Two con law (or con-law-related) cases to be argued this week

[Volokh, Eugene]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David H Bowser [SMTP:dbowser at willamette.edu]
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 1:40 AM
> To:   Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:      Supreme Court News 11/05/00
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NEWS 11/05/00
> Willamette Law Online - Willamette University College of Law
>  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> During the week of November 5, 2000, the United States Supreme Court
> will hear oral arguments in the six cases summarized below.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Message from the Editor: We encourage you to forward this issue to others
> who may be interested.  Subscription (FREE) may be accomplished by
> utilizing the link located at the bottom of the issue.  Thank you.
> DHB, Editor
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. . .


> Cook v. Gralike
> No. 99-929
> Court below:  United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
> Full text: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/981494p.pdf
>       (Requires Adobe)
>
> ELECTIONS LAW (Including Comments on Ballot about Federal Legislator's
> Actions/Voting Record)
>
> The issues in this constitutional case are whether the amended Article
> VIII of the Missouri Constitution (1) violated the free speech of
> candidates by commenting on their congressional behavior on the ballot,
> (2) violated the Qualifications Clause by adding qualifications for
> congressional service, and (3) whether it violated Article V of the
> Constitution by usurping Congress's power to amend the Constitution by
> allowing voters to propose a constitutional amendment.
>
> In response the U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), which
> held that the only way to enact term limits for members of Congress was by
> amending the Constitution, the citizens of Missouri approved a measure
> amending Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution.  The measure allowed
> the ballot to include whether a congressional candidate
> "DISREGARDED" voters' instructions or "DECLINED" to pledge support to term
> limits if he did not support term limits in Congress.  Donald Gralike, an
> undeclared non-incumbent filed suit thirty-five days after the measure
> passed.  The court below affirmed the district court, holding that the
> amended state-constitutional provision violated the First Amendment,
> Qualifications Clause, and Article V of the Constitution.  Petitioner
> contends that the people have a right to fully participate in their own
> government.
>
> ************
> Tuesday 11/07
> ************
>
> Browner v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc.
> No. 99-1257
> Court below:  United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
> Full text: 175 F.3d 1027 (Unable to find online version)
>
> CLEAN AIR ACT (Delegation of Power to Enact Ozone and Particle Matter
> Regulations)
>
> The issue in this environmental case is whether the Environmental
> Protection Agency's interpretation of ss108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act,
> as it relates to ozone and particulate matter regulation, was an
> unconstitutional legislative delegation of power to an administrative
> agency.
>
> Certain "small business petitioners" challenged the Environmental
> Protection Agency's (EPA) construction of ss108 and 109 of the Clean
> Air Act, arguing that the agency had construed those sections so loosely
> as to render them unconstitutional delegations of legislative power.  The
> court below agreed with the petitioners in part, holding that the EPA's
> construction of the statute was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that,
> although the factors the EPA used in determining the degree of public
> health concern associated with differing levels of ozone and particle
> matter were reasonable, the EPA failed to articulate an "intelligible
> principle" to channel its application of these factors. The court further
> held that, because the non-delegation doctrine required such an
> "intelligible principle," the EPA's construction of the Clean Air Act was
> unconstitutional.
> - - - - -
>
> American Trucking Association, Inc v. Browner
> No. 99-1426
> Court below:  United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
> Full text: 175 F.3d 1027 (Unable to find online version)
>
> CLEAN AIR ACT (Air Quality Standards Based on Health Benefits Only)
>
> The issue in this environmental case is whether the Environmental
> Protection Agency (EPA), when setting national air quality standards, may
> consider only the pollutants effect on public health.
>
> In 1980, the DC Circuit held in Lead Industries Ass'n v EPA, 647 F.2d
> 1130 (1980), that ss108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act do not require the
> EPA to determine air quality standards based on a economic cost-benefit
> analysis, but rather on the health benefit of the standard
> promulgation.  The United States Supreme Court denied cert.  In 1997, the
> EPA tightened ozone and particulate matter standards without economic
> analysis.  The American Trucking Association appealed the heightened
> standards, renewing the call for cost-benefit analysis to be used by the
> EPA in setting air quality requirements.  The court below held that the
> EPA was correct in only considering the health benefits of the standards,
> but remanded to determine the non-delegation issue addressed in the case
> above.
>
. . .

>  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NEWS 2000-2001
> Willamette Law Online - Willamette University College of Law
> WLO Editor and Chief: Crystal Miller-O'Brien
> SCN Editors:  David Bowser: mailto: dbowser at willamette.edu
>    Paul Williams: mailto: pwilliam at willamette.edu
> Student Editorial Board: Daniel Deering, Stephanie Hendricks, Grant
> Stockton, Peter Dassow, Tisa Escobar and Jason Montgomery
> http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/wlo
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, go to our web site above
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20001106/21a8f456/attachment.htm