Reviewability of Agency Action Flashcards
1
Q
Admin Law and Role of Gov
A
- how you think of role of gov determines what constraints should be placed around government actions
- policymaker also need to know how to leverage APA mechanisms to further their vision of government
- Block’s conception - Income inequality is bad; public space should be generous and robust and attentive to needs of most vulnerable
- Opposite view - Economy and democracy work best when companies are empowered to make decisions for businesses without stranglehold of APA
- theoretically, admin law can be used to achieve a variety of substantive outcomes
- pros and cons of process - legitimacy + rule of law, but delay
2
Q
Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife - Background
A
- Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) divides responsibility for protecting endangered species between the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce.
- Federal agencies must consult with one or the other Secretary when funding an action that might jeopardize the existence or habitat of any endangered or threatened species.
- The Secretaries initially promulgated a joint regulation interpreting § 7(a)(2) to apply to actions taken in foreign nations; then, they jointly revised the rule to limit the section’s geographic scope to the United States and the high seas. Wildlife conservation and other environmental organizations sued, claiming that the revised rule misinterpreted the statute.
3
Q
Lujan - Facts Re Standing
A
- pls had affidavits said they’d seen certain endangered species abroad before + would like to visit again, but risk that Secretary’s action would damage the species (allow certain projects to go forward that might not otherwise)
4
Q
Lujan - Summary of Standing Test
A
3 factors:
(i) a “concrete and particularized” injury that is “actual and imminent,” as opposed to speculative;
(ii) a causal connection establishing that the injury is “fairly traceable” to the conduct being challenged; and
(iii) a likelihood that a favorable decision would redress the injury
5
Q
Lujan and Citizen Suit Provisions
A
- Congress is allowed to create citizen suit provisions, but doing so doesn’t get you past standing automatically
-> Congress can’t create standing because it’s a constitutional requirement (Article III)
6
Q
Lujan - Dissent
A
- to some extent, arguing that Congress should be able to grant plaintiffs standing if it wants to do so
- procedural rights and standing - Congress creates certain procedural rights to make sure executive attends to certain problems -> dissent argues can’t expect Congress to say what should happen in every circumstances, so Congress creates procedures to make sure exec has to think about certain things at least
-> If you can only sue when you’re injured by the thing itself, public won’t be able to hold the executive accountable for failing to follow those procedures
7
Q
Wha can Congress do if Executive fails to follow statutory directive?
A
- wouldn’t automatically have standing - still need to be able to show particularized + concrete injury, the only exception is when one of the bodies sues to enforce demands for info (SCOTUS has apparently decided this question)
- would need to use its other measures (hearings, oversight, appropriations, investigations)
8
Q
Massachusetts v. EPA - Standing
A
- three-part analysis with “special solicitude” for states
- complexity issue - small incremental step is enough (don’t need to be fixing the entire problem, just need to show outcome will impact the problem)
- causation - looking at broader path- not regulating auto emissions means more GHGs -> more global warming -> more sea level rise + coastal erosion
9
Q
Massachusetts v. EPA - Dissent
A
- very unhappy – focuses on causation (link between emissions, GHGs, + global warming + impacts too complex – lots of other emissions + other things happening in climate)
- Prof noted can’t really challenge refusal to tackle big problems if dissent prevailed, but I think that was precisely Scalia’s goal
10
Q
United States v TX - Facts
A
- 2023
- TX + LA suing Biden Admin over guidelines for enforcement of civil immigration laws (directed ICE to prioritize removal of non-citizens who are suspected terrorists or criminals, or those who’ve entered recently)
- TX + LA were arguing they need to spend more $ incarcerating people ICE doesn’t prioritize + therefore injured
11
Q
United States v TX - Decision
A
- ct holds no standing
- BUT super weird - applying history + tradition concepts (did not discuss in detail in class)
- Court says $ is cognizable injury, but this injury doesn’t cut it here – history + tradition test applied to redressability (can’t try to control executive enforcement in this manner)
- Plaintiffs need to show they’re injury is one that is traditionally redressable by the courts (mushing together injury and redressability)
- Pls haven’t shown history/trad to show states can order exec to change its arrest and prosecution policies
- Gorsuch upset they’re not engaging w/ Mass v EPA + special solicitude of states
12
Q
Associational Standing
A
- org can establish standing when its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right
- needs to be germane to the org’s purpose + neither the relief requested nor injury asserted requires members’ participation in the lawsuit
13
Q
Prudential Standing
A
- imposed by §702 of APA in addition to Article III -> the interests sought to be protected by the pl must arguably be within the zone of interests that Congress intended to protect or regulate with the statute in question
- to the extent there’s a gap between Article III and APA, Congress can close that gap and say in a particular statute that it wants to go all the way up to the Article III standing
14
Q
Bennett v. Spear
A
- court found pls could meet Article III standing in fact, + then said that through citizen suit provision Congress could confer standing to full application allowed + preclude application of the prudential standing requirement (note to self that this was dependent on language of citizen suit provision)
15
Q
FDA Mifepristone Case + Standing
A
- 5th Circuit affirmed district court’s finding that doctors who’d never prescribed the drug had standing – relied on doctors’ assertion that they suffered from psychological harm from possibility that they might have to participate in medical procedures resulting from other doctors having prescribed mifepristone
- Courts have generally been reluctant to find that psychological harm from potential events constitutes harm to convey standing
- Prof said from the argument, it seems possible court will have something to say about standing soon – she thinks if they find standing here, it would mark a significant expansion of standing doctrine (she thinks they may resolve it by finding no standing)
