Legislation and Regulation 2018 | jgersen | January 19, 2018

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

Legislation and Regulation 2018

Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen Show/Hide
  1. 1 Show/Hide More Introduction
    Original Creator: jgersen

    1. 1.1 Show/Hide More Robert M. Cover — "Violence and the Word"
      pp. 1601; 1605-09, 1613-15, 1618-19, 1626-29
  2. 2 Show/Hide More Structure
    Original Creator: jgersen

    1. 2.1 Show/Hide More Delegation & Nondelegation
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 2.1.1 Show/Hide More Whitman v. American Trucking Assns.
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
        Whitman v. American Trucking Assns.
    2. 2.3 Show/Hide More Powell v. McCormack
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
  3. 3 Show/Hide More Legislation
    Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    1. 3.1 Show/Hide More Legislative Process
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 3.1.1 Show/Hide More Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      2. 3.1.2 Show/Hide More I.N.S. v. Chadha
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
  4. 4 Show/Hide More Legislators
    Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    1. 4.1 Show/Hide More U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    2. 4.2 Show/Hide More Michel v. Anderson
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    3. 4.3 Show/Hide More Gravel v. United States
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    4. 4.4 Show/Hide More United States v. Helstoski
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    5. 4.5 Show/Hide More U.S. v. Rayburn House Office Building
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      U.S. v. Rayburn House Office Building
  5. 5 Show/Hide More Interpretation
    Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    1. 5.1 Show/Hide More Interpretive Theory & Method Theory
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    2. 5.2 Show/Hide More Purpose & Absurdity
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 5.2.1 Show/Hide More Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      2. 5.2.2 Show/Hide More U.S. v. Marshall
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    3. 5.3 Show/Hide More Textualism and Linguistic Canons
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 5.3.2 Show/Hide More Nix v. Hedden
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
        Nix v. Hedden is a classic of staturoy interpretation.  It presents the court squarely with the age-old question in life and law: is the tomato a fruit or a vegetable?
    4. 5.4 Show/Hide More Substantive Canons
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 5.4.1 Show/Hide More McBoyle v. United States
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      2. 5.4.2 Show/Hide More Gregory v. Ashcroft
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      3. 5.4.3 Show/Hide More NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    5. 5.5 Show/Hide More Stare Decisis & Retroactivity
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 5.5.1 Show/Hide More Flood v. Kuhn
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      2. 5.5.2 Show/Hide More Landgraf v. USI Film Products
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    6. 5.6 Show/Hide More Supreme Court Oral Argument
      Original Creator: Jeannie Suk Current Version: jgersen
      Here you will find materials for the mock oral argument exercise of Voisine v. United States, scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on February 29, 2016.  
      1. 5.6.1 Show/Hide More US v. Voisine
        Original Creator: Jeannie Suk Current Version: jgersen
  6. 6 Show/Hide More Agencies
    Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    1. 6.1 Show/Hide More Appointments & Removals
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 6.1.1 Show/Hide More Myers v. United States
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      2. 6.1.2 Show/Hide More Humphrey's Executor v. United States
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      3. 6.1.3 Show/Hide More Buckley v. Valeo
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      4. 6.1.4 Show/Hide More Landry v. FDIC
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      5. 6.1.5 Show/Hide More Morrison v. Olson
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    2. 6.2 Show/Hide More Internal Separation of Powers
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 6.2.2 Show/Hide More Withrow v. Larkin
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 6.3.1 Show/Hide More Londoner v. City and County of Denver
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      2. 6.3.3 Show/Hide More U.S. v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    3. 6.4 Show/Hide More Informal Rulemaking
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 6.4.2 Show/Hide More U.S. v. Nova Scotia Food Products Corp.
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    4. 6.5 Show/Hide More Exemptions & Exceptions
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 6.5.1 Show/Hide More Community Nutrition Institute v. Young
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
         

        1. Legislative Rules.  As the court notes, section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act requires certain minimal procedural steps prior to the issuance of a new rule of regulation.  In short, the agency must publish a Notice, take Public Comments, and issue a Concise Statement of Basis and Purpose accompanying the final rule.  This process is known as “informal rulemaking” because it does not utilize the Formal Rulemaking procedures specified in sections 556 and 557 of the APA, procedures that closely resemble a judicial trial with the presentation of evidence, cross-examination, and the like.   Section 553 contains an exception for, inter alia, “interpretative rules and general statements of policy.”  Because most rules also interpret, courts have been left to struggle with whether a particular agency document is a policy statement or interpretative rule that is exempt from notice and comment requirements or a “substantive” or “legislative” rule for which such procedures are required.  Is the FDA’s action level properly classified as a legislative rule or an exempt interpretation or policy statement? 
        2. Agencies and the APA. The APA contains a set of default procedural requirements for administrative agencies.  If an agency’s organic or creating statute (the statute granting the agency legal authority) says nothing about how the agency may exercise its power, then the APA applies.  Sometimes, however, Congress builds specific procedural requirements into an agency’s organic statute.  In that case, the specific requirements trump the default requirements.  Such is the case with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the FDCA.   
        3. Blending In Part II of the court’s opinion, it considered the blending problem. FDA has sometimes granted exemptions so that contaminated corn can be blended with uncontaminated corn to bring the total level of aflatoxin contamination below the action level.  Consumer groups argued that the corn is properly deemed adulterated.  The court agreed, but concluded that FDA maintains discretion about whether to initiate an enforcement proceeding for any adulterated food.  Because decisions about whether to enforce a particular legal obligation against a particular party is nearly unreviewable by courts, the legal conclusion that blended corn is adulterated carried no legal remedy for petitioners. Is there anything to stop FDA from deciding to never initiate enforcement proceedings against foods all parties agree are adulterated?  If not, is there something amiss with the legal regime?  Or, is this simply an inevitable feature of agency discretion about when and against whom to enforce legal obligations?
        4. Judge Starr. What is Judge Starr’s disagreement with the majority? What doctrinal test does he propose to distinguish substantive rules from policy statements? Is his test easy to administer than the smog that the majority offers? 
        5. The FDA & the APA. The FDA has continued to rely on guidance documents—facially non-binding policy statements and interpretative rules to announce agency positions and its interpretation of what is required of regulated parties.  Is policy by guidance desirable?  How ought we analyze these questions in the context of food policy?  Consider that conditions in the food industry are often changing rapidly and guidance offers the agency flexibility and speed when necessary.  By the same token, because guidance is generally issued without a transparent process of public notice, comment, and agency response, it means agency views often reflect limited input from the public. Does the majority in CNI II exacerbate or ameliorate this problem?    
      2. 6.5.2 Show/Hide More Hoctor v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    5. 6.6 Show/Hide More Adjudication & Choice
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 6.6.2 Show/Hide More Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. Costle
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      2. 6.6.3 Show/Hide More SEC v. Chenery Corp.
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      3. 6.6.4 Show/Hide More SEC v. Chenery Corp.
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      4. 6.6.5 Show/Hide More NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co.
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    6. 6.7 Show/Hide More Cost Benefit and Executive Review
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen

    1. 7.1 Show/Hide More Review of Fact
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 7.1.1 Show/Hide More Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      2. 7.1.3 Show/Hide More Iao v. Gonzales
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    2. 7.2 Show/Hide More Review of Law
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 7.2.1 Show/Hide More NLRB v. Hearst Publications, Inc.
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      2. 7.2.2 Show/Hide More Skidmore v. Swift & Co
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      3. 7.2.4 Show/Hide More U.S. v. Mead Corp.
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    3. 7.3 Show/Hide More Review of Policy
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 7.3.2 Show/Hide More Judulang v. Holder
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    4. 7.4 Show/Hide More Due Process I (When)
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 7.4.1 Show/Hide More Londoner v. City and County of Denver
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      2. 7.4.3 Show/Hide More Goldberg v. Kelly
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      3. 7.4.4 Show/Hide More Board of Regents v. Roth
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      4. 7.4.5 Show/Hide More Perry v. Sindermann
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    5. 7.5 Show/Hide More Due Process II (How Much)
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 7.5.1 Show/Hide More Mathews v. Eldridge
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    6. 7.6 Show/Hide More Preclusion of Judicial Review
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 7.6.1 Show/Hide More Block v. Community Nutrition Institute
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
        The parties challenging the decision in Nova Scotia Food were producers directly affected by the agency's regulation. That is, the plaintiffs were so-called “objects of the regulation.” Directly regulated parties like these rarely have difficulty meeting the requirements for standing to sue. What if the agency had specified safety requirements for botulism that consumers felt were not stringent enough? Would those consumers have standing? Would those consumers have a valid cause of action for bringing suit? This next case grapples with these challenges.
      2. 7.6.3 Show/Hide More Webster v. Doe
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    7. 7.7 Show/Hide More Literature & Frontiers
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
      1. 7.7.5 Show/Hide More Gonzales v. Oregon
        Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
  7. 8 Show/Hide More Due Process and Not
    Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen

    1. 8.1 Show/Hide More Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
    2. 8.2 Show/Hide More NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co.
      Original Creator: jgersen Current Version: jgersen
Close

Playlist Information

January 19, 2018

Author Stats

jgersen

Jacob Gersen

Other Playlists by jgersen

Find Items

Search below to find items, then drag and drop items onto playlists you own. To add items to nested playlists, you must first expand those playlists.

SEARCH
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large