[an error occurred while processing this directive]
<title>FindLaw: Legal Subjects: Administrative Law: Supreme Court Cases</title>
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
	<!-- BEGIN TITLE -->
    <div class="yui-g intro">
<h1 class="c_1">Administrative Law: Supreme Court Cases</h1>
    <hr />
<div id="textbox">
<p>
    <!-- END TITLE -->
<!-- BEGIN BREADCRUMB -->
<div id="breadcrumb"> <a href=/01topics/index.html>Practice Areas</a> &gt; <a href=/01topics/00administrative/index.html>Administrative Law</a> &gt; Supreme Court Cases </div>
<!-- END BREADCRUMB -->
<!-- Begin Sponsored Link ads -->
<div id="fl_container">
<div id="fl_label">Sponsored Links</div>
<script language="javascript">fl_legal_645x33();</script>
<script language="javascript">fl_legal_645x33();</script>
<script language="javascript">fl_legal_645x33();</script>
</div>

<script>
hide_box('fl_container');
</script>
<!--End Sponsored Link Ads -->



<ul class="bl"><li><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=397&page=150"><b>Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. Org. v. Camp</b></a> Addresses standing to sue under Article III and the Administrative Procedure Act</li>
<li><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/fed/073046p.pdf"><b>Baird v. Dep't of the Army</b></a> A decision sustaining petitioner's removal from her position as a psychiatric nursing assistant at an Army hospital is vacated where an administrative judge abused his discretion in refusing to compel discovery of one officer's email archives pertinent to the case, and it could not be determined whether the agency had fully complied with a request for all email messages relating to petitioner's case.</li>
<li><a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/449/232.html"><b>FTC v. Standard Oil of Calif.</b></a> Holding that only final agency actions and completed administrative adjudications are subject to judicial review</li>
<li><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=462&page=919"><b>Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Chadha</b></a> An agency's status as an aggrieved party under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1252 is not altered by the fact that the Executive may agree with the holding that the statute in question is unconstitutional.</li>
<li><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=436&page=307"><b>Marshall v. Barlow's Inc.</b></a> Requiring a warrant for agency inspections does not mean that, as a practical matter, warrantless-search provisions in other regulatory statutes are unconstitutional, as the reasonableness of those provisions depends upon the specific enforcement needs and privacy guarantees of each statute.</li>
<li><a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/421/132.html"><b>National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.</b></a> Addressing accessing to administrative agency documents under the Freedom of Information Act</li>
<li><a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/420/251.html"><b>National Labor Relations Board v. Weingarten, Inc.</b></a> Employees in unionized workplaces have the right under the National Labor Relations Act to the presence of a union steward during any management inquiry that the employee reasonably believes may result in discipline.</li>
<li><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/fed/071173p.pdf"><b>Sakar Int'l, Inc. v. US</b></a> In a suit against the government challenging Customs' administrative decision assessing plaintiff a civil fine of $67,775 for its importation of PDA-related merchandise that Customs determined was counterfeit, judgment dismissing the claim for failure to state a claim is vacated and remanded for a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where: 1) 28 U.S.C. section 1581(i)(4) as it relates to section 1581(i)(3) did not provide the Court of International Trade with jurisdiction over plaintiff's suit; and 2) none of the other statutory provisions cited by plaintiff supported jurisdiction.</li>
<li><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=332&page=194"><b>Securities & Exchange Comm'n v. Chenery Corp.</b></a> Reviews ad hoc decisions versus general rules</li>
</UL>

</div>
</div>
<!-- END FULL-WIDTH MODULE -->

<!-- END MAIN BODY PRO CONTENT -->
<p>
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]