978-0077733711 Chapter 47 Solution Manual

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

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

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

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

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

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.