Askildson v. Commissioner of Public Safety

Askildson's driving privileges had been revoked as a result of numerous DWI offenses. In 1985, the Commissioner of Public Safety reinstated the appellant's license conditioned on his total abstinence. One year later, Askildson's license was again revoked when he was found intoxicated in a restaurant. The appellant petitioned the trial court to reinstate his license, claiming that the Commissioner had overstepped his powers and that no findings were made that his use of alcohol in a restaurant was a public safety hazard. The trial court denied the requested relief.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court and ruled that the Commissioner had the authority to condition reinstatement of a driver's license upon total abstinence from alcohol. The court also held that the revocation of Askildson's license for drinking in a nondriving situation was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Ethyl Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency

The Ethyl Corporation petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the district of Columbia for review of final action of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because it believed that the EPA had not complied with provisions of the Clean Air Act. The Act explicitly mandated that the EPA develop regulations for testing newly manufactured automobiles to "ensure that each vehicle's emissions will comply with federal emission standards" during the vehicles "useful life." In lieu of rulemaking, the EPA permitted automobile manufacturers to develop alternative individualized testing systems, which the EPA considered for approval on an ad hoc basis. The appeals court rejected EPA arguments that the court should show deference to the agency, that administrative rulemaking would be too "burdensome," and that the "amount of claimed confidential business information would significantly reduce the usefulness of public notice and an opportunity to comment upon manufacturers' durability programs." The court vacated the CAP 2000 program and ordered the EPA to comply with the statute.

Inspector General of U.S. Department of Agriculture v. Glenn

In response to complaints of possible fraud, the Inspector General of the USDA audited the administration of the defendant's disaster relief program. As part of its investigation, the Inspector General issued subpoenas calling for the production of certain information. The appellants refused to comply with the subpoenas, and the U.S. District Court ordered enforcement of the subpoenas. An appeal was taken.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision to enforce the subpoenas ruling that the Inspector General has the broad subpoena power under the applicable law. While the court noted that Inspectors General's main function is to detect abuse within governmental agencies, they are allowed to investigate potential abuse among program participants. The issued subpoenas were necessary to the IG's role in this matter.

Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. v. Elaine Chao, Secretary, U.S Department of Labor

Congress in the Occupational Safety and Health Act made the Secretary of Labor responsible for the rulemaking and enforcement functions. The Secretary, in turn, has delegated much of this responsibility to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Congress also created an independent Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC), to perform the adjudicative role. Employers wishing to contest OSHA citations can appeal the decisions of administrative law judges to the OSHRC, and Congress provided that appeals from the OSHRC can be made to the courts of appeals. When Sturm refused to permit an OSHA inspection of one of its plants, OSHA obtained and executed a search warrant. Based on its inspection of the plant, OSHA next issued citations against Sturm, which were unsuccessfully contested before an administrative law judge. Sturm's request for discretionary review by OSHRC was granted, but while that proceeding was pending, Sturm filed suit against the Secretary of Labor in U.S. District Court to challenge OSHA's right to require employers such as Sturm to complete an "annual survey" called the Data Collection Initiative (DCI). The district court dismissed the action and ruled that Sturm had not exhausted its administrative remedies at OSHA and could not circumvent that procedure and go directly to district court. The court of appeals concluded that the district court was correct that Sturm's only procedural avenue to challenge the survey was through the OSHRC.

Maximum Home Health Care, Inc. v. Donna E. Shalala

Maximum provided medical care to Medicare patients. Maximum contracted with Diversified Health Management Company for management services. Maximum sought reimbursement for the management services it obtained from Diversified and submitted its request for reimbursement to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina (an intermediary which had a contract with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to initially make reimbursement determinations). Maximum was of the opinion that Blue Cross and Blue Shield had improperly refused to fully reimburse its management services costs and appealed Blue Cross' ruling to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board. The Board reversed Blue Cross' decision and ordered full reimbursement. Blue Cross appealed the Board's decision to the Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration (who acted on behalf of Secretary Shalala). The Administrator reversed the Board and ruled in favor of Blue Cross. The U.S. District Court affirmed the Administrator's decision and Maximum appealed to the court of appeals. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court, concluding that the Administrator's decision was "arbitrary and capricious" and remanded the case to the district court "with instructions to return the case to the Administrator to determine whether [Maximum's] costs were substantially out-of-line with comparable companies."

Trans Union Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission

The case is referred to as Trans Union II because the Federal Trade Commission twice determined that the names and addresses of persons in Tran Union's data bases constituted "consumer reports" under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and ordered Trans Union not to sell this information to target marketers. Trans Union believing the FTC's decision to be "unsupported by substantial evidence" and also maintaining that the Act is unconstitutional, twice petitioned for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals concluded that substantial evidence existed to support the FTS's conclusions and rejected Trans Union's constitutional challenge to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.