Admin_Law_Young1 - Administrative Law Fall 2001 I....

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Administrative Law Fall 2001 I. Constitutional Framework for Admin Law a. Con and Statutory Interpretation of Issues in the Delegation of Legislative Power to Admin Agencies i. Basic Principles 1. Legality – delegation is concerned w/ whether Cong has created enough structure to make it possible to assess and/or control legality of the delegate’s conduct (controlling gov actors) 2. Political Accountability Doctrine a. More power granted to agency, more suspect the delegation b. Does good reason for delegation exist? c. How much guidance has Cong provided i. More important the power, more specific the guidance needed ii. Ct often assumes Cong will give away lots of power w/ small amount of guidance d. Use – ct often narrows scope of delegation to find it does not violate this doctrine (used as tool, NOT conclusion) 3. Separation of Powers a. J exercised judicial rev over leg and exec b. Leg can impeach J’s and exec c. Leg delegates power to exec i. Art I, Sec 8 – Cong may make laws necessary and proper to carry out the laws d. Exec can veto Leg e. Independent Agencies (I/A) created by delegation of leg power to the exec and some judicial i. Some what protected from exec – removable only “for cause” ii. Thus leg and J powers also away from exec iii. Some argue, creates 4 th branch and is change in con structure f. Agencies i. Only operate w/n scope of authority granted by Cong 1. Cong can w/draw delegation/authority through repeal of leg (law), but exec can veto ii. APA injects accountability 1. Makes regs that agency must go through, some are public proceedings ii. Industrial Union, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum (Benzene Case) – Exceeding the Scope of Delegation 1. HOLDING – 2 interps (plurality) a. Agency exceeded scope of statutory authority i. Made reg w/o finding substantial risk of harm b. Agency acted w/n statutory authority, BUT Cong granted too much authority (Rehnquist) 2. OSHA made rule/law lowering permissible benzene exposure from 10ppm to 1ppm
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
a. Sec of Labor did not make required threshold findings i. Standard being reasonably necessary & appropriate to remedy substantial risk of significant health impairment ii. Workplace is unsafe b. Reg was sweeping delegation of leg power i. Cannot delegate open-ended grant of power ii. EA did not require “risk free” only “safe” iii. Leg history supports idea that EA eliminate “significant risks of harm” iv. Only basis was the benzene probably carcinogen v. When Ct given choice btwn uncon grant of power, or not allowing grant which would be con – Ct would choose later b/c preserves statute iii. Case Law Development of Anti-Delegation Doctrine – See pg 3-4 of other outline iv. Chevron’s Spin on Anti-Delegation Doctrine 1. Concerning agency interp issues a. Questions: i. Was agency interp appropriate? ii.
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.

This note was uploaded on 03/03/2010 for the course LAW 28465 taught by Professor Carson during the Fall '09 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 27

Admin_Law_Young1 - Administrative Law Fall 2001 I....

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

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