Tag Archives: Availability of Judicial Review

Advisory Opinions, Remedial Discretion, and Non-APA Programmatic Challenges: Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service

by Bernard Bell — Tuesday, June 4, 2019

You may be familiar with fictional gunmen’s euphemistic boast: “the victim died of poising, lead poising!”  Apparently in the Kaibab National Forest, located largely in northern Arizona, animals die from euphemistic and non-euphemistic lead poisoning.  First, hunters shoot big game (such as bison and elk) using lead ammunition, a euphemistic “lead poising;” then scavengers, such as […]

The Collateral Order Doctrine and Interlocutory Review of Agency Decisions

by Bernard Bell — Tuesday, Mar. 5, 2019

Summary: Last week a Fifth Circuit panel held the collateral order doctrine inapplicable to interlocutory appellate review of Federal Trade Commission decisions.  As a result state professional board’s petition to review of the FTC’s denial of its antitrust immunity defense was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction, and will be reviewable only after the FTC […]

When Chevron Meets the Hobbs Act: PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. (Part II)

by Bernard Bell — Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2018

This is the second post in a three-part series regarding PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., Dkt No. 17-1705 (certiorari granted November 13, 2018).  This post addresses the question the case nominally presents — does the Hobbs Act require district courts to apply FCC regulations, even when the court believes they conflict […]

When Chevron Meets the Hobbs Act: PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. (Part I)

by Bernard Bell — Monday, Nov. 26, 2018

  “When Chevron meets Hobbs, consideration of the merits must yield to jurisdictional constraints.” Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, 883 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2018) The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., Dkt No. 17-1705, (Order List Nov. 13, 2018).  The Court framed […]