Chapter 7 Part 3 NRDC, Inc. v. Herrington - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Chapter 7

Part 3Slide2

NRDC, Inc. v. Herrington

, 768 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

Post 1973 oil embargo, Congress wanted national standards that would improve energy efficiency.

DOE was given the power to set a standard for appliance efficiency that preempts state standards.A federal standard would block stricter state standards so that there would be a national market.Congress also allowed the agency to find that no standard was necessary, which also triggered preemption.

2Slide3

Procedure for a Binding Non-Rule

DOE publishes the support for its conclusion that there should not be a rule.

This standard did not include

an analysis of the environmental impact of not having the standard.The NRDC challenges the failure to publish this analysis.Why did the agency have to publish a non-rulemaking rule?What would be the usual practice when not making a rule?

3Slide4

American Dental Assn. v. Martin

, 984 F.2d 823 (7th Cir. 1993)

OSHA bloodborne

pathogens ruleRequires universal precautions in all health care workplacesThese include gloves, sharps management, eye protection, and other controls to reduce exposure to blood

Dentists

charge that the agency did not show specific risks in dentistry and thus the rule was arbitrary and capricious

Were

they right?

4Slide5

What if the Agency Promises to Not Enforce a Rule?

The bloodborne pathogens rule required employers to control exposure

in the

workplacesIn all health care workplaces except home health, the employer had control over the employeeHome health agencies said they could not comply with the rule because they did not have enough controlOSHA says it will not enforce the rule against them.Is this enough to save the rule from being arbitrary and capricious for home health?

5Slide6

6

De Novo Review Under the APA

Section 706(2)(F) provides for setting aside agency action found to be “unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.”

Overton Park

- such de novo review is authorized when the action is adjudicatory in nature and the agency

factfinding

procedures

are inadequate

Absent bad faith, the court never finds this

In real life, you only get de novo rule by statuteSlide7

7

Forcing Agencies to Act

Section 706(1) provides that a court is to compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.

Sometimes the court will find that there has been too much delay, such as in OSHA's decade long refusal to address drinking water standards for workers

Courts recognize that agencies have limited resources

Usually you have to have a statutory deadline or other limit on discretion to force agency actionSlide8

Attacking a Rule after the Deadline

Many acts have a 60 day limit for attacking a rule after it goes into effect.

Once the deadline for attacking the substance of a rule has passed, you cannot attack the rule directly.

(Constitutional and ultra vires attacks aside)You can use a petition requesting a rulemaking or the amendment of a rule to raise issues after the deadline.If the agency gives you an unsatisfactory answer, you can litigate that – Mass v. EPAThis can be a way to air the issues in court

8Slide9

9

Judicial Remedies for Improper Rules

Remand but leave the rule in force

Cannot do this for unconstitutional rules or rules that exceed agency authority

What is the impact of staying the rule?

Pulling a diabetes drug off the market?

Remand and stay the rule

Will wild animals escape?

Will there be risks?

Is the court defeating agency policy making?Slide10

10

Relying on Agency Advice - Equitable Estoppel

You cannot get money damages - no appropriations

Not under the tort claims act

It is a defense to criminal claims

Can be a defense to civil enforcement fines

How did you get the advice?

IRS letter ruling v. advice over the phone?

Relying on an agency mistake that you know about or an agency failure to enforce a law does not work.Slide11

11

Collateral Estoppel - Relying on Previous Court Decisions

Same facts, same parties

Government is bound

Same facts, different parties

Government is not bound

What if they are close?

Fred loses on a FOIA claim, gets his friend Taylor to ask for the same document

10 Cir says close enough, estoppel

United States Supreme Court says no exception to identity of the parties for virtual representation - no estoppel

Taylor v. Sturgell

, 128 S. Ct. 2161 (2008)

Slide12

12

Non-Acquiesce

The government can

relitigate

the same facts (different parties) in different circuits to get better results.

Or to get a split to get United States Supreme Court review.

Cannot do this if there is a nationwide injunction.

Intra-circuit non-acquiesce is more controversial

Agency loses in the circuit in a specific case, but continues to apply the same law to other parties

How would you argue that you are not bound by the earlier determination?Slide13

Challenging Agency Action - Review

13Slide14

Have You Met the Lujan Test for Standing?

First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" -- an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is

(a) concrete and particularized, and

(b) "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical,'"Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of -- the injury has to be "fairly . . . traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . the result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court."

Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision."

14Slide15

Injury in Fact

This is wrapped up in whether you have a final agency action.

Remember that a key test for final agency action is whether it has affected your client’s rights.

When we were looking at whether we have a final order, or as in Abbott Labs, whether the case was ripe, the key question was extent to which the client’s rights were affected.

15Slide16

Who has standing?

Is this an individual lawsuit?

Is this an associational lawsuit?

Does at least one member have standing?Can the case be resolved with an injunction, rather than individualized damages?Is it within the purpose of the Association?Is the injury imminent?

Have you hugged the tree, will you hug the tree again, you just like trees?

16Slide17

Is the action ripe?

Is there enough information for a facial challenge?

Why was Abbott Labs ripe?

Why was Toilet Products and the changed process for permitting tree cutting not ripe?Why do the courts prefer as applied challenges?

17Slide18

Jurisdiction

What is the statutory or constitutional authority for you to get into court?

Why do you always have standing and jurisdiction to contest and agency enforcement action?

Where does exhaustion of remedies come into the analysis of ripeness and jurisdiction?Remember the differing standards for APA exhaustion and common-law exhaustion of remedies.

18Slide19

Overton Park and Hard Look

There is a lot of confusion over the interplay between hard look analysis and the tests for agency deference.

Overton Park tells us that the court will determine the completeness of the record – hard look – before determining whether the agency is entitled to deference, what standard will be used for deference.

Chevron deference does not get the agency out of its requirement to present a complete record justifying its decisions.

19Slide20

What is the right test for deference?

The analysis of deference starts with Skidmore and Hearst, deference versus persuasion.

All of the subsequent tests are really a variation on the question of whether the court defers to the agency’s choice or only considers it as evidence when making its own choice.

20Slide21

Mead

Mead is a shorthand for whether the agency has invested enough in justifying the ruling to be entitled to deference.

Mead was just a letter ruling, not binding on the agency.

Mead comes in when you’re dealing with agency actions with a very limited record, that are subject to arbitrary change.

21Slide22

Chevron

Step one of Chevron’s ordinary statutory construction:

Does the statute clearly allow or prohibit the agency action?

If step one finds that the statute is ambiguous, and would allow the agency to choose:Is the agency’s choice reasonable?

22Slide23

Brown and Williamson and King v. Burwell

Even if the statute is clear, is it really what Congress meant?

Did Congress mean for the FDA to regulate tobacco, if that meant banning tobacco?

Did Congress mean for the IRS to make key policy decisions on the American health insurance market?

23Slide24

Barnhart and Persuasion in Chevron Analysis

In Barnhart, Justice Breyer used a set of factors that look like the test for persuasion in a Skidmore analysis.

The importance of interpretation to agency policy;

The period that the agency has held the view;The legal expertise of the agency;

The complexity of the problem;

Think of these as part of the hard look at the record before Chevron.

24