equipment .
Copyright 2011
In ChevronIn Chevron The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental
protection group, challenged the EPA regulation in federal protection group, challenged the EPA regulation in federal court, which ruled in the NRDC’s favor .court, which ruled in the NRDC’s favor .
Because Chevron wanted its permits, as an affected party, Because Chevron wanted its permits, as an affected party, it appealed the lower court's decision.it appealed the lower court's decision.
Copyright 2011
The Chevron Two-StepThe Chevron Two-Step
Judicial Review of Agency interpretation of Judicial Review of Agency interpretation of lawlaw
Step 1: Is the statute ambiguous?Step 1: Is the statute ambiguous? Step 2: Is the Agency interpretation Step 2: Is the Agency interpretation
reasonable or permissiblereasonable or permissible
Copyright 2011
That Concludes this Week’s That Concludes this Week’s SeminarSeminar
Copyright 2011
Next Time: Governmental Immunity & Liability
