U S vs South Africa administrative courts
⚖️ I. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: USA VS SOUTH AFRICA
🇺🇸 United States Administrative Law
Governed by: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946.
Agencies: Federal administrative agencies (e.g., EPA, SEC, IRS).
Courts: Cases are first heard in Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) courts and then appealable to federal courts.
Principles:
Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Judicial review under APA § 706.
Separation of powers: Agencies are part of the Executive but perform quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative roles.
Remedies: Injunctions, declaratory judgments, reversal of agency decision.
🇿🇦 South African Administrative Law
Governed by: Section 33 of the Constitution and Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), 2000.
Courts: Judicial review is done by High Courts; no distinct administrative courts like ALJs.
Principles:
Lawfulness, reasonableness, and procedural fairness.
Constitution is supreme; administrative law is an extension of constitutional rights.
Remedies: Review of decisions, mandamus, interdicts, declarations of rights.
🧑⚖️ II. LANDMARK CASES IN DETAIL
🇺🇸 UNITED STATES CASES
1. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)
Facts: EPA interpreted the term “stationary source” in the Clean Air Act in a way favorable to industry. Environmental groups challenged it.
Issue: Should courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers?
Ruling: Supreme Court established the Chevron deference doctrine. If a statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, courts must defer to the agency.
Impact:
Landmark for administrative law. Agencies get broad discretion in interpreting ambiguous statutes.
Step 1: Is the statute ambiguous?
Step 2: Is the agency’s interpretation reasonable?
2. Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)
Facts: Recipients of welfare benefits were terminated without a hearing.
Issue: Does due process require a hearing before terminating welfare benefits?
Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that welfare benefits are a form of property, and procedural due process requires a hearing before termination.
Impact:
Established strong procedural safeguards in administrative actions affecting entitlements.
Agencies must provide notice and opportunity to be heard.
3. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC (1978)
Facts: The NRC was challenged for not providing more procedural rights during licensing.
Issue: Can courts impose additional procedural requirements beyond those in the APA?
Ruling: No. Agencies only need to follow procedures outlined in the APA or enabling statute.
Impact:
Courts cannot force agencies to adopt extra procedures unless required by law.
Reinforced separation of powers between judiciary and administrative agencies.
4. Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)
Facts: Social Security benefits were terminated without an oral hearing.
Issue: Is an oral hearing always required before termination of benefits?
Ruling: No. The Court established the Mathews Test for procedural due process:
Private interest affected.
Risk of erroneous deprivation.
Government interest, including administrative burden.
Impact:
Not all cases need oral hearings.
Introduced balancing test for procedural fairness.
5. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha (1983)
Facts: Congress had a “legislative veto” over immigration decisions by the Attorney General.
Issue: Is the legislative veto constitutional?
Ruling: No. It violates the separation of powers and the presentment clause.
Impact:
Limited Congressional interference in administrative decisions.
Strengthened the executive authority of administrative agencies.
🇿🇦 SOUTH AFRICAN CASES
1. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA v. President of the Republic of South Africa (2000)
Facts: The President brought into force an Act prematurely, rendering parts of it inoperable.
Issue: Was the President's decision reviewable under administrative law?
Ruling: Yes. The court held that executive action is subject to review under the principle of legality.
Impact:
Expanded scope of judicial review.
Even executive actions must be rational and lawful under the Constitution.
2. President of the Republic of South Africa v. South African Rugby Football Union (SARFU) (2000)
Facts: President Mandela was accused of bias in appointing a commission of inquiry.
Issue: Was the President’s conduct subject to judicial review?
Ruling: Yes. Even the President’s actions must meet standards of procedural fairness and impartiality.
Impact:
Public officials, including the President, must act within constitutional constraints.
Reinforced accountability in administrative functions.
3. Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v. Minister of Environmental Affairs (2004)
Facts: The Minister allocated fishing quotas unfairly.
Issue: Was the administrative decision fair and reasonable?
Ruling: No. The decision lacked rationality and fairness as required by PAJA.
Impact:
Introduced concept of reasonableness review in administrative decisions.
Affected decisions must consider relevant factors, including empowerment of disadvantaged groups.
4. Minister of Health v. New Clicks SA (2006)
Facts: The Minister made regulations about medicine pricing. Pharmacists challenged them for lack of procedural fairness.
Issue: Were the regulations valid under PAJA?
Ruling: The Constitutional Court emphasized that regulations affecting rights must follow fair procedure and be reasonable.
Impact:
Strengthened procedural requirements in policy-making.
Reaffirmed constitutional supremacy over administrative actions.
5. Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v. City of Cape Town (2004)
Facts: A decision to approve a township development was invalid but not set aside formally.
Issue: Can an invalid administrative act be treated as valid until set aside?
Ruling: Yes. Unless and until an administrative act is formally set aside, it has legal effect.
Impact:
Clarified doctrine of de facto validity.
Prevents administrative chaos from unchallenged but flawed decisions.
📌 SUMMARY COMPARISON
| Aspect | United States | South Africa |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Framework | APA (1946), Constitution | PAJA (2000), Constitution |
| Basis of Review | Statutory (APA), Due Process | Constitutional (s. 33), PAJA |
| Administrative Courts | Specialized ALJs | Regular courts (e.g., High Court) |
| Key Doctrines | Chevron Deference, Due Process | Reasonableness, Legality, Procedural Fairness |
| Notable Cases | Chevron, Goldberg, Mathews, Chadha | Bato Star, New Clicks, SARFU, Oudekraal |
RELATED Blog
0 comments