- 24 -
formal adjudication. In both cases, formal procedures are
required only when an agency action is “required by statute to be
made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing”.
Second, recent opinions of the Courts of Appeals support the view
that the Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. reasoning, that “hearing” can mean
a written exchange of views, applies to adjudications as well as
to rule makings. Third, Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., considered in
conjunction with Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., supra, Pension Benefit Guar. Corporation v.
LTV Corp., supra, and a third case, Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), suggest
that the Supreme Court would hold that the requirements of a
“hearing” can be satisfied by an informal written exchange of
views in most adjudicatory contexts. See 1 Davis & Pierce, supra
sec. 8.2 at 381-382, 386–387.
5. Chevron
In Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
supra, the Supreme Court established the framework for judicial
review of an agency's interpretation of a statute under its
administration. At the outset, a court must ask whether
"Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue",
id. at 842; if so, then the court "must give effect to the
unambiguously expressed intent of Congress" and may not defer to
a contrary agency interpretation, id. at 842-843. If the statute
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011