{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Administrative Law - Stack - Spring 2004

Administrative Law - Stack - Spring 2004 - Administrative...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Administrative Law Outline 1 I. Can we get to court in the first place? a. Do we have standing? i. ADAPSO v. Camp 1. Court abandoned legal interests test in favor of new inquiry as to whether there was injury in fact. 2. Broadens the scope of who has standing to bring suit. 3. Zone of Interest Test directs us to statutory interpretation to ascertain Congress’s intent. If you are in the contemplation of Congress, then you are w/in the zone of interest. 4. ADAPSO Test for Standing: a. Core of the case and controversy requirement: i. Distinct, non-hypothetical injury; injury in fact? b. Causation i. Fairly traceable to defendant’s actions ii. And likely to be redressed by the action c. Prudential i. Injury has to be within the zone of interest 1. Language from APA § 702 ii. Allen v. Wright 1. Standing requires P to allege personal injury fairly traceable to D’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by requested relief. 2. Line of causation from IRS’s conduct to continued segregation in school was so attenuated – not “fairly traceable.” 3. Unreviewable like Heckler v. Cheney b/c claim shapes the priorities of the agencies. 4. If distinct, non-hypothetical injury is constitutional requirement, Congress cannot legislate around it without overruling Allen v. Wright . a. If this is so, then Court are enacting a barrier to Congress allowing a person to sue for agency action or enforcement of agency action. Creates systematic bias toward those who are regulated. iii. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 1. P must show actual and redressable injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the D. 2. DoW does not have standing b/c failed to show the requisite imminent harm. Failed to show more than a generalized grievance. a. Such “someday” intentions, w/o any description of concrete plans do not support a finding of actual or imminent injury. 3. Even when Congress explicitly legislates in a way that would create standing, the court is going to independently apply a broad injury in fact standard. a. Congress cannot write a statute getting around constitutional standing requirements. b. Statute allowed broad range of people to sue by using the terms “any person.” iv. FEC v. Akins 1. P’s harm was concrete. Injury was inability to obtain information directly related to voting.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Administrative Law Outline 2 2. Statute extended the right to sue to “any person” who believes a violation of this act has occurred. 3. Standing exists even in the face that the agency may exercise its discretion not to require disclosure. a. Aiken chips away at the redressability function. v. National Credit Union Admin v. First National Bank 1. Banks had standing b/c the statute at issue had a provision that limited the members who could be part of credit union and that was enough for prudential standing. a.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 27

Administrative Law - Stack - Spring 2004 - Administrative...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online