Question 1

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court held that for a party to have standing to challenge an administrative decision they must have suffered an "injury in fact."

Accepted Answer

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court established that for a party to have standing to challenge an administrative decision, they must have suffered an "injury in fact."

Question 2

In Summers v. Earth Island Institute the Supreme Court held that an environmental group did not have standing to seek judicial review of a Forest Service decision to log a burned area of forest.

Accepted Answer

In Summers v. Earth Island Institute, the Supreme Court held that an environmental group did not have standing to seek judicial review of a Forest Service decision to log a burned area of forest.

Question 3

All citizens have standing, under the Constitution, to challenge the constitutionality of any new regulation.

Accepted Answer

Standing requires that an individual can demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision, which means not all citizens automatically have standing to challenge any new regulation.

Question 4

The Supreme Court had held that there may be no judicial review of an agency action unless the agency decision is final.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court has consistently held that agency decisions must be final in order to be subject to judicial review. This is known as the "finality doctrine," and it reflects the principle that courts should not interfere in administrative matters until the agency has completed its decision-making process and issued a final decision. Only then can a party seek judicial review of the agency's action.

Question 5

Before an appeal to a federal court may be made, an agency decision must be "ripe" for review, meaning the courts will not intervene in agency process still underway.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. The ripeness doctrine requires that a case must be ripe for review before a federal court can hear it, meaning that the issue must be ready or complete enough for a court to make a decision without interfering in the ongoing agency process.

Question 6

A party seeking a court challenge to an agency decision or action must have standing to seek judicial review.

Accepted Answer

Standing refers to the legal right of a party to bring a lawsuit or challenge a decision in court. In order to have standing, the party must have suffered or be threatened with an injury that is concrete and particularized, actual or imminent, and not hypothetical or speculative. The injury must also be fairly traceable to the challenged action by the agency and must be likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. Therefore, a party seeking a court challenge to an agency decision or action must have standing to seek judicial review.

Question 7

Judicial review of administrative agency actions may only look for evidence of violations of constitutional rights.

Accepted Answer

Judicial review of administrative agency actions may look for evidence of violations of both constitutional rights and statutory authority. The court may also review the agency's interpretation of the law and determine if it is reasonable and within the scope of its delegated authority.

Question 8

A party injured by an administrative rule always has the right to seek review of the rule in federal court.

Accepted Answer

Not all administrative rules can be immediately reviewed in federal court. The party must generally exhaust all administrative remedies first, and the rule must be considered final agency action. Additionally, the party must have standing and the issue must be ripe for judicial review.

Question 9

For an administrative decision to be able to get to federal court on appeal, there must be jurisdiction, reviewability, standing, ripeness and exhaustion.

Accepted Answer

This is correct. These are the five requirements for administrative decisions to be reviewable in federal court.

Question 10

In Japan, administrative law, in general, has less impact on business than in the U.S.

Accepted Answer

In Japan, administrative law plays a significant role in regulating business activities, similar to the U.S., affecting various aspects of business operations from licensing, environmental regulations, to labor laws.

Question 11

In Summers v. Earth Island Institute the Supreme Court held that an environmental group had standing as representatives of concerned citizens to seek judicial review of a Forest Service decision to log a burned area of forest.

Accepted Answer

In Summers v. Earth Island Institute, the Supreme Court held that the environmental group did not have standing because they failed to demonstrate that their members were directly affected by the logging decision, thus lacking the necessary concrete and particularized injury for standing.

Question 12

In Summers v. Earth Island Institute the Supreme Court held that environmental and other citizen groups have the right to intervene to challenge most regulatory decisions.

Accepted Answer

In Summers v. Earth Island Institute, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs must demonstrate actual, concrete harm in order to have standing to sue, thereby limiting the ability of environmental and other citizen groups to challenge regulatory decisions without showing direct harm.

Question 13

All federal courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from administrative agency actions.

Accepted Answer

Only specific federal courts, primarily the United States Courts of Appeals, have jurisdiction to hear appeals from administrative agency actions, not all federal courts.

Question 14

Before an appeal of the decision of an administrative agency may be made to a federal court, all appeal processes within the agency must be exhausted first.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine, which requires parties to pursue all administrative remedies before seeking relief from a federal court. This ensures that the agency has had a full opportunity to address and resolve the issue before involving the court system.

Question 15

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court held that for a party to have standing to challenge an administrative decision they must be "an interested party."

Accepted Answer

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court held that for a party to have standing to challenge an administrative decision, they must have suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. The concept of being "an interested party" is not the standard used by the Court to determine standing.

Question 16

Congress may restrict judicial review of agency actions.

Accepted Answer

Congress has the power to limit or eliminate judicial review of agency actions, although this is not always considered constitutional. However, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress can safeguard agency actions from judicial review in certain circumstances.

Question 17

For an administrative decision to be able to get to federal court on appeal, there must be jurisdiction, interest, challenge, and exhaustion.

Accepted Answer

The answer of For an administrative decision to be able...

Question 18

The Administrative Procedures Act controls the appeals process from agency actions.

Accepted Answer

The answer of The Administrative Procedures Act controls the appeals...

Question 19

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court upheld the standing of an environmental group to challenge construction of a dam in Egypt supported by U.S. aid where construction threatened an endangered crocodile.

Accepted Answer

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court ruled that the environmental group did not have the standing to sue because they could not demonstrate a direct injury that was actual or imminent from the construction of the dam.

Question 20

A court's review of an agency's substantive determinations generally receives the lowest scope of judicial review.

Accepted Answer

When a court reviews an agency's substantive determinations, it generally gives the agency a high degree of deference and the scope of judicial review is limited. This is known as the "deference doctrine" or "deference principle" and is based on the idea that agencies are better equipped to make technical and specialized decisions in their respective areas of expertise. Thus, the court's review of agency substantive determinations generally receives the lowest scope of judicial review.

Quiz 17: The Regulatory Process