In this new edition, author Steven J. Cann once again enlivens the topic of United States administrative law through the use of recent and “classic” legal cases to make it accessible and interesting to students. Administrative Law, Fourth Edition is an engaging casebook that presents a unique problem-solving framework that contrasts democracy with the administrative state. This novel approach places the often complex subject matter of U.S. administrative law into a more comprehensible context. The Fourth Edition has been completely updated and revised and includes many new cases to reflect changes in the law since the year 2000. Each chapter begins with an interesting case that introduces key concepts followed by a summary of the principles, doctrines, and legal tests used by the courts in that area of administrative law.
New cases in the Fourth Edition include: Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 2004. President Bush's Secretary of Interior made a decision to allow off-road vehicles in wilderness areas.; Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 2004. This is the Supreme Court's most recent sexual harassment case.; Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, 2001. Correctional Services Corporation is a private company that contracts with the federal government to run halfway houses. An employee's reckless disregard caused the plaintiff to have another heart attack.; Whitman v. American Trucking Association, 2001. The case involves the EPA's enforcement of the Clean Air Act and is the Supreme Court's most recent delegation of power case.
Administrative Law is an essential tool for those seeking to understand, or obliged to work within, its general principles. It is an excellent textbook for advanced undergraduate and graduate students studying administrative law in departments of political science and public administration.
Chapter 9: Due Process of Law in Other Contexts
Due Process of Law in Other Contexts
Case in Point: Mathews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 (1976)
There was a somewhat notorious ward boss in the Tammany Hall machine whose name was George Washington Plunkett. In response to reporters' questions about enriching himself through Tammany Hall graft and corruption, Mr. Plunkett would simply reply, “I seen my opportunities and I took ‘em.”
In the case of Mathews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court “seen its opportunity” and took it. The four Nixon appointees (Burger, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist) coalesced with Justices White and Stewart to restrict what had become known as the due process revolution.
The due process revolution started with a landmark case called Goldberg v. Kelly.1 In that case, New York ...