Discusison:
What compelling governmental interests would have to exist for these laws to be sustained? How else could the government justify their enactment? How could the laws be modified so as not to be a deemed an unlawful seizure or taking?
Study the following problems:consider the following questions:
• Explain why someone would say it's true that the commerce clause allows Congress to regulate almost anything that happens within states.
• How does the concept of a Federal Government with enumerated powers impact this?
• Read the 10th amendment and explore what role it plays.
• Should the Federal government have unlimited or limited powers in your opinion?
Did the agencies involved violate Due Process or other Constitutionally mandated safeguards? What type of evidence would the agencies need to justify their actions. How might the aggrieved parties demonstrate that the agencies were acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner? How might the agencies defend against such a charge?
Study the following problems: and consider these questions:
• What is the relationships between procedural and substantive rules?
• What is the relationships between administrative agencies and alternative dispute resolution?
• Explain why someone might think this statement is true: Administrative agencies are not really a "fourth branch of government."
• Explain relationships between the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Federal Privacy Act (FPA).
Case problems:
• Scrap metal is a big business in Tennessee, and most of the scrap metal is shipped out of state. Tennessee was concerned that much of the metal being sold to dealers in the state was stolen, so the legislature passed a law designed to give law enforcement a better opportunity to determine whether metal on dealers' lots was stolen. The new law included, among other provisions, requirements for screening of metal sellers, recordkeeping requirements, and a 10-day waiting period between when purchased metal could be resold by a dealer. The Scrap Recyclers Association sued the state, arguing that the law violated the Commerce Clause and also the Fifth Amendment. The district court upheld the law and the Recyclers appealed. What do you think the outcome of this case was and why? Tennessee Scrap Recyclers Association v. Bredesen, 556 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2009).
• Aurora, Colorado, passed an ordinance banning pit bulls and other selected breeds of dogs from being inside the city limits. The American Canine Foundation, an organization aimed at improving the canine industry, sued to have the ordinance struck down as unconstitutional. The Foundation argued that the ordinance infringed on their constitutional rights, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, they argued the law resulted in an uncompensated taking and violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Explain why the ordinance is or is not constitutional. American Canine Foundation v. City of Aurora, Colorado, 618 F.Supp.2d 1271; 2009 WL 1370893 (D. Colo. 2009).
• The Public Citizen Health Research Group brought the OSHA to court when the group argued that chromium regulations established by the OSHA were too hard for some companies to maintain. First, chromium is a metal and can be most dangerous in its Cr(VI) form. In many types of work, there is exposure to this form of chromium as dust or fumes. Long term, the exposure can lead to lung cancer. Other problems related to exposure include asthma and nasal or skin irritation. Therefore, the OSHA determined that exposures to Cr(VI) should not surpass 5 μg/m3 permissible exposure limit (PEL). Subsequently, there was a proposal to reduce the PEL to 1 μg/m3. However, representatives from the affected industries argued that this 495496low level was not feasible for certain industries. Feasibility standards are set in a way so that an industry will not be harmed when trying to comply with the standards. The OSHA determined that costs to comply with the standards should be less than 1 percent of the company's revenues and 10 percent of profits. Yet, in regard to the proposed PEL of 1 μg/m3, the OSHA could not determine that the standard was feasible for five industries: welding, aerospace painting, and pigment, catalyst, and dye production. Moreover, industry representatives disagreed with and criticized the studies that the OSHA used to determine relative exposure times and the resulting development of lung cancer. Therefore, the Public Citizen Health Research Group argued that the new PEL proposals by the OSHA should not be approved. How did the court decide in this case? Should the OSHA be forced to provide feasibility proof for the five industries listed above and more cancer studies? Public Citizen Health Research Group v. OSHA, No. 06-1818 (3d Cir. Feb. 23,
• Lion Raisins, Inc., is a family-owned business that grows and markets raisins to private enterprises. In May 1999, a USDA investigation reported that Lion appeared to have falsified inspectors' signatures, given false moisture content, and changed the grade of raisins on three USDA raisin certificates issued between 1996 and 1998. Lion was subsequently awarded five more USDA contracts. In January 2001, however, the USDA awarded these contracts to other bidders and, on the basis of the May 1999 report, suspended Lion from participating in government contracts for one year. Lion filed a suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims against the USDA, seeking, in part, lost profits on the school lunch contracts on the ground that the USDA's suspension was arbitrary and capricious. Who won? Explain. Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 238 (2001).