Fundamental Legal Structure for Legal Review of Administrative Agencies Actions - Essay Example

Overton Park Overton Park Synthesis of Facts The defendant, Secretary of Transport, Volpe approved the expenditure of fundsfrom the federal government for the six-lane construction of an interstate highway to pass through Memphis Public Park called Overton Park (Aston, 2002). Conservation organizations and private citizens wanted to bring to an end the construction, debating that pieces of Department of Transportation Act of 1966 were violated in addition to the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 (Aston, 2002) that ban the use of funds from the federal government to finance highway construction through public parks in the case another route is available. In the case there are no alternative routes available, the Secretary of Transport is expected to authorize construction that passes though the parks when the plans are considered to reduce destruction to the park. However, the Secretary of Transport in his announcement did not include findings that were factual concerning the authorization of the highway’s design and route (Aston, 2002). In his factual findings, the Secretary of Transport failed to specify the reasons no feasible and practical options in routes were available or the reason design changes could not be made to reduce destruction to the park. The citizens attacked Volpe for his failure to specify these reasons. Also, the citizens wanted to have Volpe’s decision to be nullified. The Secretary of Transport moved to court for summary judgment that was approved by District Court. In the end, the Appeals Court for the Sixth Circuit acknowledged and the plaintiffs wanted the United States Supreme Court to review the de novo, or apply a substantial evidence test (Aston, 2002). Statement of the Issues When assessing administrative decisions that are understated sticking to the facts, is it mandatory for the court to confine its assessment to the affidavits contents put forward to the trial by agency? Judicial Responses to the Issues Present Marshall’s Response The court going through the review must agree on the scale of the official duties involved in a verdict, whether he is considered to have abused authority given to him, and also whether in deriving to his decision or decisions he took appropriate measures and observed the required and applicable procedural basics. The case above is not one where the court may properly embark on de novo (Casenote Legal Briefs, 2009) review of the Secretary of Transport’s choice, as it presents neither a situation where a proceeding that is adjudicatory was supported by insufficient procedures of fact finding nor in one which issues that are new are raised in a proceeding to obligate non-adjudicatory action of agency. Similarly, the considerable evidence in the test in this case should not be applied to the Secretary of Transport’s actions, as his choice was neither the exercise of Volpe’s of the function of making rules nor product of hearing of citizen adjudicatory. Nevertheless, the truth that the review of de novo and considerable evidence test in its application are both unsuitable in this case does not imply that the citizens are not permitted to a comprehensive review of the actions of Volpe. The statutes that are applicable plainly authorize that the Secretary of Transport shall only act in the event all efficient alternative options for the construction of a highway have been ruled out (Casenote Legal Briefs, 2009). Even after being authorized, the construction of a highway can take place only after taking all required steps in order to minimize destruction to the location that has been chosen (Casenote Legal Briefs, 2009). In this case, the citizens were at liberty to a review of Volpe’s processes that was seen to be deliberative taking into account more evidence than which the courts used to base their decisions contained in the affidavits. For that reason, it is essential for this case to be retried for review, according to more evidence that previously reviewed of whether Volpe took into consideration the necessary procedure of assessing optional routes and ensuring least destruction to the Overton Park is done. In taking a review of Volpe’s decision, the court if it requires, may take on a procedure that is unusual necessitating the suitable administrative officials to bring to light the steps that were taken that led to the decisions derived. Even though the court in the district does not need to adopt this extreme measure, is it right for the court to choose this? The court may opt to adopt this extreme measure as a way to compensate the lack of Volpe’s factual finding on which to make its informed decisions. This will provide a fair retrial of the case to the citizens who do not want the highway to pass through the Overton Park, because of the destruction it may bring to the park. Dissident Black’s Response The dissidents who are the citizens want the District Court to end the construction of the highway through the Overton Park (Casenote Legal Briefs, 2009). The case, according to Black, should be remanded to the Secretary of Transport with directives to conduct hearings relevant to this issue of constructing a highway through the Overton Park that may lead to the destruction of the park (Casenote Legal Briefs, 2009). The reason provided has to do with Volpe not being aware of the factual findings concern the construction of the six-lane construction of interstate highway to pass through Memphis Public Park called Overton Park. Therefore, in Volpe’s defense, according to Black, the court should remand the case to him to provide him with a fair trial. Assessment of the Reasoning Employed By the Judge On 1971 March 3, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe case maintaining the clause “prudent and feasible” (Dedek, 2014). The District Court in its summary judgment held that the judgment was inappropriately settled. While Volpe was not needed to provide findings that were formal, his only dependence on legal action affidavits was not enough. This is because Volpe’s decision was never on Administrative Procedure Act exclusion for action (Cooper, 2007). Justice Marshall in his decision put forward that in Section 4(f), the utilization of funds from the federal government for highway construction through national parks would be exempted only in unusual circumstances (Dedek, 2014). The court in the decision acknowledged directness of route, place of cost, and the disruption that would occur in construction of the highway for the route the community uses. However, the primary importance of the case Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe is based on its concern with ensuring that the review from judicial of the administrative decisions will carry greater weight of importance on the protection of parkland (Cooper, 2007). Due to this, the court at Overton Park approves of the unusual procedure of questioning the deliberative processes found in the administrative officials. It is obvious that the Administrative Procedure Act provisions calling for review of judicial administrative determinations may not be implemented in the nonexistence of records sufficient enough to accommodate review, and in the case such records are nonexistent, the courts are obligated to choose between undertaking or ordering its compilation of their own review of de novo. Conclusion The case is essential to understanding the reason the Supreme Court of the United States established a fundamental legal structure for legal review of administrative agencies actions. This case also highlights the legal action taken by citizen movements to prevent the actions of a government in this case constructing a six-lane highway across Overton Park. The court, in its decision, found that the Secretary of Transport did not conduct formal or factual findings required by the law to provide an Administrative Procedure Act’s exemption, where he would have provided a reason citing that constructing a highway across the Overton Park was not going to disrupt the normal route of the community or citizens. However, on Volpe’s defense, the factual findings or records indicate that the highway undertaking was based on the comprehensive continuing of transportation process of planning, as needed by the statute, and that the air pollution impact as a result of the highway was evaluated to the satisfaction of the requirement that depicts safety. Therefore, a conclusion can be reached that the Secretary of Transport considered all the alternatives that were available prior to approving the building of the highway across the parkland. References Aston, R. (2002). Environmental law for engineers and geoscientists. Boca Raton, Fla.: Lewis Publishers. Casenote Legal Briefs, C. (2009). Administrative law. New York City: Aspen Publishers Online. Cooper, P. (2007). Public law and public administration. Stamford, Connecticut: Thomson/Wadsworth. Dedek, P. (2014). Historic preservation for designers. London: A&C Black. Read More