Administrative Law Syllabus
Professor Andrew F. Popper
Spring, 2014
I. Required Texts:
Popper, McKee, Varona, & Harter, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: A CONTEMPORARY
APPROACH, 2
D
E
D
. (West, 2010). This is both a conventional hard-cover law school casebook and a fully interactive casebook. On the bottom of the inside cover of the text you purchase is your 25 digit alpha numeric code. Follow the steps on the sheet and sign in. You will have access to the entire casebook on-line, including full text versions of most of the cases, notes, case documents, and other materials in the book, a search function , an electronic annotation (note-taking) function, and other features. The interactive features of this book should be of great value as you study in this field.
However, rest assured, what we will do in class will follow the traditional format for upper level law school courses.
Recommended:
Popper, McKee, Statutory Supplement, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: A
CONTEMPORARY APPROACH. (West, 2009).
II. Substance.
This course involves the study of administrative agency behavior. Administrative agencies (federal, state, and local) are the primary contact points for interaction between private citizens and government. Although the courts, congress, and executive are decisionmakers, it is the agencies that actually “govern.”
Agencies act based on the authority delegated to them by legislatures. They react based on ever changing directives given to them by their supervisors, the executive. Finally, they are restrained from erroneous action (or inaction) by courts. Nevertheless, the power to contact directly individuals and businesses, to sanction, to regulate, is vast. This course is in part, then, a study of how that power is exercised and curtailed.
The first year of law school is focused on judicial decisionmaking, involving primarily appellate review of trial court decisions. In terms of the practice of law, this focus may be somewhat distorted; the ABA estimates that 65 to 70 percent of the practice of law occurs in an administrative setting, rather than a formal courtroom.
Administrative agency behavior can be divided into two categories: rulemaking and adjudication.
Rulemaking is the process whereby agencies (both state and federal) gather information and, thereafter, issue rules and regulations that govern an enormous range of behaviors.

Unless a formal or trial type process is mandated by statue, most rulemaking is
“informal,” meaning that the promulgation of the rule does not require a trial-type hearing.
Rules implement statutes (enabling legislation) and can have an economic or a health, safety, and welfare focus. Rules are prospective and are addressed to classes of interests.
Rules can have the force of substantive law, and the process used to issue rules (and in some instances the rules themselves) is subject to judicial review.
Adjudication in the administrative context refers to the trial type process used by agencies to resolve disputes between parties, enforce agency regulations, or issue (or deny) licenses. Adjudication can be formal, with discovery, cross-examination, confrontation, and similar entitlements, or less formal. Adjudication usually results in an agency order. Adjudication is retroactive in nature in most instances and is not designed inherently to set agency policy. Adjudication is subject to judicial review unless review is precluded by law, or the kind of decision that is committed to the discretion of the agency.
Rulemaking and adjudication are in some ways tired labels; many variations in process and substance exist for each. Nevertheless, for gaining a foothold in the field, it is worthwhile to study the historical differences between rulemaking and adjudication and thereafter to track the means by which courts seek to steer, divert, or stop the true
“governors,” the agencies.
III. First assignment.
For the two classes please read pages 1-33 and 43-63. The first chapter is an overview of the field and includes two principle cases that provide a backdrop for rulemaking and adjudication as well as two principle cases on the power and independence of agencies and the executive.
IV. Exam
The exam will consist of two parts – a short answer section and an essay section.
The exam will be closed book. However, you will have a clean version of the case and topic listing from this syllabus on the exam.
V. Reading Assignments beyond the first two classes.
Pace and expanse of coverage. I hope to cover four or five cases per class. The cases to prepare for class are in caps below – those that are required have an asterisk next to them . To stay ahead of the game, I urge you to read and prepare at least five cases per class .

There is always a question of the amount that can be covered in the course of the semester. I do not plan on racing through the book. I will make changes as we go forward to accommodate our actual pace in the classroom
Readings:
1. Please read and prepare for discussion those cases below marked with an asterisk.
Read through the notes and note cases following assigned cases. The note cases explore the issues raised in the main case. I will go through some – but not all – of them in class
2. Beyond the main cases: I recommend reading all introductory sections and explanatory paragraphs
1
(the lists and call-out boxes may save you a good deal of time as you prepare for each class).
3. Scholarly Articles: You should feel free to read full versions of all the edited articles in the casebook – you will not be tested on them, however, unless they are assigned specifically. Many of the articles are available in full via the online version of the book.
4. One feature that makes this book very unique – and provides a great resource for further work in the field – is the ability to read in full (on-line) the text of most of the cases, articles, and other reference materials.
That said, unless announced or assigned, for purposes of the exam, you are not required to read anything other than the edited assigned materials in the casebook.
The case list below was converted from the PDF of the casebook. As with any conversion of a PDF, there were format issues. Nonetheless, the pages and cases seem to be accurate. In the interest of giving you a chance to see where we were headed, I am using this format.
*I. Overv i ew...................................................................................................................... 1
*II. Trad itio nal A rgumen t s Fav o r i ng A gency
Governance............................................................................................................. 6
*a. Continuity................................................................................................................ 6
*b. Flexibility................................................................................................................ 8
*c . Spe c ialization and E xperti s e................................................................................... 9
*d. Ess ential Value s ...................................................................................................... 9
*e. E mergen c ie s ............................................................................................................ 10
1
I wrote them – why would you not want to read them?

*f . Volume.................................................................................................................. 10
*g. O ngoing Super v i s ion............................................................................................ 10
*h. Ec onomi c Ju s ti f i c ation.......................................................................................... 10
*i. P ubli c Sa f ety.......................................................................................................... 10
*j . D i ss emination o f I n f ormation................................................................................ 11
*III. Trad itio nal A rgumen t s Di s f av o r i ng A gency Go vernance....................................... 11
*a. I n c ompeten c e........................................................................................................ 11
*b. Fa v oriti s m............................................................................................................. 11
* c . Cap*ture.................................................................................................................. 12
*d. L o ss o f M arket...................................................................................................... 12
*e. Compromi s ed P ri v a c y........................................................................................... 12
*I V . Bey o nd t he Pr o s and Co ns: Pr i va ti za tio n and R eregula tio n............................................................................................................... 13
*V . The Pr o cess of R egula tio n – The In t r o duc to ry C ases............................................... 15
*LONDONER v. CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER........................................... 16
75 Acres, LLC v. Miami-Dade County (2003)................................................. 19
FCC v. WJR, The Goodwill Station, Inc. (1949)............................................ 20
Greenwood Manor v. Iowa Dep’t of Pub. Health (2002)................................ 21
*BI-METALLIC INVESTMENT COMPANY v. STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION OF COLORADO...................................... 24
Coniston v. Village of Hoffman Estates (1988)............................................... 28
Pro-Eco v. Board of Commissioners (1995).................................................... 29
Common Cause of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(2006)...................................................................................................... 30
*I. Independent or Executive?
.
*add pp. 31-56 ……….…….
........................ 31
*pp. 31-56
D ominique Cu s to s , T he R ulemaking P ower o f I ndependent R egulatory
A gen c ie s ................................................................................................... 56
*II. The A P A : A Br i e f Hi s to r i cal Pers p ec ti ve................................................................ 58
* W alter G ellhorn, T he A dmini s trati v e P ro c edure Ac t:
Beginnings ................................................................................................ 60
* G eorge B . Shepherd, Fier c e Compromi s e: Ac t E merge sf rom N ew D eal
P oliti cs ...................................................................................................... 61
[R EMINDER
– I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ THE TEXTUAL MATERIAL
–
OVERVIEWS ,
NOTES , REMINDERS , PRACTICE POINTS , CALL OUT BOXES , CASE INTRODUCTIONS , ETC .
T HESE WERE
WRITTEN TO CLARIFY AND HIGHLIGHT BOTH THEORY AND DOCTRINE IN A DMINISTRATIVE L AW .
Y OU MAY FIND THESE MATERIALS WILL PROVIDE ALL THE
“
SUPPLEMENTAL DOCTRINE
”
YOU WILL
NEED .]

CHAPTER *2 Rulemaking at the
Agency........................................................................................................... 65
*I. The N eed fo r R ules...................................................................................................... 65
*II. The N a t ure and S u b s t ance R ules................................................................................ 66
R i c hard J. P ier c e, Jr., the Fi f tieth A nni v er s ary o f the A dmini s trati v e P ro c edure
Ac t: P a s t and P rologue: R ulemaking and the A dmini s trative Act......................... 67
P eter L . Strau ss , the R ulemaking Continuum..................................................... 67
L i s a S c hultz B re ss man, P ro c edure s a s P oliti cs in A dmini s trati v e L aw.............. 69
*III. The Pr i mary S ec tio ns of t he A PA p ert a i n i n g to
R ulemak i ng.............................................................................................................. 70
*I V . F o rmal R ulemak i ng.................................................................................................... 75
*UNITED STATES v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO......................... 77
CITY OF WEST CHICAGO, ILLINOIS v. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION................................................................... 81
Environmental Defense Fund v. Costle (1980)................................................... 87
*Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration
(2004).......................................................................................................... 88
* V . Noti ce and Co mmen t
* Rulema k ing............................................................................................................... 89
*CHOCOLATE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION of THE UNITED
STATES v. BLOCK................................................................ 92
Michael S. Rosenwald, Chocolate Purists Alarmed by Proposal to Fudge
Standards; Lines Drawn Over Cocoa Butter..................................... 96
*Emily’s List v. Federal Election Commission (2005).......................................... 97
Victor B. Flatt, Notice and Comment for Nonprofit Organizations..................... 98
*I. Noti ce and Co mmen t P r ocess D er i ved f r o m O t her
*Statutes...................................................................................................................... 100
*TRIPOLI ROCKETRY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. UNITED STATES BUREAU
OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO & FIREARMS.................................. 100
*SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF FLORIDA v.
VENEMAN....................................................................................
*MORTON v. RUIZ ET
104
UX................................................................................................................... 108
Port of Jacksonville Maritime Ad Hoc Committee v. United States Coast Guard
(1986)...................................................................................... 113
Lewis v. Weinberger (1976)................................................................ 114
Cutlip v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (1999)....... 115
*II. R ulemak i ng, R ec o rds, and R ev i ew................................................ 117
*MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED

STATES, INC. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
CO................................................................. 118
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Occupant Crash Protection.... 126
Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Bonneville Power Administration
(2007)........................................................... 129
International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union v. Donovan (1983)... 130
*UNITED STATES v. NOVA SCOTIA FOOD PRODUCTS CORP............ 131
*III. Con ci s e G eneral St a t emen t of Bas i s and Pur po se...........
139
*CALIFORNIA HOTEL & MOTEL ASSOCIATION v. INDUSTRIAL WELFARE
COMMISSION.................................................................. 140
United Mine Workers of America v. Elizabeth H. Dole (1989)........... 144
*IX. Ex Part e Co mmun i ca tio n i n R ulemak i ng..................................... 146
*SIERRA CLUB v. COSTLE..................................................................... 147
Ammex, Inc. v. United States (1999)................................................
Portland Audubon Soc’y v. Or. Lands Coalition (1993).....................
Electric Power Supply Ass’n v. FERC (2004)....................................
151
152
154
CHAPTER * 3 Judicial Review of Legislative Rulemaking: Deference to Agency
Action................................. 155
*I. The Bas i c Li m it a tio n o n Jud i c i al R ev i ew....................................... 155
*VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. v. NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC...................................
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
156
(1983)............................................................................ 162
City of Alexandria v. Slater (1999)...................................................
Nutraceutical v. von Eschenbach (2007)...........................................
163
164
*II. D e f erence and Jud i c i al R ev i ew....................................................... 165
*CHEVRON, U.S.A., INC. v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL..................................................................................
Cass R. Sunstein, Law and administration After Chevron................
Michael Herz, The Rehnquist Court and Administrative Law...........
165
174
175
Kathryn A. Watts, Adapting to Administrative Law’s Erie
Doctrine................................................................................
Arnett v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2007)..........................
177
178
Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications
(2007)................................................... 179
*AUER v. ROBBINS................................................................................ 180

Stephen M. John s on’ s Bringing Deference Back (But for How Long?): Justice Al ito,
Ch evron, A uer, an d Ch enery in t h e S upreme C ourt’s 2006
Term.............................................................................
Newton v. Federal Aviation Administration (2006)...........................
183
183
United States v. Ward (2001)............................................................ 184
*CHRISTENSEN v. HARRIS COUNTY................................................... 185
III. * D e f erence o r R es p ec t ?............................................................................
190
*SKIDMORE v. SWIFT & CO................................................................ 190
Ji m Ro ss i, R especting Deference: C onceptua l izing S ki d more W it h in t h e A rc h itecture of Ch evron…
Wilton Indus. v. United States (2007)...............................................
192
193
*UNITED STATES v. MEAD CORPORATION........................................ 195
Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs. (2005)….. 202
United States v. W.R. Grace & Co. (2005)........................................ 203
*DE LA MOTA v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION.............................................................................. 203
I V . Im p r o v i ng o r M a t ur i ng D e f erence?.............................................. 210
*NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION v.
BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES.................. 211
Ma r gue r ite Rea r don, Wh at is Bran d X R ea ll y Ab out....................... 220
*LONG ISLAND CARE AT HOME, LTD. v. COKE................................. 221
Michael Sel m i, Th e S upreme C ourt’s 2006-2007 T erm E mp l oyment Law
C ases: A Quiet But R evea l ing T erm..........................
Levy v. Sterling Holding Company (2007)........................................
226
226
V . In t er p re t a ti ve R ules, G u i dances, and Bey o nd............................ 226
*PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION...........................................................................
National Association of Veterans’ Advocates v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs
227
(2001)................................................................................... 232
Stephen M. John s on, G oo d G ui d ance, G rief!........................... 232
C ha r le s H . Koch, P o l icymaking b y t h e Ad ministrative Ju d iciary......... 234
*AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION v. BOWEN............................. 236
Jody F r ee m an, P u bl ic V a l ue in an E ra of P rivatization: Ex ten d ing Law N orms t h roug h Privatization...............
Hoctor v. United States Department of Agriculture.....
241
243
D an L . Bu rk , Th e M i l k F ree Z one: F e d era l an d Loca l I nterests in R egu l ating
R ecom b inant bST ..................................................
Perez v. Ashcroft (2002)...................................................................
247
248
I*. S ec o nd Loo k a t Ju d i c ial R ev i ew............................................... 248
*DISMAS CHARITIES, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS.............................. 248
Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Thompson, Civil Action (2002).... 253

*CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY v. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION......................................................
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Norton (2002).......................
Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest, Inc. v. Nat’l Park Serv.
254
257
(2007)................................................................................... 258
Crowley’s Yacht Yard, Inc. v. Pena (1995).......................................... 259
Croplife America v. Environmental Protection Agency (2003).......... 259
*GONZALES v. OREGON...................................................................... 260
Jaco b E . G e rs en’ s O ver l apping an d U n d er l apping Juris d iction in Ad ministrative
Law................................................................ 268
*CONNECTICUT STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY v. CONNECTICUT BOARD OF
EXAMINERS IN PODIATRY....................................
Tennessee Medical Ass’n v. Board of Registration in Podiatry
(1995)...................................................................................
276
279
A. T. Massey Coal Co. v. Barnhart (2006)........................................
Navajo Nation v. HHS (2002)..........................................................
280
281
CHAPTER 4 Basic Reviewability Concerns..............................
I. R ev i ew and Bas i c Jur i sd i c tio nal R equ i remen t s: St and i ng.......
283
284
*ASSOCIATION OF DATA PROCESSING SERVICE
ORGANIZATIONS, INC. v. CAMP.......................................
Parker v. District of Columbia (2006)..............................................
*Barlow v. Collins (1970)..................................................................
286
290
291
*LUJAN v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE................................................. 293
Flast v. Cohen (1942)...................................................................... 301
II. St and i ng: R edressa bi l it y................................................................... 310
*SIMON v. EASTERN KENTUCKY WELFARE RIGHTS
ORGANIZATION....................................................................... 310
New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres (2008).................... 315
Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence United With The Million Mom
March v. Ashcroft, Civil Action (2004)................ 316
*Frank Krasner Enterprises v. Montgomery County, Maryland
(2005)................................................................................... 318
*DUKE POWER CO. v. CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP,
INC............................................................................................ 318
*White Tail Park, Inc. v. Straube (2004)............................................ 330
*BENNETT v. SPEAR............................................................................. 331
III. Ripeness................................................................................................ 338
*ABBOTT LABORATORIES v. GARDNER.............................................. 338
*TOILET GOODS ASSOCIATION, Inc. v. Gardner..........................
National Park Hospitality Ass’n v. DOI (2003).................................
344
347

New York Civil Liberties Union v. Grandeau (2008).........................
AT&T Corp. v. FCC (2003).............................................................
Shays v. FEC (2005)........................................................................
Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Ass’n v. EPA
(2005)..................................................................................
349
350
350
*I V . F i nal it y.................................................................................................
351
352
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS v. UNITED STATES
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.................................. 354
*SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights (1972)........................ 356
*Kixmiller v. Securities and Exchange Comm’n (1974)....................... 357
* V . Preclus io n of Jud i c i al R ev i ew.......................................................... 358
*BOWEN v. MICHIGAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS............. 360
Giesse v. Sec’y of the HHS (2008)..................................................... 364
High Country Citizens Alliance v. Clarke (2006)............................. 364
Trustees in Bankruptcy of North American Rubber Thread Co. v. United States
(2006)........................................................................ 364
BLOCK v. COMMUNITY NUTRITION INSTITUTE............................. 365
LINCOLN v. VIGIL...............................................................................
Castellini v. Lappin (2005)..............................................................
WEBSTER v. DOE................................................................................
370
374
375
*I. R ev i ew A gency Inac tio n............................................................ 380
*HECKLER v. CHANEY......................................................................... 382
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (2004)....................... 390
Drake v. Federal Aviation Administration (2002).............................
Sierra Club v. Whitman (2001)........................................................
391
391
II. A gency A c tio n w it h o u t W rit ten O pi n io n................................ 392
NGURE v. ASHCROFT......................................................................... 392
Jessica R. Hertz, Appellate Jurisdiction over the Board of Immigration Appeals’
Affirmance Without Opinion Procedure................... 395
Martin S. Krezalek, How to Minimize the Risk of Violating Due Process Rights
While Preserving the BIA’s Ability to Affirm Without Opinion...........................396
III. E x t ra o rd i nary R emed i es fo r Inac tio n...................................... 397
*MASSACHUSETTS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.... 397
Dru Stevenson, Special Solicitude for State Standing: Massachusetts v.
EPA.................................................................................... 402
Sidney A. Shapiro, OMB and the Politicization of Risk Assessment... 405
Sierra Club v. Larson (1989)............................................................
Intermodal Techs., Inc. v. Mineta (2006)..........................................
406
407
*IN RE BLUEWATER NETWORK & OCEAN ADVOCATES.................. 408
Sayyadinejad v. Chertoff (2007)....................................................... 411
Tang v. Chertoff (2007)....................................................................
Marathon Oil Company v. Lujan (1991)..........................................
412
413

I X . Jud i c i al R ev i ew of R e t r oa ct ive A gency A c tio n....................... 413
*SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. CHENERY
CORPORATION......................................................................... 414
Utah Environmental Congress (UEC) v. Richmond (2007)................ 420
Yale-New Haven Hosp. v. Leavitt (2006).......................................... 421
Utah Environmental Congress v. Troyer (2007)................................ 422
*BOWEN v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL......................... 422
Pauly v. United States Department of Agriculture (2003).................. 427
Mobile Relay Associates v. FCC (2006)............................................ 427
AT&T v. FCC (2006)....................................................................... 428
LANDGRAF v. USI FILM PRODUCTS.................................................. 429
Zuluaga Martinez v. INS (2008)......................................................
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE v. ENRICO ST.
433
CYR......................................................................................
Fadiga v. United States (2007).........................................................
433
438
* CHAPTER 5 Rulemaking – Delegation, Limitations, And
Alternatives..........................................................
I. E x p ans io n/ Li m it a tio n A gency Co n t r o l and P o wer...............
439
439
*PANAMA REFINING CO. v. RYAN....................................................... 440
Carcieri v. Kempthorne (2007).........................................................
Save Our Heritage Organization v. Gonzales (2008)........................
*A. L. A. SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. v. UNITED STATES................
443
444
446
Carter v. Carter Coal Co. (1936)..................................................... 448
Sacha M. Coupet, The Subtlety of State Action in Privatized Child Welfare
Services....................................................................
United States v. Dhafir (2006)..................................................
449
451
*INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO v. AMERICAN
PETROLEUM INSTITUTE.......................... 453
*FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON
TOBACCO CORPORATION.................................... 460
*Martin v. Vermont, 819 A.2d 742 (Vt. 2003)..................................... 467
Perry v. McDonald, (2001)...............................................................
American Library Association v. Federal Communications Commission,
468
(2005).............................................................. 469
WHITMAN v. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS..................... 477
American Trucking Associations v. EPA (2002)................................. 480
Lead Industries Association v. Environmental Protection Agency
481 (1980)...................................................................................
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Abraham, 355 F.3d 179 (2d Cir.
2004)....................................................................... 483

II. Pres i den ti al P o wer............................................................................. 484
*CLINTON v. CITY OF NEW YORK...................................................... 486
III. R ulemak i ng b y A d j ud i ca tio n – W hen Is I t A n O ptio n?.......... 496
*NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. BELL AEROSPACE
Company................................................................................
Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency v. FERC (1987)....................
498
500
*National Labor Relations Board v. Wyman-Gordon Co. (1969)......... 501
*NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. WYMAN-GORDON
CO............................................................................................. 502
Charles H. Koch, Policy Making by the Administrative Judiciary
(2005)................................................................................... 505
Association of Data Processing Organization v. Board of Governors
(1984)................................................................................... 506
Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Babbitt (2001)............................................... 507
ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD.................................................................. 508
I V . N eg oti a t ed R ulemak i ng.................................................................... 514
*USA GROUP LOAN SERVICES v. RILEY.............................................. 515
*Philip J. Harter, Negotiating Regulations: A Cure for Malaise........... 518
Professor William Funk, in Bargaining Toward the New Millennium: Regulatory
Negotiation and the Subversion of the Public
Interest..................................................................................
Cary Coglianese, Assessing the Advocacy of Negotiated Rulemaking: A
518
Response to Philip Harter ...........................
City of Portland v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)............
Raymond Proffitt Foundation v. Environmental Protection Agency
519
519
(1996)................................................................................... 519
*Center for Law and Education v. Department of Education (2004).... 521
Daniel P. Selmi, The Promise and Limits of Negotiated Rulemaking: Evaluating the Negotiation of a Regional Air Quality Rule.....
Phillip J. Harter, In Search of Goldilocks: Democracy, Participation, and
522
Government................................................................... 526
CHAPTER 6 Adjudication – Basic Principles and
Entitlements..........................................................
*I. A n Overv i ew of t he A d j ud i ca to ry Pr o cess...................................
*1. W hen i s a Formal H earing R equired?.....................................
*2. B a s i c D e f eren c e and Sub s tantial Ev iden c e............................
Ballesteros v. Ashcroft (2006)...........................................................
*3. R ight to Coun s el?......................................................................
531
531
532
533
534
534

*II. D ue Pr o cess: Ind i v i dual In t eres t s and Pr o cedural
Entitlements.................................................................................... 537
*CAFETERIA & RESTAURANT WORKERS UNION v. MCELROY......... 539
*GOLDBERG v. KELLY........................................................................... 544
Marchwinski v. Howard (2003)........................................................ 550
Ju d ge F rien dl y, Some Kind of Hearing.............................................. 550
Lucie E. White, Symposium: The Legacy of Goldberg v. Kelly: A Twenty Year
Perspective: Goldberg v. Kelly on the Paradox of Lawyering for the
Poor.......................................................... 551
McWaters v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2006)........... 552
*BOARD OF REGENTS OF STATE COLLEGES v. ROTH....................... 554
Minch v. City of Chicago (2007)...................................................... 560
Holthaus v. Board of Education, Cincinnati Public Schools (1993).... 560
Merritt v. Mackey (1987).................................................................
Ulrich, Jr. v. City and County of San Francisco (2002).....................
*PERRY v. SINDERMANN......................................................................
Neva v. Multi Agency Communications Center (2005)......................
Locurto v. Giuliani (2003)...............................................................
Sizemore v. City of Dallas (2006).....................................................
Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)..............................................................
Vail v. Bd. of Educ. of Paris Union School (1983).............................
Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless v. Barry, Jr. (1997)...........
*MATHEWS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE v.
ELDRIDGE..............................................................................
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951).................
Perkowski v. Stratford Bd. of Educ. (2006).......................................
Boumediene v. Bush (2008)..............................................................
*CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION v. LOUDERMILL...................
Chmielinski v. Mass. Office of the Comm’r of Prob. (2008)...............
Barry v. Barchi (1979).....................................................................
560
562
563
567
568
569
569
572
572
573
578
581
582
584
590
591
*III. Bas i c A gency O b l i ga tio ns i n t he A d j ud i ca to ry Pr o cess........ 593
1. D ue P ro c e ss , A R e cord, and E x c eption s .................................
T he Streamling E xample...........................................................
*CITIZENS TO PRESERVE OVERTON PARK v. VOLPE...............
593
593
595
Serena M. Williams, Sustaining Urban Green Spaces: Can Public Parks be Protected
Under the Public Trust Doctrine?.........
Peter L. Strauss, Revisiting Overton Park: Political and Judicial Controls Over
600
Administrative Actions Affecting the
Community...................................................................... 601
Patrick M. Garry, Judicial Review and the “Hard Look”
Doctrine...........................................................................
Port of Jacksonville Maritime Ad Hoc Committee, Inc. v. U.S. Coast Guard
(1986).........................................................
Tummino v. von Eschenbach (2006).......................................
601
602
602

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION v. LTV
CORPORATION................................................................
Roger G. Noll, Reflections on Executive Order 13,422: The Economic
Significance of Executive Order 13,422.........
Thomas A. Lambert, Avoiding Regulatory Mismatch in the Workplace: An
Informational Approach to Workplace Safety
Regulation........................................................................
*HORNSBY v. ALLEN..................................................................
*NORTH AMERICAN COLD STORAGE COMPANY v. CITY OF
CHICAGO.........................................................................
Camuglia v. City of Albuquerque (2006)................................
604
610
610
611
615
618
Andrew H. Nelson, Comment, High Steaks: Defending North Carolina’s
Response to Contagious Animal Diseases..........
Players, Inc. v. City of New York (2007)................................
*BOWLES v. WILLINGHAM........................................................
Chevron USA, Inc. v. Cayetano (2000)...................................
619
619
621
625
Lingle v. Chevron, U.S.A. (2005)...........................................
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (FHLMC) v. New York State Division of
625
Housing & Community Renewal (1996).................................................................626
*HECKLER v. CAMPBELL............................................................ 626
Sykes v. Apfel (2000)............................................................. 629
Hoopai v. Astrue (2007).........................................................
Banks v. Gonzales (2006)......................................................
LUJAN v. G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC..................................
Suburban Mortgage v. HUD (2007).......................................
630
631
632
634
Baird v. Board of Education for Warren Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 205
(2004)................................................................ 635
*2. I nter v ening – H ow O pen i s the A gen c y D oor?.....................
*OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION OF THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST v.
637
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
637 COMMISSION..................................................................
*Rainbow/PUSH Coalition v. Federal Communications Commission
(2003)..........................................................
Fund Democracy, LLC v. Securities and Exchange Commission
641
642 (2002)..............................................................................
Commodity Carriers, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin
(2005)..............................................................................
Envirocare of Utah, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(1999)..............................................................................
643
643
* CHAPTER 7 Judicial Review of Facts, Law, and Agency Policy in
Adjudication............................................... 645

I. The E xhaus tio n R equ i remen t ............................................................
MCCARTHY v. MADIGAN....................................................................
Booth v. Churner (2001)..................................................................
Jones v. Zenk (2007)........................................................................
Zhong v. United States Department of Justice (2006)........................
DARBY v. CISNEROS............................................................................
Ahmed v. AG of United States (2007)...............................................
McQueen v. Colorado Springs School District No. 11 (2007)............
Munsell v. Department of Agriculture (2007)....................................
II. Jud i c i al R ev i ew St andards..............................................................
*UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD......................................................................................
Environmental Defense Fund v. Ruckelshaus (1971).........................
Claire R. Kelly’s The Dangers of Daubert Creep in the Regulatory
Realm....................................................................................
660
665
666
J. Tavener Holland, Comment, Regulatory Daubert: A Panacea for the Endangered
Species Act’s “Best Available Science”
Mandate?.............................................................................. 666
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. HEARST PUBLICATIONS,
INC............................................................................................
Air Brake Systems, Inc. v. Mineta, 357 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2004).......
*Penasquitos Village, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
(1977)...................................................................................
Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen (1980).............
Mayo Foundation v. Surface Transportation Board (2006)................
Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales (2006).................................................
Navarro v. Pfizer Corp. (2001).........................................................
Singh v. Gonzales (2006).................................................................
667
671
672
674
675
676
677
678
G&T Terminal Packaging Co., Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture
(2006)................................................................
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE v. CARDOZA-
FONSECA................................................................
National Wildlife Federation v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Service,
678
680
(2007)...................................................................................
Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2004)...................................
*SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE v. COSTLE..........................
*1. Seacoast and the problem o f extra-re c ord in f ormation.....................................................................
Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation v. Public Utilities Control Authority
(1981)..............................................................
2. D oe s
“publi c hearing” mean f ormal hearing?.................
Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC (1984).......................
686
686
688
693
693
695
695
696 U.S. Lines, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission (1978)........
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. v. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY................................. 696
645
645
648
649
650
652
655
657
658
660

Friends of Earth v. Reilly (1992)......................................................
*DOMINION ENERGY BRAYTON POINT, LLC v. JOHNSON...............
Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. United States of America
(2004)...................................................................................
700
701
709
* CHAPTER 8 Administrative Judging............................................. 711
*MORGAN v. UNITED STATES..............................................................
Gomes v. University of Maine (2006)...............................................
De la Llana-Castellon v. INS (1994)................................................
Bates v. Sponberg (1976)..................................................................
*NASH v. BOWEN.................................................................................
Grant v. Shalala, 989 F.2d 1332 (3d Cir. 1992).................................
James E. Moliterno, The Administrative Judiciary’s Independence
Myth.....................................................................................
WONG YANG SUNG v. MCGRATH.....................................................
Jonal Corp. v. District of Columbia (1976).......................................
*WITHROW v. LARKIN.........................................................................
Wildberger v. AFGE (1996)..............................................................
Nightlife Partners, Ltd. v. City of Beverly Hills (2003).....................
*CHENEY v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA..........................................................................
In re Cheney (2003).........................................................................
Bunnell v. Barnhart (2003)..............................................................
720
722
724
726
731
731
733
737
739
Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. Secretary of Health and
Human Services (2005)..................................................
*SCHWEIKER v. MCCLURE..................................................................
Amundsen v. The Chicago Park District (2000)................................
Independence Public Media of Philadelphia, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public
Television Network Commission (1992).................................
Simpson v. Macon County (2001).....................................................
Nan D. Hunter, Managed Process, Due Care: Structures of Accountability in
Health Care............................................................
Antoniu v. Securities and Exchange Commission (1989)...................
Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002)........................................
Municipal Services Corporation v. North Dakota (1992).................
First Savings & Loan Association of Borger v. Vandygriff (Vandygriff I)
739
741
744
745
746
746
748
750
751
(1980)............................................................
Vandygriff v. First Savings and Loan Association of Borger (Vandygriff II)
(1981)...........................................................
751
752
*Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
(1970)............................................................... 753
*ANDREWS v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.............. 755
Tug Valley Recovery Center v. Watt (1983)....................................... 759
711
714
715
715
717
720

Duchesne v. Williams, Jr. (1987)....................................................... 760
CHAPTER 9 *Evidence: Before, Beyond, and in the
Record..................................................................................
I. Di sc o very................................................................................................
*McClelland v. Andrus, 606 F.2d 1278 (D.C. Cir. 1979).....................
*Hi-Tech Furnace Systems, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission,
(2000)..................................................................................
Silverman v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 549 F.2d 28
(1977)...................................................................................
Bender v. Dudas, 2006 WL 89831 (D.D.C. 2006).............................
Dorris v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (1994).................
*II. Bey o nd t he R ec o rd: Ex Part e Co mmun i ca tio n...........................
763
763
763
766
766
767
768
*PROFESSIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION v.
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.............................
New Jersey Racing Commission v. Silverman (1997)........................
Portland Audubon Society v. Oregon Lands Coalition (1993)............
Ortiz v. Eichler (1985).....................................................................
Appeal of Atlantic Connections, Ltd. (New Hampshire Public Utilities
Commission) (1992).............................................................
Electric Power Supply Association v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(2004)...............................................................
769
775
776
777
777
778
*III. Estoppel............................................................................................... 779
779
782
*SCHWEIKER v. HANSEN.....................................................................
*Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947).........
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) v. Harrison,
(1984)...................................................................................
Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS),
(2001)...................................................................................
Fredericks v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 126 F.3d 433 (3d Cir.
1997).......................................................................
Rider v. United States Postal Service, 862 F.2d 239 (9th Cir. 1988)...
Dawkins v. Witt, 318 F.3d 606 (4th Cir. 2003)..................................
*I V . E v i dence i n A d j ud i ca to ry Pr o ceed i ngs.......................................
*CARROLL v. KNICKERBOCKER ICE COMPANY.................................
*Altschuller v. Bressler (1943)...........................................................
*RICHARDSON v. PERALES..................................................................
Brown Tire Company v. Underwriters Adjusting Company (1991)....
Niam v. Ashcroft (2004)...................................................................
Debartolomeis v. Board of Review (2001).........................................
765
783
784
785
786
786
729
788
790
791
799
800
800

Munyori v. Division of Long Term Care Residents Protection
(2005)...................................................................................
Compton v. District of Columbia Board of Psychology (2004)...........
Calhoun v. Bailar (1980).................................................................
*Cowan v. Bunting Glider Co. (1946)................................................
Tarpley v. Hornyak (2004)...............................................................
BROCK v. ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC...................................................
Bechtel v. Competitive Techs., Inc (CTI). (2006)...............................
McCombs v. Barnhart (2004)...........................................................
*WIRTZ v. Baldor Electric Company (1963)........................................
Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co. (2007)..........................
United States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
(1994)...................................................................
LASALLE NATIONAL BANK v. COUNTY OF LAKE.............................
Cobb Publishing v. Hearst Corporation, and Dow Jones & Co.
(1995)...................................................................................
Coburn v. DaimlerChrysler Services North America (2003).............
CHAPTER 10 Adjudication and Separation of Powers.....
*IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE v. CHADHA.............
Boumediene v. Bush (2008)..............................................................
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for Abatement of
Airport Noise (1991).....................................
Bowsher v. Synar (1986)..................................................................
Amanda Frost, Certifying Questions to Congress..............................
*MISTRETTA v. UNITED STATES..........................................................
United States v. Booker (2005).........................................................
United States v. Hook (2006)...........................................................
United States v. Martinez-Flores (2005)...........................................
ACLU v. National Security Agency/Central Security Service
(2006)...................................................................................
MORRISON v. OLSON.........................................................................
*COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. SCHOR...........
Miller v. French (2000)....................................................................
In re Kaiser Steel v. Frates (1989)....................................................
North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. TVA (2008)....................................
*CHAPTER 11 Administrative Hearings in Select
Fields.....................................................................................
*I. A dm i n i s t ra ti ve H ear i ngs and Pu b l i c E m p l o ymen t .......................
825
825
831
841
842
847
853
853
854
831
833
834
835
840
840
841
815
816
817
823
823
801
802
803
804
805
806
811
812
813
857
857

*PAUL v. DAVIS.....................................................................................
Lambert v. Hartman (2008).............................................................
Stodghill v. Wellston School District (2008)......................................
Robinson v. County of Lancaster (2005)..........................................
Chilingirian v. Boris, Jr. (1989)........................................................
Hill v. Borough of Kutztown (2006)..................................................
Bryant v. Gardner (2008).................................................................
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968)............................................
Baranowski v. Waters (2008)...........................................................
ARNETT v. KENNEDY.........................................................................
Piscottano v. Murphy (2007)............................................................
Curran v. Cousins (2007).................................................................
*II. D e t en tio n, Imm i gra tio n and A dm i n i s t ra ti ve H ear i ngs............
HAMDI v. RUMSFELD.........................................................................
Santosa v. Mukasey (2008)..............................................................
Pulisir v. Mukasey (2008)................................................................
Vasha v. Gonzales (2005).................................................................
Blanco v. Mukasey (2008)................................................................
*Boumediene v. Bush (2008)..............................................................
Munaf v. Geren (2008).....................................................................
Khouzam v. Hogan (2008)...............................................................
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).............................................................
*III. A dm i n i s t ra ti ve H ear i ngs and Pr o secu to r i al Di scre tio n.......
*DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES..................................................................................
Pappas v. City of Lebanon (2004).....................................................
Kallstrom v. City of Columbus (1998)..............................................
Matican v. City of New York (2008).................................................
Robbins v. Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Human Services
(2008)...................................................................................
Burella v. City of Philadelphia (2007)..............................................
Ye v. United States (2007)................................................................
*TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v. GONZALES.....................
Howard v. Bayes (2006)...................................................................
Hudson v. Hudson (2007).................................................................
Moore v. Board of County Commissioners (2007).............................
*I V . A dm i n i s t ra ti ve H ear i ngs and S ch oo ls.........................................
*GOSS v. LOPEZ....................................................................................
C.B. by and through Breeding v. Driscoll (1996)...............................
Paredes v. Curtis (1988)...................................................................
*Flaim v. Medical College of Ohio (2005)..........................................
Nash v. Auburn University (1987)....................................................
892
897
897
898
900
900
901
901
909
909
910
911
911
916
917
918
919
868
871
873
874
874
885
885
885
885
885
887
887
889
892
857
864
864
865
865
866
867
867
868

*Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz
(1977)...................................................................................
State ex rel. Yarber v. McHenry (1995).............................................
*INGRAHAM v. WRIGHT......................................................................
W.E.T. v. Mitchell (2008)..................................................................
Neal v. Fulton County Board of Education (2000)............................
Hinson v. Holt (1998)......................................................................
V . A dm i n i s t ra ti ve H ear i ngs and Pr i s o ners........................................
*SANDIN v. CONNER...........................................................................
Staples v. Casperson (2001).............................................................
Sims v. Artuz (2000)........................................................................
Austin v. Terhune (2004)..................................................................
*I. S earch, Inves ti ga tio n, and A dm i n i s t ra ti ve Pr o cess................
*1. A ppli c ability o f the Fourth A mendment to Ci v il
Sear c he s ...............................................................................
*Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County San
Francisco ......................................................
United States v. Stewart (2007).............................................
Dearmore v. City of Garland (2005)......................................
The People of the State of Illinois v. Lewis (2006)..................
United States v. Hartwell (2006)............................................
United States v. Pulido-Baquerizo (1986)...............................
United States v. Marquez (2005)...........................................
United States v. Aukai (2006)................................................
2. State W arrant s ...........................................................................
BLACK v. VILLAGE OF PARK FOREST......................................
People v. Bifulco (2003).........................................................
People v. Bessler (1989).........................................................
Kyllo v. United States (2001).................................................
Taylor v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(2007)..............................................................................
Olmstead v. United States (1928)...........................................
BLACKIE’S HOUSE OF BEEF, INC. v. CASTILLO..........
Raquel Aldana, Rights and Remedies: Of Katz and “Aliens”: Privacy
Expectations and the Immigration Raids...............
United States v. Barrows (2007)............................................
United States v. Bailey (2003)...............................................
WIDGREN v. MAPLE GROVE TOWNSHIP...............................
Palmieri v. Lynch (2004).......................................................
Taylor v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(2007)..............................................................................
*3. R egulated I ndu s trie s ..................................................................
*MARSHALL v. BARLOW’S, INC.................................................
Bruce v. Beary (2007)............................................................
929
929
934
935
935
937
919
920
921
927
928
928
955
956
956
961
961
962
962
965
967
969
969
973
939
939
945
946
947
947
948
949
949
951
951
953
954
955

Wal Juice Bar, Inc. v. City of Oak Grove (2008).....................
Rush v. Obledo (1985)...........................................................
Shoemaker v. Handel (1985)..................................................
*DONOVAN v. DEWEY...............................................................
Pennsylvania Steel Foundry & Machine Company v. Secretary of Labor
(1987)................................................................
New York v. Burger (1987)....................................................
United States v. Delgado (2007).............................................
United States v. Herrera (2006)............................................
4. Fire Sear c he s ................................................................................
MICHIGAN v. CLIFFORD..........................................................
Bruce v. Beary (2007)............................................................
United States of America v. Parr (1983).................................
United States of America v. Buckmaster (2007)......................
United States v. Cortez-Rocha (2004)....................................
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte (1976)................................
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000)...................................
United States of America v. Portillo-Aguirre (2002)...............
5*. Con s ent Sear c he s ........................................................................
*WYMAN v. JAMES......................................................................
Calabretta v. Floyd (1999).....................................................
Smith v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (2002)......
United States v. Moon (2008)................................................
CHAPTER 12 The Freedom of Information Act and the Government in the Sunshine
Act.................... 1005
*I. FOI
*II. Pu b
A l i
Overv c – Bu i ew.................................................................................. t U nava i la b le...............................................................
KISSINGER v. REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS........................................................................................
Lechliter v. Rumsfeld (2006)............................................................
Forsham v. Harris, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
(1980)...................................................................................
Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts (1989)....................................
III. *The V aughn Index.............................................................................
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. v. United States (2008).......
Campaign for Responsible Transplantation (CRT) v. FDA (2007).....
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. F ood & D rug A dministration .......
New York City Apparel FZE v. United States Customs & Border Protection
(2007)..................................................................
1005
1011
1011
1017
1019
1022
1024
1025
1025
1027
1031
974
975
976
977
980
980
981
982
983
983
987
989
990
991
991
992
993
994
994
1000
1001
1002

I V . The E xce ptio ns - and t he Pr o cess..................................................
NATIONAL ARCHIVES & RECORDS ADMINISTRATION v.
FAVISH......................................................................................
SUN-SENTINEL CO. v. Department of HOMELAND
SECURITY..................................................................................
News-Press v. DHS, 489 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2007).........................
Seized Property Recovery v. United States Customs & Border Protection
(2007)................................................................
National Labor Relations Board v. SEARS, ROEBUCK &
CO........................................................................................
Canaday v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services
(2008)..........................................................................
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP v. IRS (2008)...............................
Diemert, Jr. & Associates v. Federal Aviation Administration
(2007)...................................................................................
Boyd v. United States Department of Justice (2007).........................
Wolf v. CIA (2007).........................................................................
Davis v. Department of Justice (2006)............................................
* V . R everse FOI A A c tio ns .....................................................................
*CHRYSLER CORP. v. BROWN............................................................
OSHA Data/CIH, Inc. v. United States Department of Labor
(2000)..................................................................
Canadian Commercial Corporation v. Department of the Air Force
(2008)................................................................................
VI. The Go vernmen t i n t he S unsh i ne A c t .......................................
Common Cause v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1982)............
Federal Communications Commission v. ITT World Communications, Inc.
(1984)..........................................................................
Electric Power Supply Association v. FERC (2004).........................
1032
1036
1043
1049
1050
1051
1058
1058
1059
1060
1062
1065
1069
1069
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
Index................................................................................. 1083