PPY 703: Administrative and Judicial Decision Making (Stream): Library Guides

The Supreme Court ruled that the Food and Drug Administration did not have the power to regulate cigarettes

A reaction by the United States Congress, which gave the FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products (US Food and Drug Administration, 2019).

Ruled that electronic cigarettes can be regulated solely as tobacco products, and not as drug-device combination products unless they are being marketed with a therapeutic purpose and not as drug-device are being marketed with a therapeutic purpose not as drug-device combination products unless they are being marketed with a therapeutic purpose (Public Health Law Center).

Manufacturers and distributors of dietary supplements and dietary ingredients are prohibited from marketing products that are adulterated or misbranded. As a result, these firms are responsible for evaluating the safety and labeling of their products before marketing to ensure that they meet all the requirements of DSHEA and FDA regulations and the FDA is responsible for taking action against any adulterated or misbranded dietary supplement product after it reaches the market (Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 2019).

The OSHA Act of 1970 empowers the government to introduce safety standards and courts have “... jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined therein, and shall have power to grant such temporary relief or restraining order as it deems just and proper, and to make and enter upon the pleadings, testimony, and proceedings set forth in such record a decree affirming, modifying, or setting aside in whole or in part, the order of the Commission and enforcing the same to the extent that such order is affirmed or modified….” Additionally, the act provides the following protections for American workers: “...No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act...”; “Any employee who believes that he has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of this subsection may, within thirty days after such violation occurs, file a complaint with the Secretary alleging such discrimination. Upon receipt of such complaint, the Secretary shall cause such investigation to be made as he deems appropriate. If upon such investigation, the Secretary determines that the provisions of this subsection have been violated, he shall bring an action in any appropriate United States district court against such person…; “In any such action the United States district courts shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown to restrain violations of paragraph (1) of this subsection and order all appropriate relief including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to his former position with back pay…”(United States Department of Labor, 2019).

The case ruled that manufacturers are required to inform employees about possible workplace hazards and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) lacked authority to review the Department of Labor’s disclosure requirements and affect implementation of safety policy (Quimbee, 2019; United States Department of Labor, 2019).

Massachusetts argued that EPA was required to regulate these "greenhouse gases" by the Clean Air Act - which states that Congress must regulate "any air pollutant" that can "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." EPA denied the petition, claiming that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Even if it did, EPA argued, the Agency had discretion to defer a decision until more research could be done on "the causes, extent and significance of climate change and the potential options for addressing it." The opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens held that Massachusetts, due to its "stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests" as a state, had standing to sue the EPA over potential damage caused to its territory by global warming. The Court rejected the EPA's argument that the Clean Air Act was not meant to refer to carbon emissions in the section giving the EPA authority to regulate "air pollution agent[s]". The Act's definition of air pollutant was written with "sweeping," "capacious" language so that it would not become obsolete. Finally, the majority ruled that the EPA was unjustified in delaying its decision on the basis of prudential and policy considerations (Oyez, 2019).

The Trump Administration is attempting to walk back the Obama-era rules that would ● have required automakers to accelerate the deployment of more fuel-efficient cars and light trucks, a high priority in the state that has led the nation in efforts to fight climate change. In a series of tweets Trump said, “The Trump Administration is revoking California’s Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER.” Trump had originally planned on making this action, but was hurried along when California took the bold step of increasing the stringency of their regulations and striking a deal with several auto manufacturers Ford, Honda, BMW of North America and Volkswagen Group of America (Guillen, 2019; Danelladebel, 2019). California's deal with the automakers recently drew a stern rebuke from EPA and the Transportation Department as well as an antitrust investigation from the Justice Department (Guillen, 2019). In response to this action, California and 22 other states have sued the Trump Administration over the revocation of the state's right to set its own emissions standards (Holt, 2019). The conflict between states rights and the interstate commerce clause is taking shape.

SB 827 overrode local zoning laws to allow more housing to be built near public transit routes. This bill caused friction between state and local government. Supporters of the bill and the State’s right to override local community zoning laws argue that the bill would make housing more affordable while, at the same time, helping the environment. While critics, on the other hand, saw it as state overreach and infringement of local autonomy (Millsap, 2018).

The Supreme Court upheld state-imposed racial segregation. They came to the conclusion that the 14th Amendment was intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law. However, separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African Americans. The Court noted that there was not a meaningful difference in quality inherent in segregation and did not denote discrimination (Oyez, 2019).

In a reversal of Plessy v Ferguson decision the Supreme Court held that Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren reasoned that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children (Oyez, 2019).

In a continuation of the Brown decision, Justice Warren dictated that integration ordered under the initial Brown decision be implemented "with all deliberate speed." Moreover, Warren indicated that the responsibility for action was conferred on n local school authorities and the courts which originally heard school segregation cases and were urged to act on the new policies with promptly and to move toward full compliance with them "with all deliberate speed"(Oyez, 2019).

Dred Scott, a freed slave living in a free state, wanted to bring suit in federal court to sue for freedom. But Roger B. Taney ruled that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. Finally, Taney ruled that slaves were property under the Fifth Amendment, and that any law that would deprive a slave owner of that property was unconstitutional (Oyez, 2019).

The 14th Amendment reversed the decision