Final Exam Flashcards
Due Process Sources
Two Step Procedure
1. Does Due Process Apply? (3 Questions)
2. How Much Process Is Due?
Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments
- State Action
- Deprivation of
- Rights: Life, Liberty, or Property (Old or New)
New Property Interests
Requirement
Entitlement - More than a unilateral expectation of a benefit.
Due Process
Six Features of “Process”
-Source
Goldberg’s Outline of Process (Welfare Benefits)
- Notice
- Pre-Hearing (or Post)
- Impartial Decision Maker
- Reasons for Determination
- Cross Examination
- Legal Counsel (Furnished)
- Oral Presentation of Evidence
Roth and Sinderman Cases, Goldberg
Professor Jobs, Pre-Tenure
Roth: No Property Right
Sinderman: Property Right (Implied)
Bitter with the Sweet Approach
Effect and Validity
Combines the Substance (Property Interest) with Procedure (Controlling “Process”).
-Would allow government to confer a right and then limit how the applicable procedure for its enforcement.
Validity: Loudermill (post-termination hearing for discharged state employee) rejected this combination.
Reputational Harm Test (Liberty Interest)
Stigma-Plus: Change in Status & Rights
How Much Process Is Due?
Source of Test and Three Factors
Mathews v. Eldridge
- Private Interest Affected
- Risk of Erroneous Deprivation/Probable Value of Additional Procedure
- Accuracy - Governmental Interest
How Much Process Is Due?
Four Cases
Goldberg (Welfare Benefits): Greatest Process because of Personal Capacity, Highest Interest (Sustenance) & Individual Contribution (person has info to submit).
- Pre-Termination Hearing
- Oral Hearing
Hamdi (Enemy Combatant Determination): High or Medium Process. Strong Personal Interest & High Risk of Error (Secret Determination). (Weak Case, Much Division in SCOTUS).
-Neutral Decision Maker
Eldridge (Disability Benefits): Medium Process because Personal Interest not inherently high (no financial determination made) and Low Probable Value of Procedure (because of Medical Records)
-Post-Termination Hearing
Ingraham (School Spanking): Lowest Process because Court considered harm De Minimis and Low Risk of Error.
-Common Law Remedy = Sufficient
Londoner-BiMetallic Distinction
3 Factors, Effect, and 3 Cases
Act is Adjudicative in Nature if:
- Affects Small Number of People
- Individuals are Specially Affected
- Decision Based on Individual Facts, NOT Policy
- Londoner (Adjudicatory): Hearing granted where special assessment for specific street concerned a few people.
- BiMetallic (Rulemaking): No hearing where taxes were uniformly increased (on
- Anaconda (Rulemaking): Affected only one company, but was a policy decision (Clean Air Act).
APA Sections on Rulemaking & Adjudication
Two Types of Each and Requirements
DEVELOP FURTHER
Rulemaking
- Formal (555, 556, 557): On the Record
- Informal (553): Notice & Comment
Adjudication
- Formal (554, 556, 557): On the Record
- Informal (555)
Standing Requirements
- 3 Constitutional Requirements
- 3 Prudential Considerations
Constitutional: Case or Controversy requires:
- Injury in Fact (Personal, Concrete, Actual/Imminent)
- Including Aesthetic (Lujan) or Increased Risk (Mass. v. EPA) - Fairly Traceable
- Redressable
- Causation and Redressability may be ignored if suing to enforce a Procedural Right RELATED to a substantive right (Lujan).
Prudential:
- No Generalized Grievances
- No Raising Third Party’s Rights
- Zone of Interest of Law Invoked
Allen vs. Wright
(Tax Breaks for Racist Schools)
Holding and 3 Points
Standing: Court found No Standing (Not Redressable)
- Cannot ask the government to follow the law.
- Found inability to attend desecrated schools a real injury, but an Un-Redressable one.
- Cited Separation of Powers consideration and that it was unclear whether removal of tax breaks would have an affect.
FEC v. Akins
Election Disclosures
Standing: No Requirement to Differentiate Injury
-Redressability: Even if FEC comes to same conclusion (no disclosure required), it must use same procedure.
-Enforcement Action: Court rejects because statute provided for judicial review.
ADSPO v. Camp
Prohibition on Bank Services
Standing: Zone of Interest was also satisfied.
-Court looked to APA 702 (any person aggrieved may challenge an agency’s action).
Heckler v. Chaney
FDA & Death Row Prisoners
Inaction & Enforcement Decisions are Presumptively Unreviewable
- Traditional Prosecutorial Discretion
- Agency’s Awareness of its Capacity/Abilities
- No Use of Coercive Power
Rebuttable if:
- Agency refuses action “Solely” because it believes it lacks jurisdiction.
- Conscious & Express adoption of a policy that is so extreme as to constitute an abdication of its responsibilities.
