administrative law and process third edition · understanding of bureaucracies in general, and...

ADMINISTRATIVE LAWAND PROCESS

Third Edition

LexisNexis Law School PublishingAdvisory Board

Paul Caron

Professor of Law

Pepperdine University School of Law

Herzog Summer Visiting Professor in Taxation

University of San Diego School of Law

Bridgette Carr

Clinical Professor of Law

University of Michigan Law School

Olympia Duhart

Professor of Law and Director of Lawyering Skills & Values Program

Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law School

Samuel Estreicher

Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law

Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law

NYU School of Law

Steven I. Friedland

Professor of Law and Senior Scholar

Elon University School of Law

Carole Goldberg

Jonathan D. Varat Distinguished Professor of Law

UCLA School of Law

Oliver Goodenough

Professor of Law

Vermont Law School

Paul Marcus

Haynes Professor of Law

William and Mary Law School

John Sprankling

Distinguished Professor of Law

McGeorge School of Law

ADMINISTRATIVE LAWAND PROCESS

Third Edition

Alfred C. Aman, Jr.Roscoe C. O’Byrne Professor of LawIndiana University Maurer School of Law

ISBN: 978-0-7698-4730-6

ISBN: 978-0-7698-4731-3 (looseleaf)

ISBN: 978-1-5791-1666-8 (ebook)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Aman, Alfred C., author.

Administrative law and process / Alfred C. Aman, Jr., Roscoe C. O’Byrne Professor of Law Indiana University

Maurer School of Law. — Third Edition.

pages cm

Includes index.

1. Administrative law — United States. I. Title.

KF5402.A74 2014

342.73’06–dc23

2014022193

This publication is designed to provide authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is soldwith the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professionalservices. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional shouldbe sought.

LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used underlicense. Matthew Bender and the Matthew Bender Flame Design are registered trademarks of Matthew BenderProperties Inc.

Copyright © 2014 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of LexisNexis. All Rights Reserved.

No copyright is claimed by LexisNexis or Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., in the text of statutes, regulations,and excerpts from court opinions quoted within this work. Permission to copy material may be licensed for a feefrom the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923, telephone (978) 750-8400.

NOTE TO USERS

To ensure that you are using the latest materials available in this area, please be

sure to periodically check the LexisNexis Law School web site for downloadable

updates and supplements at www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool.

Editorial Offices

121 Chanlon Rd., New Providence, NJ 07974 (908) 464-6800

201 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94105-1831 (415) 908-3200

www.lexisnexis.com

(2014–Pub.272)

Dedication

To my students

iii

Preface to the Third Edition

Administrative law is about legal processes that relate power to principles. It governs

the legal means by which executive, legislative, and judicial powers are exercised over

and through administrative agencies. The principles underlying federal administrative law

are fundamental to the structure of federal government in the United States, particularly

regarding the separation of powers and the authority of the three branches vis-à-vis each

other. Those principles have generated extensive debate, since administrative agencies by

definition involve intersecting authorities (e.g., as executive agencies governed by

Congressional statute) and, inevitably, those intersections yield gray zones. The previous

editions of this book have followed those controversies as the deregulatory and anti-

regulatory trends of the 1970s and 1980s yielded the neoliberalism of the 1990s and 21st

century. Those debates continue. The second edition reflected what was then the

emergent trend towards privatization and marketization of governmental services. That

trend is now well established, and public/private partnerships are pervasive, including

partnerships between governmental entities and transnational corporations. The

expansion of the transnational private sector in relation to government, as well as in other

respects, effectively makes transnationalism integral to domestic administrative law in a

variety of ways. A purely state centric approach to administrative law is insufficient, as

administrative law today mediates public and private power in novel ways, the

implications of which can be far reaching. This third edition will reflect at least some of

the challenges of those mediations.

This edition foregrounds areas of administrative law that have given rise to new

debates, or have brought new intensity to controversies of long standing. This is

particularly the case with regard to judicial review, which has become a major site of

contention over intra-governmental powers, including the powers of the Supreme Court

itself. In some areas, including the judicial review of agency interpretations of statutes,

settled doctrine has become unsettled, yielding important and often new interpretive

questions for administrative law teachers and their students. The sharply partisan divides

between the national political parties will undoubtedly be in the minds of many readers as

they study recent cases; however, it is important to avoid too cynical a reading of the

relevance of politics to the development of administrative law over the past decade.

Administrative law is itself political in the classical sense of establishing and distributing

powers; looking too quickly for partisan effects risks missing the rich institutional

complexity of contemporary democracy — as well as its fragility. Our focus on powers

and the principles behind their distribution is thus designed to help readers focus

analytically on sites of conceptual tension and ambiguity in administrative law that are

likely to become important arenas of advocacy in the future.

As in previous editions, the book is divided into two parts. An introductory Chapter 1

provides students with an overview of such key administrative law concepts as rules and

orders as well as some of the various ways they might conceptualize administrative

processes generally. Part I (Chapters 2 to 5) deals with the procedures agencies use to

exercise their adjudicatory and rulemaking powers. It focuses on the exercise of power

within the walls of administrative agencies. Chapters 2 and 3 explore the constitutional

and statutory issues that arise when agencies adjudicate. More specifically, Chapter 2 is

concerned with the constitutional law that governs the law-applying functions of

v

agencies. It focuses on the constitutional requirements of the Due Process Clause of the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as applied to agency adjudication. Chapter 3 examines

in detail the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements for formal adjudication.

Chapter 4 addresses informal agency actions and various alternative dispute resolution

approaches. Chapter 5 then focuses on rules and rulemaking processes under the

Administrative Procedure Act. These institutional arrangements, introduced in Part I, are

then set into motion in Part II.

Part II (Chapters 6 to 10) examines how various actors outside of agencies attempt to

influence and control the exercise of agency discretion. Chapter 6 deals with the

constitutional issues that arise when Congress seeks to delegate legislative power to

unelected agency administrators. It also examines delegation in relationship to

international agencies and the outsourcing of agency responsibilities to private

contractors as well. Chapter 7 involves executive controls over agency discretion as well

as various legislative or political attempts to influence agency behavior. Some new issues

regarding recess appointments as well as new statutory arrangements governing the

ability of the President to remove agency officials are also included. Chapter 8 examines

judicial controls over agency discretion and the scope of judicial review provided when a

case is properly before a court. The Chevron case and the administrative law battleground

that it has helped create will be covered in some detail, Chapter 9 addresses the question

of which litigants can bring a lawsuit to challenge agency discretion, as well as when and

where they can do so. Chapter 10 then examines other means of controlling agency

discretion. In particular, Chapter 10 focuses on agencies’ and citizens’ power to obtain

and withhold information.1

As a starting point for our discussion of the pragmatics of administrative law, one

could usefully view each agency as a culture, as the distinguished practitioner Howard

Westwood argued over 45 years ago — each agency being “a law unto itself, with its

own way of doing things.”2 There is utility to this kind of appreciation of each agency’s

character as a social system, as agencies were established by individual statutes, at

different times, to meet different needs, and an astute lawyer will know these differences

and the different opportunities or constraints they entail for successful advocacy. A more

detailed knowledge of agency law in action would greatly advance our overall

understanding of bureaucracies in general, and administrative law in particular.

Increasingly, this is an area of fruitful exchange between legal scholarship and the social

sciences. Indeed, alertness to social and historical context is an asset in case analysis.

Administrative law has always been subject to wider societal and political pressures that

affect the legal system as a whole, particularly in contexts where a shift in the public’s

needs, expectations, or attitude generates political energy for reform, and, accordingly,

new demands for legal action. Thus, this casebook offers an approach to administrative

law that integrates cases and context, and — if this author’s experience in the classroom

is any guide — this is especially instructive for students encountering the basic principles

of this field of law for the first time.

Contextual analysis, however, should not be limited to individual agencies; indeed —

to pursue the cultural analogy just this much further — modern cultural analysis does not

look for boundaries between cultures, but rather for cultural interconnections. Most

1 Throughout this book, citations are often omitted from the cases and articles excerpted.

2 Westwood, The Davis Treatise: Meaning to the Practitioner, 43 MINN. L. REV. 607, 611

(1959).


vi

agencies, despite their significant differences, perform a number of common

administrative functions. They gather information, formulate policy and then seek to

implement and enforce that policy. Moreover, as already pointed out, they carry out these

functions in the context of general historical and political forces that affect all institutions.

As we shall see, especially in the chapter on judicial review, administrative law is a lively

arena at the moment, as judges and law makers wrestle with the question of what may be

particular to an agency and its expertise, and what should be general to the system as a

whole, requiring close judicial scrutiny.

Thus, while acknowledging the importance of particular substantive agency

differences, this book focuses primarily on procedural issues that transcend individual

agencies. It focuses on the more general legal context — including various social,

political, and historical factors, as relevant — in which the key cases have arisen and

been resolved. Indeed, administrative law must be historically sensitive, given the law’s

emphasis on longstanding interpretations of statutes as central to the conceptual and

practical foundation of an agency’s independence. Different historical eras are typified by

different regulatory problems, different attitudes vis-à-vis the role government should

play in dealing with these problems, and, consequently, different approaches to

substantive regulation and procedure. For these same reasons, readers should not expect

the lines of doctrinal development to be straightforward (or straight, for that matter), as

administration law frequently finds its routes around doctrinal impasse (such as may

emerge from unexpected circumstances) by tacking back or sideways to doctrinal sources

some readers may have imagined to be no longer relevant.

Individual agencies have unique histories and ongoing developing characters that are

significantly affected by a number of contextual factors. Primary among these is the

historical background that gave rise to the creation of the particular agency in the first

place. Second, context includes the regulatory politics generated by an agency’s ongoing

attempts to carry out its statutory mandates in ever-changing political and economic

contexts. Closely related to these broad contextual factors, and perhaps most important of

all, is the nature of the agency’s particular substantive task. As Professors Gellhorn and

Robinson long ago noted, “administrative procedures and the administrative process are

ultimately related to the substance of administrative regulation.”3 Or, to paraphrase the

artist Ben Shahn, “form is the shape of content.”4

Shahn states an ideal. But in striving for that ideal, we cannot ignore the complex

political realities of which administrative law is but a part. The administrative process

and the law that it generates are very much products of a dialectical tension between

timeless constitutional doctrines and rational administrative principles, on the one hand,

and the demands for pragmatic governmental action constrained by politics in the historic

context of the moment, on the other. It is a complex mixture of rational political theories

and raw political hopes and fears. It reflects various attempts to deal collectively with a

wide range of societal problems, some of which may or may not be capable of resolution

by market processes or other non-state processes. Administrative law is often a bundle of

contradictions — in part reflecting the substantive and procedural contests involved in its

making. In this book, several key contradictions are in play: the value we place on

political process and yet our seeming inability to accept any finality when it comes to

3 Gellhorn & Robinson, Perspectives in Administrative Law, 75 COLUM. L. REV. 771, 787

(1975).

4 BEN SHAHN, THE SHAPE OF CONTENT 62 (Harv. Univ. Press 1957).


vii

results; our respect for the market but, at the same time, our continuing belief in the

efficacy of collective, pragmatic legal approaches to societal problems; our concern that

the common good of the group be achieved, but not at the expense of basic individual

rights.

Again, I emphasize that readers should not look to administrative law to resolve these

contradictions. Its primary role has been to give vent to their expression, and —

accordingly — the primary effect of the administrative system has been more obviously

procedural than substantive. However, procedure often encodes substantive values and

agendas, and debates over administrative procedures are a means by which substantive

conflicts are played out within agencies and in courts long after a law passes Congress

and has been signed by the president.

Understanding the subtleties of the interplay between substance and procedure is

crucial to understanding the role administrative law plays today. Privatization,

deregulation, regulatory cost efficiency, and regulatory forbearance — introduced as key

policy values with the national elections of the 1980s and the 90s — will be with us, in

one form or another, for the foreseeable future. Privatization (especially outsourcing) and

deregulation are fueled increasingly by global competition and a deepening global

regulatory discourse centered on efficiency (and, today, in some quarters, austerity).

Regulatory ends are now traded off against cost efficiency, and cost-consciousness

pervades the implementation of most regulatory programs today, particularly those

administered by the president and subject to Office of Management and Budget review. In

practice, this means that the government relies increasingly upon private actors to carry

out public functions. From welfare to prisons, from snow removal to garbage collection,

from military services to social services, from government sponsored health insurance

exchanges to private web designers, private providers now play a much greater role than

ever before. What is and what should be the role of administrative law in these contexts?

Do we need a new administrative law? These are among the central questions this book is

designed to help students answer for themselves.

Given the major changes occurring in our political global economy, administrative law

today is a key site for evidence of the adaptive capacity of government under the rule of

law. As we adapt to changing times, creative and imaginative approaches towards law

and policy will be evermore necessary. Understanding the basic principles set forth in this

book will help students build the intellectual foundation for their own future innovations

as legal professionals, thereby devising a new public law appropriate for sustaining

democratic government in a global era and whatever is coming next.

Bloomington, Indiana

February, 2014


viii

Acknowledgments

This book has benefited enormously from the conversations, comments, and other help

I have had from my colleagues at the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University,

especially Professors John Applegate, James Barnes, Yvonne Cripps, and Robert

Fischman. I also wish to thank Professors Paul Craig at Oxford University, and Elisabeth

Zoller, at the University of Paris II — both regular visitors to the Law School — as well

as colleagues at other institutions with whom I have been in close contact regarding the

issues in this book, in particular, Professor Alasdair Roberts at Suffolk University Law

School and Professor José Vida at Juan Carlos III University in Madrid. I am deeply

grateful for their comments, suggestions, and insights. I also wish to thank then Dean,

now Provost Lauren Robel, and Acting Dean Hannah Buxbaum for the institutional

support provided to me by the Maurer School of Law throughout this project.

I also wish to thank all of the librarians at the IU Maurer School of Law for their help

and expertise throughout this project. I wish to thank, in particular, Keith Buckley,

Assistant Director for Public Services, Michelle Botok, Electronic Services Librarian,

and especially, Jennifer Bryan Morgan, Documents Librarian and Director of the

Library’s U.S. government depository program.

This book has also benefited from the conscientious and thoughtful contributions of the

student research assistants who have worked on this project over the years, Kara Jensen

’11, Erica Oppenheimer ’12, John Fleming ’12, Jason Olson ’13, and Jillian Rountree

’13. As the book neared its conclusion, several students, in particular, were deeply

engaged in the exacting work of preparing the manuscript in its final form: Jake Davis

’14, Ryan Weiss ’14, and Scott Breen ’15, all contributed importantly in this regard right

up to the very end, when so many details needed to be addressed in short order.

I greatly appreciate the expert assistance of Law School staff: Stacy Kaiser, senior

faculty secretary, for her work on the many drafts of this manuscript, and Marian Conaty,

support technician, who solved the innumerable technical problems that called for her

special expertise.

I am deeply grateful to my wife, Carol Greenhouse, without whose help,

encouragement, and love, this book would not have been possible. She not only

encouraged in me the kind of patience a long project like this requires, but she provided

intellectual perspective, creative understanding, and stimulating questions along the way.

ix

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE

STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

§ 1.01 THREE QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

§ 1.02 RULES OR ORDERS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Londoner v. City and County of Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization of

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Notes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Problem 1-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Problem 1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Bowles v. Willingham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Notes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Problem 1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

§ 1.03 RULES, ORDERS, AND THEORIES OF PROCEDURE — SOME

PRELIMINARY REFLECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

[A] Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

[B] Red Light Theories of Administrative Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

[C] Green Light Theories of Administrative Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

[D] Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Aman, The Limits of Globalization and the Future of Administrative

Law: From Government to Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

PART ONE WITHIN AGENCY WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Chapter 2 DUE PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE

ADJUDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

§ 2.01 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

§ 2.02 THE RIGHT/PRIVILEGE DISTINCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Bailey v. Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32


Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42


§ 2.03 THE DEMISE OF THE RIGHT/PRIVILEGE DISTINCTION . . . . . . . . . 47

§ 2.04 DUE PROCESS, THE WAR ON POVERTY, AND THE NEW

PROPERTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Reich, The New Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Goldberg v. Kelly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52


xi

§ 2.05 REFINING THE DUE PROCESS METHODOLOGY: PROPERTY

AND LIBERTY INTERESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Perry v. Sindermann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75


Sandin v. Conner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89


Problem 2-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Problem 2-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

§ 2.06 DUE PROCESS AND WELFARE REFORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Reynolds v. Giuliani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Notes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

§ 2.07 HOW MUCH PROCESS IS DUE AND WHEN SHOULD IT BE

PROVIDED? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Mathews v. Eldridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109


Hamdi v. Rumsfeld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123


§ 2.08 CONFINING THE DUE PROCESS EXPLOSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Goss v. Lopez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Ingraham v. Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142


Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . 152


§ 2.09 THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE DISTINCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

[A] Due Process and Negative Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services . . . 170

Notes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

[B] Due Process and Healthcare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Schweiker v. McClure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Blum v. Yaretsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183


[C] Privatization and Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Problem 2-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Chapter 3 FORMAL ADJUDICATION AND THE

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

§ 3.01 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

§ 3.02 THE NEW DEAL AND THE APA: AN OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

HAWLEY, NEW DEAL AND THE PROBLEM OF MONOPOLY . . . . . . . . . . 196

Gellhorn, The Administrative Procedure Act: The Beginnings . . . . . . 201

Table of Contents

xii

Shapiro, APA: Past, Present, Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

§ 3.03 FORMAL ADJUDICATION AND THE APA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206


Dominion Energy Brayton Point v. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212


Problem 3-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

§ 3.04 PARTY STATUS AND INTERVENTION IN AN APA

PROCEEDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Envirocare of Utah, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and

United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Offıce of Communication of United Church of Christ v. Federal

Communications Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231


§ 3.05 EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

[A] Rules of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Calhoun v. Bailar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238


[B] Official Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Castillo-Villagra v. Immigration and Naturalization Service . . . . . . 242


[C] Burden of Proof, Burden of Production, and Burden of Persuasion . . . . 248

Director, Offıce of Workers’ Compensation Programs,

Department of Labor v. Greenwich Collieries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248


§ 3.06 THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF FORMAL

ADJUDICATION — COMBINATION OF FUNCTIONS

AND THE CONSTITUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

Withrow v. Larkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256


Problem 3-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Problem 3-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

Problem 3-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

§ 3.07 THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND AN UNBIASED

DECISIONMAKER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

Grolier, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267


Problem 3-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

§ 3.08 EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

Professional Air Traffıc Controllers Org. (PATCO) v. Federal Labor

Table of Contents

xiii

Relations Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276


§ 3.09 PRE-JUDGMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

ALFRED C. AMAN, JR. & WILLIAM T. MAYTON, ADMINISTRATIVE

LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc. v. Federal Trade

Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289


Problem 3-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

Chapter 4 INFORMAL AGENCY ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE

DISPUTE RESOLUTION TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

§ 4.01 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

§ 4.02 INFORMAL AGENCY ADJUDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

Camp v. Pitts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302


Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305


§ 4.03 ADMINISTRATIVE EQUITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

Aman, Jr., Administrative Equity: An Analysis of Exceptions to

Administrative Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

Chemical Manufacturers Association v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314


Kixmiller v. SEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320


Problem 4-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

Problem 4-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

Problem 4-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

§ 4.04 CONDITIONS AND COMMITMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

Aman, Bargaining for Justice: An Examination of the Use and

Limits of Conditions by the Federal Reserve Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

First Bancorporation v. Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330


Problem 4-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

§ 4.05 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . 334

[A] Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

[B] Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

United Municipal Distributors Group v. FERC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

Table of Contents

xiv


[C] Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Products Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342


Devine v. Pastore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349


[D] Other ADR Approaches and Their Critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

Harter, Points on a Continuum: Dispute Resolution Procedures

and the Administrative Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354

Edwards, Alternative Dispute Resolution: Panacea or

Anathema? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

Chapter 5 AGENCY RULEMAKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

§ 5.01 WHAT IS A RULE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359

Schauer, A Brief Note on the Logic of Rules, with Special

Reference to Bowen v. Georgetown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hospital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363

Arkema Inc. v. EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369


Industrial Safety Equipment Ass’n Inc. v. E.P.A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377


Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida v. Veneman . . . . . . . . . 381

§ 5.02 FORMAL AND INFORMAL RULES AND RULEMAKING

PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384

[A] Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384

[B] Informal Rulemaking Processes — Notice and Comment . . . . . . . . . . 386

Chocolate Mfrs. Ass’n of United States v. Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386


United States v. Nova Scotia Food Products Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393


Problem 5-1: E-Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404

Problem 5-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406

[C] Administrative Common Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources

Defense Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407


Problem 5-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

[D] Hybrid Rulemaking Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418

Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. Hodgson . . . . . . . . . . . 418


United States Steelworkers of America v. Marshall . . . . . . . . . . . . 428

Table of Contents

xv


[E] Negotiated Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440

USA Group Loan Services, Incorporated v. Riley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441


[F] Exceptions to Section 553 Rulemaking Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

American Hospital Assoc. v. Bowen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

Hoctor v. United States Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . 456


United States v. Reynolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463


Problem 5-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471

Problem 5-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472

§ 5.03 CHOOSING RULEMAKING OR ADJUDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473

[A] Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473

[B] The Power to Choose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473

SEC v. Chenery Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473

National Labor Relations Board v. Bell Aerospace Company . . . . . 482


[C] The Need for and Agency Use of Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488

Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Campbell . . . . 488

Allison v. Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493


PART TWO LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL

CONTROL OF AGENCY DISCRETION: OUTSIDE

THE WALLS OF THE AGENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501

Chapter 6 LEGISLATIVE CONTROL OF AGENCY

DISCRETION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503

§ 6.01 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503

§ 6.02 LEGISLATIVE INFLUENCE OVER AGENCY DISCRETION:

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503

Pillsbury Co. v. FTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504


§ 6.03 ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509


§ 6.04 THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528


Table of Contents

xvi

§ 6.05 THE NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE SINCE PANAMA AND

SCHECHTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534

§ 6.06 NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE REVIVAL? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537

Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum

Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537


Problem 6-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551

Problem 6-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

Mistretta v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554


Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561


§ 6.07 DELEGATING LEGISLATIVE POWER TO PRIVATE ACTORS . . . . 569

Association of American Railroads v. United States Department of

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570


§ 6.07 OUTSOURCING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579

AMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FOR A NEW CENTURY . . . . . . . . . . . . 580

Richardson v. McKnight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581


Problem 6-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594

§ 6.08 DELEGATING LEGISLATIVE POWER TO INTERNATIONAL

ACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Environmental Protection

Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595


§ 6.09 THE DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL POWER: ARTICLE III . . . . . . . . 601

Pound, Administration of Justice in the Modern City . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602


LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603

§ 6.10 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION AND JURY TRIALS . . . . . . . . 605

Atlas Roofing, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review

Comm’n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605


Problem 6-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611

§ 6.11 THE RETURN OF CROWELL v. BENSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611

Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. . . . . . 612


Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622


Stern v. Marshall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633


Table of Contents

xvii

Chapter 7 EXECUTIVE CONTROL OF AGENCY

DISCRETION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645

§ 7.01 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645

AMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN A GLOBAL ERA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 646

§ 7.02 CONTROLLING SPENDING: THE LINE ITEM VETO . . . . . . . . . . . 649

Clinton v. City of New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649


§ 7.03 THE POWER TO APPOINT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662

Buckley v. Valeo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662

Morrison v. Olson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669


§ 7.04 THE POWER TO REMOVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681

Humphrey’s Executor v. United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681


Morrison v. Olson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689


Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight

Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697


§ 7.05 EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT: EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND THE

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716


LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716

Croley, White House Review of Agency Rulemaking: An Empirical

Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718


§ 7.06 EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL PARTICIPATION IN

AGENCY RULEMAKING PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 730

Sierra Club v. Costle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731


§ 7.07 OMB AND THE DATA QUALITY ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738


§ 7.08 OMB AND PRIVATIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741


Chapter 8 JUDICIAL CONTROL OF AGENCY DISCRETION . . . 747

§ 8.01 OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747

§ 8.02 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF QUESTIONS OF FACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749

O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749


Table of Contents

xviii

§ 8.03 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FINDINGS OF FACT — THE

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754

Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754


§ 8.04 QUESTIONS OF LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763

National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. . . . . . . . 765


Skidmore v. Swift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772


§ 8.05 THE CHEVRON REVOLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775

Chevron v. NRDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776


Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca . . . . . . . 789


Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco

Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795


§ 8.06 CHEVRON STEP TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811

Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United

States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 812


Chemical Manufacturers Association and Cement Kiln Re-Cycling

Coalition, Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency,

Respondent; Environmental Technology Council, Inc.,

Intervenor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818

§ 8.07 WHEN CHEVRON DOES NOT APPLY: TYPES AND DEGREES

OF DEFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820

United States v. Mead Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821


Barnhart v. Walton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837


Gonzales v. Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843


City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission . . . 853


National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X

Internet Services, et al.; Federal Communications Commission

and United States v. Brand X Internet Services, et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . 859


Problem 8-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868

§ 8.08 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY RULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869

[A] The Arbitrary and Capricious Standard of Review and the Rational

Table of Contents

xix

Basis Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 869

[B] The Hard Look Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870

AMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN A GLOBAL ERA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. v. State Farm Mutual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872


FCC v. Fox Television Studios, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885


Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. NRDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896


Chapter 9 THE AVAILABILITY AND TIMING OF JUDICIAL

REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903

§ 9.01 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 903

§ 9.02 APA EXCLUSIONS FROM JUDICIAL REVIEW: “COMMITTED

TO AGENCY DISCRETION BY LAW” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904

Heckler v. Chaney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 905


Webster v. Doe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912

Lincoln v. Vigil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 918


§ 9.03 WHO HAS STANDING TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW? . . . . . . . . . . 923

Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp . . . . . 924


[A] Constitutional Standing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929

Allen v. Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 929


Problem 9-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 936

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937


Friends of the Earth, Incorporated v. Laidlaw Environmental

Services (TOC), Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949


Problem 9-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 958

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . 958


[B] STANDING STATUTES: PRUDENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . 972

United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v.

Brown Group, Inc., DBA Brown Shoe Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 972


§ 9.04 WHEN SHOULD JUDICIAL REVIEW OCCUR? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977

[A] Finality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977

Table of Contents

xx

Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. of California . . . . . 977


Problem 9-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982

[B] Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982

Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 983


[C] Ripeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986

Toilet Goods Association v. Gardner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990


[D] Primary Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998

Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 998

[E] Mootness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004

§ 9.05 THE PROPER FORUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005

Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. F.C.C. . . . . . . . . 1006


Chapter 10 OPEN GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013

§ 10.01 OPEN GOVERNMENT — INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013


LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1013

§ 10.02 THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014

[A] Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1014

[B] Defining Agency and Agency Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017

Forsham v. Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1017

United States Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts . . . . . . . . . . . 1022

Notes and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1026

Problem 10-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029

[C] FOIA Exemptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029

King v. U.S. Dept. of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029

Glen Scott Milner v. Department of the Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1036

Center for National Security Studies v. U.S. Department of

Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1044


[D] Reverse FOIA Suits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058

Chrysler Corp. v. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1058


§ 10.03 THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065


Byrd v. United States Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . 1070

Table of Contents

xxi


Problem 10-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1075

§ 10.04 GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076

Common Cause v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . 1076


§ 10.05 THE PRIVACY ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084

Tijerina v. Walters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1086


APPENDIX A THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA (Selected Provisions) . . . . . . . . 1097

APPENDIX B FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

ACT UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 5

(Selected Provisions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1103

APPENDIX C FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT UNITED

STATES CODE, TITLE 5, CHAPTER 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119

TABLE OF CASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TC-1

INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Table of Contents

xxii