NAME: Nicholas Gavalas

DATE: 4/18/2019
COURSE: BUL2241(185882)
ASSIGNMENT: Chapter 5/Adminstrative law
PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT: to give us knowledge about the types of
administrative law.

A. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States

Facts: mayo clinic sued for a refund of taxes paid for residency doctors. They said that residency
should qualify for the student exemption.

Courts response: the district court agreed but the court of appeals reversed it because they
were full-time employees so they’re excluded from the exception.

Legal concept: Questions of facts; arbitrary and capricious

How does it apply: mayo claimed that the residency doctors shouldn’t be taxed due to them
being students and not employees.

Reason: Since the resident doctors were working 40+ hours a week as full time employees and
mostly an employee over a student they are not exempted from taxes on them.

B. American Airlines, Incorporated v. Department of Transportation/ Sackett v. Environmental

Protection Agency

Facts: before building a house, they filled in a one-half acre with dirt and rocks and were
demanded to return it to how it was. Claimed they did it without getting a permit for it. They
sought a hearing from the EPA. Didn’t grant them a hearing and kept following the CWA
jurisdiction. Claimed the compliance order was arbitrary and capricious.

Courts response: The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is
remanded.

Legal concept: Judicial Review

How does it apply: justice Scalia denied that the CWA precluded judicial review.

Reason: Since there argument wasn’t if they could challenge the specific terms but rather that
they were
C. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife/ FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Facts: 2 people used inappropriate language on live tv. Billboard music awards. The bad words didn’t
cause any harm.

Courts response: The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed, and the
case is remanded.

Legal concept: Questions of facts; arbitrary and capricious

How does it apply: it said that fox was wrong due to the fact that there new rule change wasn’t arbitrary
or capricious.

Reason: they said it wasn’t arbitrary or capricious, they just made them prove it had a good reason.

"Should the Terminally Ill Be Asked to Await FDA Approval of Last-Chance Treatment?"

I do not agree one bit with this. To me if someone’s in need of last chance treatment why shouldn’t they
be able to try and do anything that they want to do with the end of their life? To me this is where the
law and morals concept comes into play. I don’t understand how someone couldn’t see the morals in
something and not be ready to change a law to what is morally correct. For me ethics is what the laws
should follow, for example with this topic it is ethically unjust for the FDA to not approve last chance
treatments is just outrageous, what could it possibly hurt besides the person who is going to have to
endure a painful chemotherapy just to die soon afterwards. To me a utilitarian approach to this should
be taken. If we judged this law by how it gave the greatest happiness for the greatest number we would
see a different law, if the surgery works then 3 people will be happy, if she dies then 2 people will be
sad. To me that seems like the experimental surgery would seem best fit. To me the FDA should have
jurisdiction over a medicine that could potentially endanger someones life years after but not a
medication that you’re taking if you’re in the last stages of your life and without it you will for sure die
without a doubt.

Case problems.

1. He is more than likely incorrect because the OPA is saying that it falls under the EPCA and isn’t
doing anything wrong by establishing what prices he can sell his meat for.
2. This is wrong for her to debate because just because a child doesn’t smoke doesn’t mean
someone around them wont. The court calmed this should be a test for any mattress due to it
being a standard for safety. This falls under judicial review.
3. Under judicial review of action nw should not win the protest. As this protest was settled by the
public and all the carriers help the public therefore it’s up to them and not the court.