Final Exam Case Notes - Final Exam Case Notes Congressional...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Final Exam Case Notes Congressional Action and Presidential Powers Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (p. 181) o This case decided that the court should show deference to the agency’s interpretation if it is “reasonable” o The Court’s articulation of “administrative deference” o Holding: The Court, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, upheld the EPA's interpretation. A two-part analysis was born from the Chevron decision (called the "Chevron two-step"), where a reviewing court determines (1) whether a statute permits or forbids an agency's interpretation, and (2) if a statute is not clear on step (1), the court decides whether the agency's interpretation of a statute is reasonable or permissible. If an agency's interpretation is reasonable, then the court will defer to the agency's reading of the statute. Process Gas Consumers Group v. Consumer Energy Council of America (p. 188) o Issue: The constitutionality of the legislative veto as applied to agency rulemaking o Holding: The Court invalidated the one-house legislative veto provision of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978; invalidated a one-house legislative veto of regulatory rulemaking by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a two- house veto of such rulemaking by the Federal Trade Commission Economic and Substantive Due Process United States v. Carolene Products Co. (p. 316) o Facts: The Filled Milk Act of Congress in 1923 defines the term filled milk and that it “is an adulterated article of food, injurious to the public health, and its sale constitutes a fraud upon the public,” and it forbids and penalizes the shipment of such Filled Milk in interstate commerce o Issue: The constitutionality of a federal statute that prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of “filled milk,” a product compounded with fat or oil so as to resemble milk or cream; Appellee argued that the legislation violated both the commerce and due process clauses o Holding: The product was an impure, adulterated substance that posed a danger to the public; Justice Stone, “economic regulatory legislation, such as the statute at issue, was entitled to a presumption of constitutionality and should be upheld if supported by any rational basis” o “Famous footnote”: “There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution,, such as those of the first ten Amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth.” (a theory of judicial review later taken up by the Warren Court) The "rational basis test", sometimes called the "sanity test", mandates that legislation (whether enacted by Congress or state legislatures) which deals with economic regulation must be rational, in other words, sane. Footnote Four also hinted at a higher level of judicial scrutiny for legislation which: 1. On its face violates a provision of the Constitution (facial challenge). 2.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/27/2008 for the course POLI SCI 411 taught by Professor Downs during the Fall '06 term at University of Wisconsin.

Page1 / 7

Final Exam Case Notes - Final Exam Case Notes Congressional...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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