Hyper-Micro Topics in Federal Agencies
Hyper-Micro Topics in Federal Agencies
These are very specific, often technical, legal or procedural points that arise in the functioning and regulation of federal agencies. Some examples include:
Chevron Deference and Its Limits
Procedural Requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Scope of Agency Discretion
Agency Jurisdiction and Standing
Finality of Agency Action
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The Nondelegation Doctrine
1. Chevron Deference and Its Limits
Topic: Courts often defer to an agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes it administers, but there are limits to this deference.
Key Case 1: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
This landmark case established the two-step framework for judicial review of agency statutory interpretation:
Step 1: Has Congress directly spoken on the precise issue? If yes, that ends the matter.
Step 2: If statute is ambiguous, is the agency’s interpretation reasonable? If yes, courts defer.
This case reinforced broad deference to agencies in their statutory interpretation.
Key Case 2: King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015)
The Court declined to apply Chevron deference to an agency interpretation concerning a major question involving the Affordable Care Act subsidies.
The case signals that Chevron deference may be limited when the agency’s interpretation concerns issues of deep "economic and political significance."
Key Case 3: Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States, 562 U.S. 44 (2011)
Confirmed that Chevron deference applies to tax regulations issued by the IRS when statutes are ambiguous.
Key Case 4: Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)
Refined the doctrine of Auer deference (deference to agency interpretation of its own regulations), emphasizing that courts must exhaust all traditional tools of statutory construction before deferring.
2. Procedural Requirements Under the APA
Topic: Agencies must follow procedural steps when making rules or decisions, ensuring fairness and transparency.
Key Case 1: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978)
The Court held that courts cannot impose additional procedural requirements beyond those in the APA.
Agencies have discretion over their procedures unless Congress requires otherwise.
Key Case 2: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983)
Agency rulemaking must not be arbitrary or capricious.
The Court invalidated a rescinded safety regulation because the agency failed to provide reasoned explanation.
Key Case 3: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009)
Confirmed that agencies must provide a reasoned explanation for policy changes.
However, the explanation need not be perfect, just reasonable.
Key Case 4: Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. 92 (2015)
The Court ruled that agencies do not need to use notice-and-comment procedures to repeal interpretive rules.
3. Scope of Agency Discretion
Topic: Agencies have discretionary power but it is not unlimited.
Key Case 1: Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985)
The Court held that an agency’s decision not to take enforcement action is generally not subject to judicial review, recognizing broad agency discretion.
Key Case 2: Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)
The Court insisted on a "hard look" at agency decisions affecting public resources but recognized discretion within statutory bounds.
Key Case 3: Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990)
The Court recognized the limits on agency power, requiring concrete injury for standing in environmental cases.
4. Agency Jurisdiction and Standing
Topic: Whether parties can challenge agency actions and whether agencies have authority over certain matters.
Key Case 1: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
Set stringent standards for standing in environmental cases, requiring injury in fact, causation, and redressability.
Key Case 2: Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U.S. 209 (2012)
Court addressed whether certain tribal land claims fell within the jurisdiction of federal agencies.
Key Case 3: Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
Massachusetts had standing to challenge EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gases, affirming that states can have special standing in environmental cases.
5. Finality of Agency Action
Topic: Courts only review “final” agency actions.
Key Case 1: Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997)
Clarified criteria for final agency action: (1) action marks consummation of agency’s decision-making process; (2) action determines rights or obligations or causes legal consequences.
Key Case 2: Sackett v. EPA, 566 U.S. 120 (2012)
Held that EPA compliance orders are final agency actions subject to judicial review.
6. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Topic: Parties generally must exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial review.
Key Case 1: Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993)
Clarified that exhaustion is required only if Congress mandates it explicitly or implicitly.
Key Case 2: McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992)
Administrative exhaustion required when statutory language or agency regulations specify.
7. Nondelegation Doctrine
Topic: Congress cannot delegate its legislative power without an intelligible principle.
Key Case 1: J.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928)
Established the intelligible principle test for delegation.
Key Case 2: Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001)
Upheld delegation in the Clean Air Act, reinforcing intelligible principle standard.
Summary
These hyper-micro topics reflect the intricate balance between agency expertise and judicial oversight, the procedural rigor agencies must follow, and the constitutional limits on agency power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments