Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 47 - Administrative Law
V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEM CASES:
1. The Supreme Court held that the regulations were a permissible interpretation of the statute.
In view of the ambiguous language used by Congress, the Secretary's interpretation of the
statute was entitled to substantial deference. The Court also upheld the regulations against a
First Amendment-based attack, holding that the regulations, instead of impermissibly
discriminating on the basis of viewpoint, merely ensured that the statutory limits on use of
appropriated funds were observed. The Court observed that the government is free to make a
value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion and to implement that judgment by the
2. Yes, the Supreme Court held. The term “harm,” as used in the statute, could logically be
interpreted as covering indirect as well as direct injuries. Indeed, the Court noted, such an
interpretation would help give “harm” a meaning that would not be merely duplicative of the
3. No. The Supreme Court held that the FCC did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in shifting
its announced enforcement posture so as to make a nonliteral (expletive) use of the F-word or
S-word grounds for adverse action with regard to a licensed broadcaster, even if the use of the
4. No. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the FDIC's suspension of Mallen pursuant to the
Financial Institutions Supervisory Act of 1966, which allows such suspensions without a pre-
suspension hearing and provides instead for a post-suspension hearing within 30 days of a
47-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 47 - Administrative Law
5. The Supreme Court held that the CIA's argument was correct as to Doe's claim that the
termination was unlawful under section 102(c), but not as to Doe's claim regarding alleged
violations of his constitutional rights. Although the Administrative Procedure Act establishes
a general rule that agency actions are reviewable, that general rule does not apply when a
6. No. The Supreme Court held that FOIA Exemption 5 did not apply to the documents
requested by the Klamath Water Users Protective Association (Water Users Association) and
that the Department of the Interior therefore was not justified in withholding the documents.
Exemption 5 protects from disclosure “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters
which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the
agency. The Court held that the documents sought by the Water Users Association--
7. Yes. After concluding that the banks and the Bankers Association had legal standing because
their interests fell within the zone of interests to be protected by section 109, the Supreme
Court held that the NCUA's interpretation of section 109 was impermissible. According to the
47-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 47 - Administrative Law
8. No. The Supreme Court held that DOW had failed to show the concrete and actual or
imminent injury necessary to give them standing to challenge the regulation. Importantly, the
9. No. The warrantless inspection provisions of the SWMA were valid under the "closely
regulated business" exception to the warrant requirement. The legislature determined that the
warrantless inspection procedures authorized by the statute were necessitated by the risk to
10. Public Citizen made an incorrect legal argument regarding Exemption 4 when it asserted that
the competitive harm done to the sponsor of an IND by the public disclosure of confidential
information should be weighed against the strong public interest in safeguarding the health of
human trial participants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
11. The Seventh Circuit saw no Fifth Amendment problem with the CFTC's subpoena demanding
copies of Collins's federal income tax returns, but held that the subpoena should not be
enforced because of the danger that compelled production of the types of documents being
sought could tend to compromise the government's interest in the effective administration of
the federal tax laws. In so holding, the Seventh Circuit rejected both parties' arguments on
47-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 47 - Administrative Law
47-4
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
