James Madison University
Department of Political Science
Legal Environment of Public Administration
Dr. Robert Roberts
PUAD 515
Maury G13-14
Fall 2005
Office: 568-6323
M. 18:30-21:00
E-Mail: Robertrn@jmu.edu
____________________________________________________________________________________________
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
From the late 18th century through the middle of the 20 th century, local, state and federal government
agencies generally operated free of judicial oversight. However, the same period saw a gradual expansion of the
power and responsibilities of these same levels of government. Prior to the ratification of the United States
Constitution, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists battled over the appropriate role for the new federal government
Today, executive branch officials and employees at the federal, state and local level exercise vast discretion in the
performance of official duties. With the explosion of administrative discretion came increased opportunities for
abuse of administrative discretion. Growing criticism of the abuse of administrative discretion by public employees
and officials helped to increase support for the enactment of legislation directed at opening the administrative
process to greater public scrutiny. The passage of the Administrative Procedure Act 1946 represented the first effort
by Congress to provide procedural safeguards against the abuse of discretion by federal agencies.
Today, legal issue impact the operations of almost every local, state and federal officials and the agencies
and organizations that employ them along with millions of additional employees who work for government
contractors. Of all the legal issues faced by public organizations at the local, state and federal level, the issue the role
of the courts in monitoring the exercise of administrative discretion by bureaucratic actors has dominated the field of
administrative law. Does judicial oversight of the administrative state protect the public from abuses of
administrative discretion by public employees and officials or does increased oversight simply hamper efficient
public administration? These and other issues will be the focus of this course on the legal environment of public
administration.
COURSE OBJECTIVES:
1. Students will gain an understanding of the relationship between law and public administration at the local, state
and federal level.
2. Students will gain an understanding of constitutional and statutory provisions which limit the exercise of
administrative discretion by public employees and officials.
3. Students will gain an understanding of methods used by the legislative branch to limit the exercise of discretion
by public agencies and officials.
4. Students will gain an understanding of methods used by the President to limit the exercise of discretion by public
agencies and officials.
5. Students will gain an understanding of the role of state and federal courts in overseeing ministerial and
discretionary actions taken by local, state and federal government agencies.
6. Students will gain an understanding on statutory and constitutional limits placed on adjudication and rule making.
7. Students will gain an understanding of the provisions of the federal Administrative Procedure Act and the
Virginia Administrative Procedure Act.
8. Students will gain an understanding of the law governing the liability of local, state and federal government
agencies for injuries to private citizens and private organizations resulting from actions taken by government
agencies.
9. Students will gain an understanding of the liability of local, state and federal officials for action which violate the
statutory and/or constitutional rights of individuals the subject of action taken by public officials and employees.
10. Students will gain an understanding of the constitutional rights of public employees.
11. Students will gain an understanding of the types of ethics restrictions
REQUIRED TEXTS:
– Daniel Hall, Administrative Law: Bureaucracy and Democracy (2001)
– Robert Roberts, The Supreme Court: Law and Public Administration: (Unpublished Manuscript)
EXAMINATIONS:
Students are required to take all examinations during assigned times. Only exceptional circumstances will
justify a student not taking a scheduled exam during the semester and during the final exam week. Any violation of
this policy will result in an automatic one full grade reduction on any subsequent make-up examination.
Undergraduate Students
1 .
2.
3.
4.
4.
Midterm:
Final:
Quizzes
Research Project
Course Journal
25%
25%
25%
15%
10%
GRADES:
A
AB+
B
B-
95-100
90-94
87-89
83-86
80-82
C+
C
CD+
D
77-79
74-78
70-73
67-69
60-68
F 0-60
ATTENDANCE: Students are required to keep an attendance log as part of their course journal. The log must list
all classes attended and include an explanation for any classes missed. I reserve the right to lower a student’s grade
for excessive absences.
LATE DROP POLICY: It is the policy of the Department of Political Science not to authorize the dropping of
courses after the official drop date. Consequently, I will not authorize a withdraw pass or a withdraw failing.
NOTE: THE PERCENTAGE OF GRADE DISTRIBUTION IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHIN 10%
CHANGE FOR EACH CATEGORY.
FINAL EXAMINATION DATE: Monday December 12, 2005, 18:30 A.M. - 21.00 P.M.
COURSE OUTLINE
I. JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT AND BUREAUCRATIC GOVERNMENT
SESSION ONE: AUGUST 29:
ADMINISTRATIVE STATE:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DEFINED AND THE GROWTH OF THE
Required Readings:
– Hall, Administrative Law: Bureaucracy and Democracy, pp. 1-13.
– Roberts, The Supreme Court, Law and Public Administration, Chapter 1, 1-36.
SESSION TWO: SEPTEMBER 5: BUREAUCRACY AND DEMOCRACY: THE REGULATION OF
BUREAUCRATIC POWER: FROM INTENSE SCRUTINY TO BENIGN NEGLECT:
Required Readings:
– Roberts, The Supreme Court, Law and Public Administration, Chapter 2 and 3, pp. 37-93.
Case List:
Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876).
Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897).
Lockner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
North American Cold Storage v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908).
Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco, 264 U.S. 298 (1924).
Federal Radio Corporation v. General Electric Corporation, 281 U.S. 464 (1930)
Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Brothers Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U.S. 266 (1933)
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935).
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).
Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936).
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 302 U.S. 1 (1937).
Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464 (1938).
Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 464 (1938).
Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113 (1940).
United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941).
Endicott Johnson v. Perkins, 317 U.S. 501 (1943).
Skidmore v. Swift, 323 U.S. 134 (1944).
Korematsu v. U.S. 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
Oklahoma Press v. Walling, 327 U.S. 187 (1946).
Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1 (1946).
Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950).
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950).
Bailey v. Richardson, 341 U.S. 918 (1951).
Garner v. Los Angles Board, 341 U.S. 716 (1951).
SESSION THREE: SEPTEMBER 12: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND THE NEW PARTNERSHIP:
Required Readings:
– Roberts, The Supreme Court, Law and Public Administration, Chapters 3 and 4, pp. 94-170.
– Rosenbloom, 1987. Public Administrators and the Judiciary: The “New Partnership.” Public Administration
Review, 47, 75-83: JSTOR
Case List:
Wolf v. Colorado, 328 U.S. 25 (1949).
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1952).
Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955).
Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331 (1955).
Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536 (1956).
Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (1959).
Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 (1959).
Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959).
Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961).
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886 (1961).
Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966).
Keyishian v. Board of Education, 385 U.S. 589 (1967).
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967).
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967).
See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (1967).
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 (1970).
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, 397 U.S. 159 (1970).
Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971).
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971).
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972).
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974).
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).
Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975).
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976).
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980).
II. DEFINING THE NEW PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE COURTS AND BUREAUCRATIC
GOVERNMENT
SESSION FOUR: SEPTEMBER 19TH: SEPARATION OF POWERS AND BUREAUCRATIC
INDEPENDENCE: FORMAL AND INFORMAL METHODS OF BUREAUCRATIC CONTROL.
Required Readings:
– Hall, pp. 13-50.
Case List:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Bowsher v. Synar (1986)(Findlaw)
Morrison v. Olson (1988)(Findlaw)
Mistretta v. U.S. (1989) (Findlaw)
Clinton v. New York (1998) (Hall, p. 24).
United States v. Morrison (2000) (Hall, p. 16)
Wiener v. United States (1958) .
Dole v. United States Steelworkers of America (1990) .
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983) (Hall, pp. 26-27).
SESSION FOUR: SEPTEMBER 19TH: THE NON-DELEGATION DOCTRINE AND BUREAUCRATIC
POWER:
Required Readings:
– Hall, Chapter Five, pp. 77-101.
Case List:
9 . United States v. Grimaud (1911) (Hall, p. 79)
10. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935) (Hall, p. 80-81)
11. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) (Hall, p. 78)
12. Touby v. United States (1991) (Hall, 86-89)
13. South Dakota v. Department of Interior (1995) (Hall, 90-92).
14. Foley v. Osborne Court Condominium (1999) (Hall, 95-96).
15. Whitman v. American Trucking (2002)
SESSION FIVE: SEPTEMBER 26TH. THE FOUNDATION OF JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT OF
BUREAUCRATIC GOVERNMENT:
Required Reading:
– Hall, pp. 25-28.
Laws Providing Private Causes of Actions Against Governments and Government Officials
– 42 USC 1981
– 42 USC 1982
– 42 USC 1983
– 42 USC 1985
– Employment Discrimination and Civil Rights Laws.
– Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act
– Title IX
– Tort Claims Acts
Case List:
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1981)
Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment Housing Authority (1987)
Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Association (1990)
Suter v. Artist M. (1992)
Blessing, Director, Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Freestone (1997)
Gonzaga University et al v. Doe (2002)
Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2005).
SESSION FIVE: SEPTEMBER 26: FROM THE OLD TO NEW PROPERTY: STATE ACTION AND
PROTECTED PROPERTY INTERESTS:
Required Readings:
– Hall, Chapter Four, pp. 50-75.
– Pierce, Richard J. 1996. The Due Process Counterrevolution of the 1990s? Columbia Law Review, 96:
pp. 1973-1980.
Case List:
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33 .
34.
Londoner v. City and County of Denver (1908)
Bi-Metallic Investment Company v. State Board of Equalization (1915)
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division, Craft (1978)
Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) (Hall, p. 59)
Wisconsin v. Constantineau (1971)
Perry v. Sinderman (1972) (Hall, p. 53)
Board of Regents v. Roth (1972)
Wolff v. McDonnell (1974)
Goss v. Lopez (1976) (Hall, p. 55)
Paul v. Davis (1976)
Ingraham v. Wright (1977) (Hall, p. 66)
Dixon v. Love (1977) (Hall, p. 67)
SESSION SIX: OCTOBER 3: WHAT CONSTITUTES AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD?
Required Readings:
–Hall, Chapter 4, 50-75.
– Pierce, Richard J. 1996. The Due Process Counterrevolution of the 1990s? Columbia Law Review, 96:
pp. 1981-1988.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)
Board of Curators v. Horowitz (1980)
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985)
Sandlin v. Connor (1995).
Gilbert v. Homar (1997) (Hall, p. 62)
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)
SESSION SIX: OCTOBER 3RD: THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND AGENCY REQUESTS FOR
INFORMATION: COERCIVE BUREAUCRATIC POWER:
Required Readings:
– Hall, pp. 127-160.
Case List:
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Shapiro v. United States (1948)
United States v. Morton Salt Co. (1950)(Hall, p. 129)
FTC v. American Tobacco Co (1924)
Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling (1946)
Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc. (1984)
SESSION SEVEN: OCTOBER 10th : THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE
INSPECTIONS:
Required Readings:
– Hall, 132-152.
Case List:
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco (1967)(Hall, p. 135-136).
See v. Seattle (1967).
Colonnade Cateering Corp. v. United States (1970).
Wyman v. James, (Cann, pp. 159-162).
United States v. Biswell, (1972).
Michigan v. Tyler, (Cann, pp. 185-187).
Marshall v. Barlow’s (1978) .
Donovan v. Dewey (1981) (Hall, pp. 153-155).
New Jersey v. T.LO. (1985)
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (1986) .
O’Connor v. Ortega (1987)
New York v. Burger (1987)
Treasury Employees v. Von Rabb (1995)(Hall, p. 146)
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executive Association (1989) (Hall, pp. 138-146)
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995)(Hall, pp. 148-150)
Ferguson v. Charleston (2001)
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatinuie County v. Earls (2002)
SESSION EIGHT: OCTOBER 17: MIDTERM EXAM:
III: DISCRETIONARY DECISION MAKING
SESSION NINE: OCTOBER 24: BASICS OF RULE-MAKING:
Required Readings:
– Hall, Chapter 6, pp. 103-125:
Case List:
63. United States v. Florida East Coast Railroad (1973) (Hall, pp. 112-113)/
64. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1978) (Hall, pp. 117-118)
65. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. (1983).
66. FDA v. Brown And Williamson Et. Al (2000) (Hall, pp. 120-122)
SESSION NINE: OCTOBER 24: FORMAL ADJUDICATION AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS:
Required Readings:
– Hall, Chapter 8, pp. 161-196.
Case List.
67. Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. Federal Communication Commission (1946) (Hall, pp. 166-167)
68. Richardson v. Perales (1971) (Hall, pp. 173-174)
69. Immigration And Naturalization Service v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984) (Hall, pp. 176-177)
70. Steadman v. United States (1981) (Hall, p. 179)
71. Woodby v. Immigration And Naturalization Service (1966)(Hall, p. 180)
72. Stephens v. Merit Systems Protection Board (1993)(Hall, pp. 183-184)
73. Gibson v. Berryhill (1973) (Hall, pp. 185-186)
SESSION TEN: OCTOBER 31: SOURCES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AUTHORITY AND AGENCY
DISCRETION
Required Readings:
– Hall, 197-204.
Case List:
74. Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 361 (1974)
75. Heckler v. Chaney 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (Hall, 205-206)
76. Taynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535 (1988)
77. Lincoln v. Vigil, (1993) 508 U.S. 182 (Hall, 202-204)
78. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, (1971)
SESSION ELEVEN: OCTOBER 31: STANDING AND TIMING OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:
Required Readings:
– Hall, pp. 204-216
Case List:
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co, 310 U.S. 113 (1942)
Associated of Data Processing v. Camp, 297 U.S. 150 (1970)
Barlow v. Collins (1970)
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972)
United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975)
Duke Power v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59 (1978)
Lujan v. Defenders of the Wildlife, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (1992)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment (1998)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlow Env. (2000)
SESSION ELEVEN: NOVEMBER 7: EXHAUSTION AND RIPENESS:
Required Readings:
– Hall, pp. 216-218.
Case List:
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185 (1969)(Hall, pp. 225-226)
McKee v. United States, 402 U.S. 479 (1971)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002).
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967)
Lucus v. South Carolina Coastal Commission (1992)
Ohio Forestry Ass’n v. Sierrra Club (1998)
SESSION ELEVEN: NOVEMBER 7: SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: QUESTIONS OF FACT AND
QUESTIONS OF LAW AND POLICY:
Required Readings:
– Hall, pp. 218-238.
Case List:
95. Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (Hall, pp. 228-229)
96. Christensen et al. v. Harris County (2000).
97. INS v. Ventura (2002)
SESSION TWELVE: NOVEMBER 14: ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND CONTROL
OF BUREAUCRATIC DISCRETION:
Required Readings:
– Hall, pp. 240-268.
– Federal Freedom of Information Act
– Virginia Freedom of Information Act:
Case List:
98. National Parks And Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (1974) .
99. Chrysler v. Brown, (1979) (Cann, pp. 168-172).
100. National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, (1975)
101. North v. Walsh (1989) (Hall, pp. 247-249)
SESSION TWELVE: NOVEMBER 14: PRIVACY RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES:
Required Readings:
Case List:
102.
103.
104.
105.
Department of the Air Force v. Rose (1976)
United States Department of Defense v. FLSA (1994)(Hall, pp. 252-253).
Forsham v. Harris (1980) (Hall, pp. 265-266).
Owasso Independent School District No. I-011 v. Pletan (2002)
SESSION THIRTEEN: NOVEMBER 21: THE ABROGATION DOCTRINE AND THE ELEVENTH
IMMUNITY OF THE STATES:
Case List:
106. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976)
107. City of Borne v. Flores (1997)
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1999)
Alden v. Maine (1999)
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000)
Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001)
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003)
Tennessee v. Lane (2004).
SESSION THIRTEEN: NOVEMBER 21: THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE AND TORT
CLAIMS ACTS:
Required Readings:
– Hall, pp. 269-276.
Case List:
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
Dalehite v. United States (1953)
United States v. Varig Airlines, (1984)
Lane v. Penna (1996).
Bowers v. City of Chattanooga (1992) (Hall, p. 273-275).
Kirk v. City of Shawnee (200) (Hall, pp. 277-280)
SESSION FOURTEEN: NOVEMBER 28 : MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR UNLAWFUL OFFICIAL ACTS
OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES:
Required Readings:
– Hall, pp. 276-291.
Case List:
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978) (Hall, p. 282).
Owen v. City of Independence (1980)
Pembaur v. Cincinnati (1986)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989)
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris (1989)
Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales (2005)
Board of Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996).
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998).
Gebster v. Largo Vista Independent School District (1998)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis (1998) (Hall, pp. 285-286)
SESSION FIFTEEN: DECEMBER 6: MONETARY LIABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS: ABSOLUTE AND OFFICIAL IMMUNITY:
Required Readings:
– Hall, pp. 291-302.
Case List:
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
Bar v. Matteo, (1959)
Nixon v. United States (1974)
Stump v. Sparkman, (1978)
Clinton v. Jones (1997)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971) (Cann, pp. 363-65)
Scheuer v. Rhodes, (1974).(Cann, 373-374).
Wood v. Strickland (1975) (Cann, 375-378)
Butz v. Economou, (1978) (Cann, 366-68)
Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982)
Smith v. Wade (1983)
Anderson v. Creighton (1987)
Wilson v. Layne (1999).
Saucier v. Katz (2001)
Correctional Services Corp v. Maleskay (2001) (Usscplus)
Hope v Pelzer (2002)
Brosseau v. Haugen (2004)