getting into court l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Getting into Court PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Getting into Court

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 31

Getting into Court - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Getting into Court. Last week we talked about the statutes that provide jurisdiction to get into court at all If you can get into court, then there are three more hurdles: Preclusion - has Congress limited judicial review of certain matters?

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Getting into Court

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
getting into court
Getting into Court
  • Last week we talked about the statutes that provide jurisdiction to get into court at all
  • If you can get into court, then there are three more hurdles:
    • Preclusion - has Congress limited judicial review of certain matters?
    • Standing - does your client have the right interest to bring the case?
    • Exhaustion of remedies - are you finished with the agency?
basic constitutional question unresolved
Basic Constitutional Question - Unresolved
  • Except for certain cases which the Constitution gives to the United States Supreme Court, all of the jurisdiction of the federal courts was granted by Congress
  • Can Congress take away long-standing jurisdiction?
  • Can Congress take away jurisdiction over basic constitutional rights like habeas corpus?
preclusion of judicial review
Preclusion of Judicial Review
  • What is the effect of precluding judicial review?
    • Is this favored by the courts?
  • Where does Matthews v. Eldridge come in?
  • When would you expect the courts to be most open to preclusion of review?
when is preclusion a good policy
When is Preclusion a Good Policy?
  • The president's decision to accept or reject a list of base closings
  • An agency's decision to quit funding a health program out of lump sum appropriations
  • An agency's refusal to reconsider its own decisions
  • The CIA director's decision to fire an employee when the statute says he can do so whenever such termination is necessary or advisable in the interests of the united states
    • (the decision was reviewable on constitutional grounds)
what are you really asking the court to review
What are You Really Asking the Court to Review?
  • The key in cases where preclusion is an issue is what you really want reviewed.
  • Is it a fact found by the agency?
  • An exercise of agency discretion?
  • Whether the agency is acting beyond its legal authority?
  • Whether the agency is acting constitutionally?
statutory limits on judicial review
Statutory Limits on Judicial Review
  • The courts read statutory limits on judicial review very narrowly
    • Abbott stated the modern policy
    • There should be agency review unless the statute clearly precludes review
  • Even when the statute seems to preclude review, the courts will often allow review anyway.
bowen v michigan academy of family physicians
Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians
  • Dispute over the policy on the payment rate for Medicare Claims
    • Individual claims are decided by private contractors called fiscal intermediaries
    • Why did congress preclude review of individual claims decisions?
  • What is the Matthews analysis?
  • What is the distinction between reviewing the regs and reviewing the individual claims?
limiting review of regulations
Limiting Review of Regulations
  • Congress can put a statute of limitations on the review of regs
    • Often 60 days
    • What if do not know about the applicability of the reg until later?
  • What cannot be precluded?
committed to agency discretion
Committed to Agency Discretion
  • The statute may also preclude judicial review by committing the matter to agency discretion
  • This is a broad limitation on review and is construed narrowly.
classic examples
Classic Examples
  • Prosecutorial discretion
    • Can you sue prosecutors to force them to bring prosecutions?
    • Can you think of a possible exception?
  • Agency enforcement decisions
  • What was the prisoner’s claim in Heckler v. Chaney?
    • (Court could have dodged on a medical practice argument)
  • What will you have to show to get a court to force action?
modern formulation for committed to agency discretion no law to apply
Modern Formulation for Committed to Agency Discretion: No Law to Apply
  • Judicial review must be based on some standard
    • Constitutional cases are decided by reference to the constitution
    • Chevron cases are decided by looking at the enabling act giving the agency power
  • If the agency action satisfies both of these, then further review depends on finding criteria to evaluate the agency action
agency discretion implies freedom to decide
Agency Discretion Implies Freedom to Decide
  • Why is the problem of no law to apply the real reason why the courts do not review discretionary actions?
  • This is the key to discretion cases, esp. cases like Heckler v Chaney, where there is no statute or regulation to set the standard of conduct
  • Why does this make it nearly impossible to review an agency's discretionary failure to act?
what can you do if the agency claims it does not have to act
What Can You Do if the Agency Claims it does not have to Act?
  • (i) is it really discretionary?
  • (ii) is it based on a erroneous legal determination?
  • (iii) does the statute allow a private right of action against the regulated party, say for adverse health effects?
  • (iv) you can petition the agency to promulgate a rule requiring the action
  • (v) use political power to force the agency to act
the constitutional minimum for standing case or controversy
The Constitutional minimum for standing - Case or Controversy
  • 1) injury in fact that is
    • a) concrete and particularized and
    • b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical
  • 2) causal connection between the injury and conduct complained of, it must not be due to the action of some third party not before the court
  • 3) it must be likely, not speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision
702 right of review
§ 702. Right of review
  • A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action,
  • or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute,
  • is entitled to judicial review thereof.
injury in fact and zone of interest tests
Injury in Fact and Zone of Interest Tests
  • How personal does the injury have to be?
  • This is the core of many environmental actions, but is also a key issue in the business world
    • Should Sun have the right to contest an FTC settlement with Microsoft?
association of data processing service orgs v camp
Association of Data Processing Service Orgs. V. Camp
  • Comptroller of the Currency allowed national banks to offer data processes services.
  • Plaintiffs, who represent other data processors, claim this violates the national bank act
  • First question - is there injury in fact?
second question is this interest within the zone of interests meant to be protected by the law
Second question - is this interest within the zone of interests meant to be protected by the law?
  • APA 702 - "aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute"
  • Must the injury be economic?
    • Flast - - first amendment challenges to school prayer
  • What is the statutory issue?
    • The act says banks can only do banking services for banks
    • Could be to protect bank customers, not competitors of banks
what does the court say about the purpose of the statute
What does the court say about the purpose of the statute?
  • Does give standing to competitors since it directly implicates their business
    • Could the court have decided this differently?
  • Doesn’t every regulation that affects a business also affects its competitors?
third question has judicial review been precluded
Third question - has judicial review been precluded?
  • Preclusion is an extreme result
  • The court will seldom find that review is precluded unless it is specifically provided for by the statute
  • No preclusion provisions in the national bank act
air courier v american postal workers union
Air Courier v. American Postal Workers Union
  • Private Express Statute - Gives USPS a monopoly on first class mail
  • USPS wants to suspend it to allow courier services like Fed Ex
  • Union fights this, says it will reduce jobs in the USPS
why is the date the act was passed important to determining congressional intent
Why is the date the act was passed important to determining Congressional intent?
  • Act was passed in 1792 - no postal workers
  • What did the court determine was the purpose of the act?
  • Why was this an important purpose?
  • Were the postal workers in the zone of interest?
does congress or the constitution control zone of interest corrected
Does Congress or the Constitution Control Zone of Interest? (corrected)
  • Congress can control this aspect of standing, making it broad or narrow in the enabling act
  • If Congress is silent, then 702 controls
how was this illustrated in sierra club v morton 1972
How was this illustrated in Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)?
  • The Sierra club cannot sue to preserve historic values just because it is interested in them.
  • Must show that a member has independent standing
what did congress do with standing in the endangered species act
What did Congress do with standing in the Endangered Species Act?
  • Allowed "any citizen" to sue to enjoin certain actions under the act
  • What was the effect of this provision on the zone of interest test?
    • Court said this abolished the zone of interest test in these situations
  • Zone of interest is more difficult for the courts to determine than injury in fact
lujan v defenders of wildlife
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
  • Plaintiff went to Sri Lanka and saw endangered animals and was upset and they want to go back and see the animals again
  • Plaintiffs argue ecosystem standing
    • Everything is connected together so everyone has standing
  • Does the court buy this?
animal law
Animal Law
  • Should animals have standing?
  • What about very smart monkeys?
  • What about people who empathize with animals?
    • Rat Case
  • Could Congress grant animals standing, with a guardian ad litem, perhaps?
  • Could Louisiana?
  • What are the requirements for an association to have standing?
    • a) at least one of their members has standing
    • b) the interests the association seeks to protect are germane to the association's purpose
    • c) neither the claim nor the relief requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
  • Why is this critical for civil rights and environmental groups?
tax payer actions
Tax Payer Actions
  • Most states allow tax payers to contest what they claim are illegal expenditures of tax funds
  • Do the federal courts?
    • The feds do not, except in very narrow circumstances
  • Why not?
    • Would be a vehicle for contesting all government action
standing of government agencies
Standing of Government Agencies
  • In state law, many states allow agencies to contest the rulings of other agencies.
    • AG's Office in LA
  • Federal agencies can do the same only if there is specific statutory authorization
    • Otherwise, "an agency in its governmental capacity is not "adversely affected or aggrieved" by other agency regulations.
  • This driven by the different separation of powers issues in states v. the feds