Administrative Law Prof Blog

Good illustration for three dimensional thinking.

To get students to think three dimensionally when analyzing an administrative law problem, seems the current Qualcomm IP battle could provide an excellent example. For example, see article on the recent ITC Ban on Qualcomm phones.  "Qualcomm plans to ask a federal appeals court to block the order from taking effect in 60 days and will also ask Bush to reverse the decision."    The Article reports that typically deferential to the ITC, the President has stepped in five times before, though the last time doing so was some 20 years ago.  Lots of room for discussion on legislative, judicial and executive interplay.   

Unpatriotic or is it just business?

Is it unpatriotic or simply just business for a private property owner to refuse to bear the cost of a slated 911 memorial on his 273 acres?  A recent dispute involves a Pittsburgh property owner who is under fire for demanding $10 million for his portion of land that is the site where Flight 93 crashed and where a $58 million memorial, established by an act of Congress in 2002, is planned.  The asking price is apparently "far more than the per acre amount paid for nearby land."  The National Park Service is the federal agency in charge of the planning and acquisition.  The last offer "wasn't acceptable."  To add to the families' anger, he also installed a donation box to help pay for security, after federal funding of $10,000 per month ran out in February.  See article at the Huffington Post.

The Case of the $65 Million Dollar Pants and the ALJ

Need an example to debate the qualifications of an administrative law judge? How about starting with the $65 Million Dollar Pants?  See article reported in the Washington Post; anyone with the "real' case cite?  i thought of posting this under the category "Admin Humor" though not such a laughing matter to the defendants.  A different way to enter into discourse of the role and qualificatins of an ALJ.  CQ

Standing and Redressability still in debate

Good recent 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court case to use in class to debate standing and redressability on the serious topic of global warming.  See Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency.  The dissent by Roberts and Scalia takes serious shots at whether or not a state has standing to sue, and whether or not there is redressability for the 'direct injury' of global warming.  Case is reported in the local Vermont Guardian.  CQ

Terminated because of what's on your Myspace?

What if a government employer wants to terminate an employee simply based on information it learns as a result of a Google or equivalent search? "It Depends" says Eric Sinrod, a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP, and recent author of findlaw web article "Dismissal Upheld Despite Employer's Google Search for Employee's Prior Work History."  The unclear, fact intensive based answer is in classic frustrating administrative law style but perhaps more so because it hits closer to home than comfortable.  Reporting on Mullins v. Department of Commerce, Sinrod explains that the decision raises more questions than answers.  Characterized as "just decided on a non-precedential basis by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. . .Rather than creating any sort of bright line rule, however, the Federal Circuit found that there were ample additional and independent reasons for the termination." This begs the ultimate question, What's on your myspace?  CQ

Standard of Review for FOIA exception

In light of continuing debate over the conflict between Homeland Security Act's powers and a citizen's Constitutional rights,  the Third Circuit Appellate Court decision appears to deliver yet another blow to a citizen's right to know. Abdelfattah v. US Dep't of Homeland Security; Case No. 06-4106, issued on 05/30/07, decided on the extent of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the test for evaluating whether material withheld pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7 qualifies as "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes."   Invoking Exemption 7 does not require identifying a particular individual or incident as the object of an investigation into a potential violation of law or security risk, but rather only a "colorable claim" based upon "sufficient" information of the relationship between the agency's authority to enforce a statute or regulation and the activity giving rise to the requested documents.   Food for hot debate in class perhaps?  CQ