Top Law Schools

on everyone's nerves. you guys have been super understanding. The other thread wasn't getting responses, and I have two outstanding questions that will pretty much make or break any exam question thrown at me. I've know I've said last before, but this will definitely be the last because there's literally no time to ask any more questions. Again, thanks.

The first is:

When attacking a statute on constitutionality grounds, the only arguments to make are [1] appointments clause; [2] non-delegation; [3] article III; and [4] general SOP violation? but petitioner still needs to meet the constitutional case or controversy standing test, right?

The second is:

For the A&C test, I haven't been able to find a definitive set of factors to apply, or the main case to cite.
In most outlines, the case is always State Farm, and its a 4 part test: [1] improper factors considered; [2] failed to consider important aspect of problem; [3] explanation runs counter to the evidence; [4] implausible on its face.

However, my very poor class notes cite National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Assoc., Inc. v. Brinegar which vacated the order as A&C but did not explicate a test. the rule I have says: "court needs to make certain that the agency took a hard look at all the relevant issues in the rulemaking and reach "rational conclusions to understandable reasons (deliberative process); courts mustn’t impose their own judgment."

So if I'm evaluating a decision, which A&C test should I apply, and which case to cite? And if I'm reviewing facts, its Substantial Evidence test, even if the review of the order itself is A&C and doesn't merit SE review?

Any answer to any part of this question will help immensely. Thank you...

sabina.kopusov wrote: The first is:

When attacking a statute on constitutionality grounds, the only arguments to make are [1] appointments clause; [2] non-delegation; [3] article III; and [4] general SOP violation? but petitioner still needs to meet the constitutional case or controversy standing test, right?

I don't understand your question. A statute could be unconstitutional for any of many reasons beyond these four. A statute could exceed the power of the Commerce Clause, violate the anti-commandeering principle, be an ex post facto law, violate any of the rights in the Amendments, etc. Maybe these four are the only ones you studied in your particular Admin class? That possibility just illustrates why it's not super effective to ask for this kind of advice on TLS: every professor covers different material and has different expectations.

But as for standing, yes, you always need standing to get into federal court. But it's the plaintiff who needs standing, not necessarily the petitioner. Consider Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife: the case was about the respondents' lack of standing.

Thank you! I guess I meant for Admin class purposes, since our class and review books appear to cover only these topics.

You can probably find a lot of answers in this thread.


http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=172414

Hard look standard = State Farm factors

kalvano wrote:You can probably find a lot of answers in this thread.


http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=172414

tyft Kal

I can post my outline when I get home, if it would be helpful.

Thanks so much guys. It looks like most classes use State Farm which has a concrete 4 step analysis, whereas people in my class are saying we used Natl Tire Mfg. One Hastings sample exam answer threw out a very diffuse A&C analysis and paid lip service to hardlook. I'm terrified of failing the one class i'm taking p/f.

EDIT: I've read through that thread before, first place I looked. It was helpful, but also confusing. Other school's exams (from the ones I've found online) are appear to be simpler than the ones I have from my prof. They basically go [1] agency action > go to APA b/c no agency procedure. what challenges. [2] N&C, was procedure followed.


The exam from my prof I looked at asked what constitutional challenges two separate parties can bring, and what the remedies would be. Why would the cons'l challenges be different, and why would the remedies be different? (standing aside. if its standing, fine. but if the parties have both been aggrieved, both suffered pecuniary damages, and the same cons'l challenges would be equally successful/unsuccessful, WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE)

full blown panic mode. Got A's in Evidence, Corporations, Crim Pro, A-s in a few others. Will pass it forward if I encounter questions about those.

JamMasterJ wrote:Hard look standard = State Farm factors

blew my mind. first i've heard this. thank you. woah woah.

EDIT: how sure are you of this, cuz if thats the case, then wtfwow that is like the holygrail/fountain of youth. I'll still appreciate more answers to the constitutional stuff/A&C, and maybe what relevance Nat'l Tire Mfg has, but wowow.

sabina.kopusov wrote:

JamMasterJ wrote:Hard look standard = State Farm factors

blew my mind. first i've heard this. thank you. woah woah.

EDIT: how sure are you of this, cuz if thats the case, then wtfwow that is like the holygrail/fountain of youth. I'll still appreciate more answers to the constitutional stuff/A&C, and maybe what relevance Nat'l Tire Mfg has, but wowow.

notes in my casebook after SF. Kal knows this stuff better than I do


BTW Kalvano, I'm halfway through that Administrative Law thread and you. are. amazing.

BTW Kalvano, when we have to review an agency's interpretation of law and the process by which it does so, are we using Chevron wrt the outcome, but A/C State Farm-y stuff for whether in the porcedure they failed to take important considerations into account? Or are these analyses done together some way?

I'm done with exams, so I completely forgot everything I just learned over the past 3 years. But here:

http://sdrv.ms/16EGi1G

Outline, short sheet, and canned answers. If you still have questions after that, I can try and stop playing video games long enough to go back and find out for you. But my outline is pretty comprehensive because that exam terrified me.

a few friends just calmed me down. how much do I really need to eff up to fail a p/f?

kalvano wrote:I'm done with exams, so I completely forgot everything I just learned over the past 3 years. But here:

http://sdrv.ms/16EGi1G

Outline, short sheet, and canned answers. If you still have questions after that, I can try and stop playing video games long enough to go back and find out for you. But my outline is pretty comprehensive because that exam terrified me.

Your canned answers and short sheet are a thing of beauty. I tried to prepare a "taglist" which is similar but more neurotic.