No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
American Administrative Law—A Synoptic Survey
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2016
Extract
Like the ancient geographical area, American administrative law is also divided into three parts. In the American, as in the British conception, administrative law is concerned with powers and remedies and answers the following questions: (1) What powers may be vested in administrative agencies? (2) What are the limits of those powers? (3) What are the ways in which agencies are kept within those limits?
In answering these questions American administrative law deals with the delegation of powers to administrative agencies; the manner in which those powers must be exercised (emphasizing almost exclusively the procedural requirements imposed on agencies); and judicial review of administrative action. These form the three basic divisions of American administrative law: (1) delegation of powers, (2) administrative procedure, and (3) judicial review. This article will seek to present a synoptic survey of these three subjects. Its aim is to present an overview of American administrative law to the Israeli jurist, enabling him to understand the essentials of a system that is, at the same time, so similar to and so different from his own.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1979
References
1 Cf. Griffith, and Street, , Principles of Administrative Law (2nd ed., 1957) 3.Google Scholar
2 Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935); Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935).
3 J.W. Hampton, Jr. and Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 (1928).
4 United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R.R., 282 U.S. 311, 324 (1931).
5 Wright, , “Beyond Discretionary Justice” (1972) 81 Yale L.J. 575, 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Connolly, 337 F. Supp. 737 (D.D.C. 1971).
7 E.g., Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act, 87 Stat. 627 (1973); Federal Energy Administration Act, 88 Stat. 96 (1974).
8 Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 646 (1963).
9 National Cable Television Assn. v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 342 (1974).
10 Federal Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 458, 559 (1976).
11 See Douglas, , Go East Young Man (1974) 217Google Scholar; Wright, supra n. 5, at 582–6.
12 26 June 1978, p. 18, cols. 1–2.
13 H.R. Rep. No. 1014, 94th Cong., 2nd sess. 14 (1976).
14 Loc. cit. supra n. 12.
15 See Schwartz, , “The Legislative Veto and the Constitution—A Reexamination” (1978) 46 Geo. Wash. L. R. 351, 362–3.Google Scholar
16 Id. at 361.
17 N.Y. Times, 22 June 1978, p. 1, col. 1.
18 See, particularly, Atkins v. United States, 556 F. 2d 1028 (Ct. Cl. 1977).
19 McNabb v. United States 318 U.S. 332, 347 (1943).
20 In re Andrea B., 405 N.Y.S. 2d 977, 981 (Fam. Ct. 1978).
21 Caritativo v. California, 357 U.S. 549, 558 (1958).
22 Kelly v. Zamarello, 486 P. 2d 906, 909 (Alaska 1971).
23 The official publication in which federal delegated legislation is published.
24 Federal Crop. Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 387 (1947).
25 435 U.S. 519 (1978).
26 See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 325 (1976).
27 Id. at 333.
28 See Schwartz, and Wade, , Legal Control of Government; Administrative Law in Britain and the United States (1972) 132.Google Scholar
29 Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries: Minutes of Evidence 1034 (1956).
30 Report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure 35 (1941).
31 Letter of 26 Nov. 1974 from Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Dep't of Health. Education, and Welfare.
32 National Indep. Coal Operators Assn. v. Kleppe, 423 U.S. 388 (1976).
33 Gilchrist v. Bierring, 14 N.W. 2d 724, 730 (Iowa 1944).
34 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
35 Id. at 262.
36 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), with retroactive payments if the individual prevails at the hearing.
37 Garner v. Teamsters Local 776, 346 U.S. 485, 495 (1953).
38 Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 309 (1944).
39 Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 166 (1970).
40 Administrative Procedure Act: Legislative History 275 (1946).
41 321 U.S. 288 (1944).
42 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140 (1967).
43 Ortego v. Weinberger, 516 F. 2d 1005, 1009 (5th Cir. 1975).
44 321 U.S. at 310.
45 Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U.S. 48 (1955).
46 Douglas, J., dissenting, in Union Pac. R. Co. v. Price, 360 U.S. 601, 619 (1959).Google Scholar
47 Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 166 (1970).
48 Oestereich v. Selective Service Bd., 393 U.S. 233, 238 (1968).
49 St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 38, 84 (1936).
50 County Council v. Investors Funding Corp., 312 A. 2d 225, 255 (Md. 1973).
51 This principle was asserted by three Justices in Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656, 665 (1973).
52 Board of Trade v. United States, 314 U.S. 534, 548 (1942).
53 Wade, , Foreword to Schwartz, , American Administrative Law (1950) vi.Google Scholar (italics omitted).
54 Consolidated Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
55 Consolo v. Fed. Maritime Com'n., 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966).
56 Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon Borough, 253 U.S. 287 (1920).
57 Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932). Compare White v. Collins and Minister of Health, [1939] 2 K.B. 838.
58 For a discussion of the cases, see Schwartz, , Administrative Law (1976) §§ 223, 228–9.Google Scholar
59 Strumsky v. San Diego Employees Retirement Assn., 520 P. 2d 29, 31 (Cal. 1974).
60 Id. at 33.
61 Environment Defence Fund v. Ruckelshaus, 439 F. 2d 584, 597 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
62 Id. at 597–8.
63 Id. at 597.
64 Frankfurter, Foreword (1941) 41 Col. L. R. 585, 586.
65 Federal Power Com'n. v. Nat'l Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591, 627 (1944).
66 Scripps Howard Radio Co. v. Fed. Communications Com'n., 316 U.S. 4, 15 (1942).