ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 43
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
43-1A. Arbitrary and capricious test
Yes. The court agreed that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The record neither
43-2A. Agency investigation
The federal district court voided the subpoena, and the FHLBB appealed. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and directed the court to
enforce the subpoena. “The FHLBB’s subpoena power extends to Sandsend’s financial
records; it is not limited to parties directly associated with the target of an investigation. * * *
[W]e note two important principles that inform our inquiry: First, an administrative agency’s
power to issue subpoenas is a broad-ranging one which courts are reluctant to trammel
[restrict]. * * * Second, when reviewing an administrative subpoena, the court plays a ‘strictly
43-3A. Arbitrary and capricious test
A federal district court denied the request that the corps be enjoined from completing the
project. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision to deny the injunction, and
remanded the case to the district court. The corps appealed to the United States Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the appellate court’s decision and
remanded the case for further proceedings. “The question presented for review in this case is a
43-4A. Rulemaking
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) required the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to
43-5A. Executive controls
43-6A. Judicial review
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the FCC’s decision
was not arbitrary or capricious. “On its face, Sprint’s tariff establishes a general obligation to
pay ‘all charges for service provided.’ This is ‘clear’ and ‘definite.’ ” If a call goes through, the
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 43 B-3
43–7A. Arbitrary and capricious test
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that “the USDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by
deeming plaintiff both responsible and non-responsible for the same time period and based on
the same evidence. . . . Plaintiff therefore is entitled to summary judgment in its favor on its
claim that the USDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it effectuated the suspension.” The
court explained that the USDA abused its discretion when it determined that evidence of Lion’s
43–8A. Investigation
The U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. The
agents should not be held liable because their “search” was not unreasonable. Riverdale and
43–9A. The Freedom of Information Act
B-4 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 43
such as a decision to release certain records in compliance with a FOIA request is arbitrary or
capricious if the agency’s decision is plainly contrary to the evidence.
1. Here you have to analyze the nature of the tradeoff being made—that is, what rights