Common law refers to a type of legal system through which the judicial decisions are primarily made on precedent. Precedent refers to the prior court case decisions which shall set a standards or how subsequent cases shall be judged. The main basis for precedent is the stare decisis. Stare decisis is Latin word meaning standing by decisions. stare decisis holds the judges accountable to prior court case decisions and shall not make room for change unleass the judges has reasonable grounds for changing it. The common law makes use of both precedent and stare decisis to create and establish laws as court cases are determined.

What is the delegation doctrine? What are the conditions or guidelines for delegation? How do the actions of those officials to whom power is delegated relate to the scope of the relevant statute that delegates their authority?

The delegation doctrine refers to a principle that limits the ability of the congress to transfer its power of legislation to another branch of the government such as the executive. This is founded on the concept of separation of power.

Conditions or guidelines for delegation

1. A delegation might be made either generally or as availed by the delegation instrument.
2. The powers which might be delegated do not entail the powers to delegate.
3. A delegated power or function exercised or performed by the delegated is deed to have been exercised or performed by the authority which delegated it.
4. A delegation by authority or a person does not prevent the exercise of a function/ power by the authority or person.

the actions of the officials to whim power is delegated elates to the scope of the relevant statute that delegates their authority in that the actions of the officials are monitored and judged based on the delegated statute.   The delegated statute I perceived as the guiding principle or decree which is used to monitor the actions and roles of the individuals to whom the power has been delegated.

Explain why the question of how evidence can be obtained and used for purposes of enforcing regulatory rules is so controversial. What are the constitutional issues surrounding the gathering of evidence by inspectors?

The issue of when and what evidence can be admissible in a court of law has been highly controversial. The 4th Constitutional Amendment provides citizens with the right to be secure in their houses, papers and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches. The constitution safeguards every individual within the U.S jurisdiction protection against the action by the government through the clause of Due process.   The clause against arbitrary action is found on the Fifth Amendment. The controversy is mainly on the issue of warrant. A warrant is defined as the command from a judge that orders an officer to arrest an individual or either searches a place for contraband or evidence. Nonetheless, if a warrant fails to specify what place ought to be searched or who to be arrested the lawyers in a court of law might argue that the warrant ought to be deemed inadmissible.

Answer Question 4 in “Exercises and Questions for Further Thought (Federal Aviation Administration statute),” from the textbook (page 585). Explain your reasoning.

Federal and state laws regulate the operation of aircraft, as well as, the maintenance of the aviation facilities in the US and air traffic regulation.   The FAA is aimed at overseeing and regulating safety of the airline industry. Hence, the practice of aviation law can entail litigation on behalf of the victims suffering from loss or injury as result   of a tragedy and defense of a professional in aviation accused of acting contrary to the regulations set by the federal aviation.

Select a general topic of interest in administrative law, then find an agency decision (state or federal) to provide context for a discussion about judicial review.

Deference to Agencies on Jurisdiction:

City of Arlington v. FCC arose regarding the regulatory decision by the FCC of imposing specific time limits for the local agencies to act on the cell phone tower site applications under a statue which provided action within a reasonable amount of time and the issue devolved into where the FCC had any jurisdiction of promulgating the rule.

Did the agency provide an interpretation of its own statutory authority?

The agency which in this case is the city of Arlington applied it own statutory authority.   The city allows agencies to exercise significant power in the definition of the scope of they own regulations and makes the challenging agency regulatory and other decisions greatly difficult.

How much deference should a court give to this interpretation?

The court should give deference to this interpretation based in the fact that it has been based on facts and interpretation from The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and Chevron deference. SCOTUS eliminated the distinction amid programmatic and jurisdiction provisions of the delegating statute of an agency and requires the court to utilize the Chevron deference.

Was the agency decision a rulemaking or adjudication?

The agency decision was a rule making. Providing deference to agencies to define their jurisdiction puts more pressure on the private parties to raise their jurisdictional issues during the regulatory notice and comment process to attempt to assure that the agency is able to address more clearly its jurisdictional interpretations

Did the agency incorporate certain facts about the case/matter into its decision?

Yes. The court applied the Chevron deference into its decision. This deference helps the agency in resolving statutory ambiguity even when the ambiguity touches on the power of the agency to regulate. Hence, courts apply the chevron framework to interpret the agency statutory ambiguity which concerns the scope of the agency authority.

Will a court interpret the facts of an agency’s decision?

The court can be able to interpret the facts of an agency’s decision. State and federal agencies form a significant part of the judicial process and they input into judicial should be highly considered

How aggressively should courts force agencies to give detailed factual justification for their decisions? Why?

The legal system is highly connected in that it relies on precedent and Stare decisis. Courts should aggressively ensure that the agencies provide factual justification detailing the issue, facts and ruling. This will help set a precedent for similar cases.