Introduction to Administrative Law

Question 1

Reviewing Arbitrary Rules: State Farm rule

Answer 1

1. Agency must examine all relevant data
2. Agency must articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action. Four basic questions:
   a. Is the explanation so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise?
   b. Did the agency “entirely fail to cover an important aspect of the problem?”
   c. Did the explanation run counter to the evidence before the agency?
   d. Did the agency rely on the factors Congress did not intended it to rely on?

Question 2

Reviewing Arbitrary Rules: DACA rule

Answer 2

1. The court is not to substitute its judgement for that of the agency. Factors considered:
   a. Did the agency clearly consider the relevant factors
   b. Did the agency make a clear error in judgement

Question 3

Reviewing Arbitrary Rules: Census case rule

Answer 3

Basic questions to ask:

1. Has the agency examined the relevant data?
2. Has the agency articulated a satisfactory conclusion?
3. Does the agency’s explanation have a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made?
4. Has the agency been influence by political considerations?
   a. If so, courts need not strike down rules, as most rules are informed to some extent by political considerations.
5. Is there a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior?
   a. If so, additional judicial inquiry may be warranted.

Question 4

Administrative Adjudication, Informal Adjudication, Guidances, and Inaction: Mass v. EPA: Inaction

Answer 4

Statutory ambiguity cannot prevent an agency from taking action and issuing regulations - here, ambiguity as to whether greenhouse gas emissions qualified under the provision should not have deterred the agency because the terms of the statute were “capacious” - Agency needs some “reasonable” explanation as to why it cannot continue.

Question 5

Administrative Adjudication, Informal Adjudication, Guidances, and Inaction: FCC rule: change

Answer 5

Agency must provide a “reasoned” explanation for its changed position

1. It cannot stay silent or change its position without any consideration for the prior position.
2. Must show that there are good reasons for the change.
3. It need not, however, demonstrate that these reasons are “better” than those reasons supporting the old policy.
4. In some cases, it must provide more evidence and support (than would be required for a wholly new policy), and in some cases it wouldn’t need to present as much evidence as that required for a new policy.